Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

Uh, Mr. Chair and Commissioners, Rodney Ashby, planning and zoning director. For the record, um, couple of things. I just wanted to remind you that um, the last time we met, I didn't present the uh, quarterly report, but it was in your staff report. So, if you have questions about that, it's pretty straightforward. It's just three or two maps, actually. um and the numbers that go with all those subdivisions. I'm happy to answer any questions there if you if you have them. Um and then just second of all, reporting on council action items, uh May 4th, 2026. Uh the first one was a subdivision final plat approval for the Mana commercial park um subdivision and that was on Carter Road and 11364 West Carter Road. Um you had recommended approval and uh it was approved by city council on consent. Next one was the pre-anexation and prezoning for the shoemaker storage development uh northwest of highway 2026 and Franklin Road and you had recommended uh approval unanimously and city council did approve that unanimously. Uh the next one was for Sagewood Crossing. Uh this was for RS4 and RS6 as well as RD and BN uh zoning districts located northeast of Lewis Lane and Southside Boulevard. This was for 95 single family attached dwelling units, 83 single family attached dwelling units and four commercial lots. Um and you had recommended denial. This was on the southern end of our city if you remember that one. Um and city council also denied that on a um 5 to one vote. Uh next one is annexation and zoning for

to RS7 uh northwest of East Iowa Avenue and Chicago Street. Um this one was required by the county in order to build an accessory structure on the property. It was just a single family home on there. Um, you recommended unanimously to approve and city council approved it unanimously. That's all I have. Thank you, Chairman. Yes. Make a motion to approve the consent agenda. Second. Been moved by Garner, seconded by Kho to approve the consent agenda. All those in favor? I.

Any opposed? Thank you. Okay, we'll go ahead and move right into our public hearing. Uh if you haven't been here before, um we will call the applicant up first. They are allowed seven minutes to present uh what they are doing or what they'd like to do. Um we'll turn time over to staff, which time they'll tell us their thoughts and findings on the application. Then we will open it up to public testimony. uh at which time uh any of you that would like to speak for, against, or undecided on any item are welcome to come up. Please give us your name and address for the record. Um and then you will have three minutes to tell us what your thoughts are and feelings are on on the item. Um as you sit in the crowd, please be quiet. We have a big group tonight, so it should be fairly easy. Um because the meeting is being recorded and it's also being um streamed online. And when you speak in the crowd, it does come up pretty good on the mics and gets a little muffled for people online if we need to go back and listen to recording at all. So, um, with that, we will move into public hearing item 3-1, comprehensive plan map amendment from low density residential to medium density residential addressed as 5601 East Locust Lane for Ray Bowlinger. This item is continued from April 28th, 2026 due to incomplete property posting by the applicant. Is the applicant here? Come on up. Thank you. Sean War 2239 East Grryer Street in Meridian on behalf of the applicant Ray Bowlinger who's here with us in the audience tonight. Um Mr. Mr. Chair, members of the commission, appreciate your time. Um, I'm going to present a couple items from the staff

report. Um, talk a little bit about the site itself and, uh, and then give you a little bit of information about why we're here today. So, um, from the staff report, future land use map is somewhat flexible and subject to change in the planning and zoning commission and city council may either desire periodically impro impose or act on a request from a property owner. And so, that's why we're here today. Um, I'd first like to thank you as members of the commission uh for your service. I understand how challenging it can be to be a planning and zoning commissioner and so thank you for that service. And the other reason that we're here is because um we understand that through this process we can uh we can bring some changes to an existing code or an existing plan that may not absolutely fit the parcel or the existing uh land use that's happening today. And so that's that's the majority of the reason that we're here. Um the biggest question for this application that that I would have you consider is will a potential change in in the map will that allow for a better project in the community and and I would and I would I'm here to tell you that we believe that it would. So, um, first off, our current site picture. I want to I want to make sure that that during this presentation that we understand that this is not a referendum on mobile home parks. Um, this this property is currently existing. It's legally zoned um and owned by our client. And so, I just want to make make clear that that, you know, we're not discouraging uh affordable housing. Um, but we would like to make an upgrade with that. So, currently there are 10 mobile homes on the on the property. bit of trouble here, Christie. That's sorry, we got There we go. Thank you. So, just some existing conditions. Um, when you see the staff when you see the

uh the code enforcement staff report, which I'm sure that you've read, um, that gives you kind of a picture of what's happening currently on the property. And so, our future project possibilities. Um, so we are here to simply ask for permission to then submit for annexation and zoning. So that's not what we're discussing today. We're only discussing the possibilities and the opportunity. We brought into staff a fairly dense project that was 12 to to 16 units that they didn't feel was necessarily appropriate. And so um, we have brought a new concept plan today of what we are calling the cottage plan. Thank you. So, cottage enclave, um, what could the property potential look like? Again, the density of of the current plan are 12 residential units. And so, um, again, we're not presenting a project, but but a lot of those concerns are traffic, what's happening, schools, um, things like that. We believe that that we can upgrade the project and keep um the same, if not a smaller density. And that's really what we're looking for. Um we're asking for a designation from LDR to MDR, so medium density. Uh supporting that are a number of the subdivisions that you'll see in the staff report around U which meet that density and have some of those lot constraints. This particular site is fairly constrained. Um we've got the edge of the canal uh that backs up to it. We're on the street. One of the one of the items in the long range planning that says, you know, why now? Why why do something today with a twoacre parcel? Uh you should bring it in with your neighbors in a larger community effort, 50 to 100 acres. Um while we support that community planning effort, this particular 2 acres um again is owned by our client who would like to to have the ability to economically upgrade it um and we feel can can upgrade for the community. In addition to that, we've

got individual septic tanks um and a community water system. Uh I know that that you've probably if you've been on this commission long enough, you've seen people come in that ask for annexation that don't want to be annexed because their uh utilities have failed. And so um while that is not the case today that we're asking for, we're certainly cognizant of that fact and want to be um uh good neighbors in the future. So, um, again, I address the fact that, uh, that we've got some adjoining land uses which are similar across the street and we've got a mixeduse designation directly adjacent to us, but uh, frankly at on two acres, we don't have enough opportunity there to do a mixeduse. So, we're presenting um this potential concept plan here. Um, that's our presentation. Again, we feel like the opportunity for us to to bring back a good application and a project for you to consider uh would would be an upgrade for the community and again would help um our economic opportunities greatly. So, with that, I would stand for any questions.

But what happens to the people that live in the existing I'm sorry, what was that? What is your plan for the people that live in the existing homes? plan for people of the existing homes. Yeah, the existing trailers.

Uh I don't believe we've discussed that today. We don't have the opportunity to to and frankly that's one of the things that the applicants talking about is as asis this particular project is is all that will be there. If if we were to go to a lowdensity residential and put two single family homes on there and bring it into the city, put curb gutter sidewalk, hook it to sewer and water, it simply wouldn't wouldn't be economically feasible for two single family homes. So your change is to put just five single family homes on it.

I'm sorry, what was that? your change is to just do possibly five s I know this isn't the actual ending but you're you're looking at just doing like five single family homes on it or they're going to be attached uh again we we are only presenting a concept plan we we want to be compliant with what's what can happen in the medium density residential we have not engaged an architect or we have engaged an engineer um but we haven't engaged an architect to see what that would look Okay, we'll call you back up. Thank you.

Thank you, friend. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Terry Friend, associate planner for the city of Nampus planning and zoning department. Um, so the request before you tonight is just comprehensive plan map amendment from medium density, sorry, from low density residential to medium density residential encompassing just the one parcel that we're talking about which is 2.19 acres. And although the um proposal hasn't been set yet, the original uh concept was to develop this or redevelop this property as cottage style town houses. Um so he's looking for a little more density to allow him to do that. Um, the property is currently uh in Canyon County jurisdiction with a resident, sorry, a land use map designation of low density residential. Uh, you'll see the property to the south and to the east is still in Canyon County. The property to the north is

Terrace Falls Estate Subdivision, which is in an 8.5 an RS 8.5 zoning district. And to the west is um Harvest Creek subdivision, which is zoned RS6. Um we'll go over a little history on this property in a second. Um but the relevant code to making a comprehensive um plan sorry map change it it's one line in state code that says a map shall be prepared and so the city has done that as part of the 2040 comprehensive plan that was adopted in 2020. There is a future land use map and unlike zoning code, the future land use map is somewhat flexible and subject to change. When we do that change, we're really making a vision change, right? A long range planning vision change. In late 2022, the city um went through a planning process that re-evaluated that future land use map from 2020. And in that the city council um adopted a number of land use designation changes for this particular area. The bottom left map is the map that was happening um in 2020 until the changes in 2023. And you can see the orange there is medium density residential. So that's what it was. The star there is the property we're talking about tonight. To the north of that again, the Harvest um sorry is Terrace Falls Estates and to the west was uh Harvest Creek subdivision. So those two properties were de developed when it was medium

density residential. So the land use changes that were adopted in 2023 changes to that map in the upper right where we see the area to the west changing to residential mixed use that encompasses the Harvest Creek subdivision and then the our subject property the Terrace Falls estate and that strip in the yellow there was all changed purposefully from medium density residential to low density residential. So tonight we're asking for the exact opposite. Um so you this is the map today. You can see that this is an area at the southeast corner of um Nampa where we're bordering Canyon County properties to the south and Ada County properties to the west. That's all very much rural and agricultural areas. So the in the change in 2023 was to create this low density buffer to those places. So it was very intentional what the council adopted in 2023. Um in terms of correspondence for this application, the building department did throw in some notes um related to just you know at the time of building this is going to be under title 4 of the city of Nampa's building regulations and code compliance did notice that they have some solid waste accumulation out there some weeds and some inoperative vehicles. So when it comes time to annex we'd want to make sure that that was cleaned up before we did that. That's a little early for those comments today. Um, but Doug Critfield, our long long range planner, principal planner, um,

did evaluate this proposal based on just long range planning thoughts. Um, and he indicated some concerns. So, um, he looked at the properties to the north, that's that Terrace Falls subdivision, and those properties are all a quarter acre or larger. Although they are zoned RS8.5, there's actually a development agreement that said you all the properties have to be at least 12,000 square feet. So, we know that that was intentionally developed that way. Um and then he had some concerns about the properties to the east, the south and the west. Uh you know having currently um large lots if it's developed at all or it's actually agricultural land and having this be next to that. Um and some other concerns is that generally future land use map changes do encompass a larger area so that when we come up against the changes between the land use designations we have enough land to build in a buffer and at two acres it's really hard to build in that buffer. Um and then his additional concern was that the city council did envision this area as rural in character and looked at it to have low density residential development and based on the existing development and those undeveloped par parcels that the idea of town homes that would be really out of character for what's existing there now. Um so he did conclude that uh a change to the land use designation would not yield development consistent with the vision for the area.

The facts for this application are listed in your um staff report. I only wanted to point out just a few that I've highlighted in bold here. Um, we are talking about this application only being related to a land use map change for one particular parcel, which is a very unusual request. Um, and the future land use map gets re-evaluated um was re-evaluated in late 2022 with a significant planning process. And this was the zoning, sorry, not zoning, the land use designation that they recommended based on those that input and um it was intentional. Again, Terrace Falls Estates was um developed with larger lots intentionally and so it does already align with the residential development that's envisioned for this area. those large quarter acre or larger lots. Um a land use designation changes um requested by the application sorry requested like this application are typically done with the consent of surrounding community and um the city's long range uh planning professional support. And as you recall, we're in the middle of a um developing our new 2050 comprehensive plan and that is expected to be ready for review and adoption in the summer of 2027. So, we're already in those processes. We're looking at the future land use map um as part of that. It'll be re-evaluated. It'll be modified

as necessary. So maybe this application is just a little premature. And here is the conclusion that was included in your staff report. Basically um revisits uh Dougritchfield's notes and the end conclusion that making this land use designation map change would not yield development that aligns to the council's long range vision for the area. There are no recommended conditions of approval. If this moves forward to an annexation request, that's something that we would apply at that point. And here are your potential motions.

Yeah. Let me take a stab at this. Um I'm I'm thinking what you're saying and I'm reading between the lines. Can't wait if I'm if I'm off face here. I think what you're saying is this is the way the city wants it and leave it alone. through a substantial planning process. Good answer. Including public input and agency and department input, the city council did adopt this particular map indicating that this is a rural area that they would like to have remain low density

reser saying that that density he can't make any money. That's my understanding.

Mr. Sure. Just quick question. Uh, one of the facts is the land use designation changes requested by the application are typically done with consensus of surrounding community and support. So what does that mean? Consensus of the surrounding community especially in in light of this particular application because did they did they go to Terrace Falls and harvest next door? I mean what does consensus mean? Is that permission or is it input? Thank you for the question uh chairman and commissioner. Um generally we would be looking at land use designation changes in a broader area like they did in 2022. So there would be general support. At your last meeting, it was the annual or the bianual time for um land use designation change requests and this was intentionally it was supposed to be part of that. Um and as you saw during that meeting they did they would have gone to those areas and come up with an understanding of what this larger area should look like. And you saw that in the applications they were saying we're going to develop this and this piece doesn't make sense. Um so it it can happen either way. Twice a year we look at individual applications for by request and then you will also see the planning department bringing forward to you some recommendations. So the surrounding community in this particular instance at in this particular issue is is that the neighborhoods that are close is that the

it would be this would have been noticed to people within 300 property owners within 300 ft. It was noticed on the property itself. It was noticed in the newspaper. So support or um opposition could have come forward at that point. Okay. Ask one more question. Okay. If I can. Yep. Please.

Terry, is this um are we able to could you do a development agreement or anything like that or is this preliminary? It doesn't you can't attach that to this application. Thank you. That's a great question. this that is not something you can attach to this application. It could be attached to an annexation um should it come forward. Right. Okay. Thank you,

chair. Um so in the future planning findings where it says that it would require a a much larger geographic area to be examined or whatever. um with that buffering area, how large are we talking about? Like what does that encompass? If if it were to go to that like right now that area exists as a buffer that has low that's low density. So what are we talking about there?

Thank you. Thank you, chair and commissioner. Um, there is no distinct number involved here. Sorry, I was trying to get to a map. Um, sometimes when we talk about a buffer, right, we're talking about that whole swath of yellow to buffer between the county parcels and, you know, the center of the city. That's going to be larger city development. We also talk about in individual subdivisions, we want them to build maybe those larger houses on larger lots at the outside and work their way in to the more dense things to create that buffer. So there's no one single answer to what buffering looks like. Um, obviously we would already have a landscape buffer on um, sorry I completely forgot the name of this street.

Thank you. We'll have a landscape buffer required on Locust. Um, but we don't know what that's going to look like eventually to the south of the property either where you would be up against well currently it's agricultural fields so there's no one answer. And is that is that buffer intended for a production so that there's less conflict with residential to a and the whole thing of the right to farm and all that stuff? Is that the reason for the is that the reason for that for that buffer? certainly in part um to to keep this lower density to allow the farming that's already occurring there to continue to occur um unimpeded as well as the things to the south and to the east that are happening that are agriculture as well. But as the applicant brought up, he's more than one parcel deep to the residential mixeduse area to the left. I know he's more than one parcel deep difference because if not he could have dragged that that land use designation across and maybe done something different instead of this application. Um, so that's that flexibility around the edges of the comprehensive plan map land use designation areas, but he's he's currently bound. Um, and then so that buffering would have to happen within his 2acre parcel. What how do we make it so that that's um compatible with Terrace Falls to the east and the RS6 to the west?

Thank you.

Sure. Another question. Um, apologize for putting you on the spot here and speaking for U. Doug, but would one of the concerns be that if this particular application was approved that it sets up a potential other applicant to come in and do the same thing. And then it just continues into that buffer area. and all of a sudden we've got medium density all through that buffer area than than what the city perhaps intended it to be. The slippery slope type of a thing. Thank you. um chairman and commissioner. Uh Doug didn't write that into his um into his evaluation, but my feeling was more that we generally don't change land use designations for one single parcel for one single development purpose. the the map, the land use designation map is intended to adhere to that vision. And then we look at zoning for individual parcels, but the zone that would allow them to do what they want to do would not be supported by the comprehensive plan. When we come to you with each application, we talk about what the plan says, right? And we're not always talking about the plan, the written words. We're generally talking about the plan, the land use designation map, because underneath each of those land use designations, there's a handful of zoning choices.

And so right now the zoning choices available to them are only large lot residential where that change to medium density opens up um the smaller lot residential as well as RD the two family zoning and the townhouse option. Um and so they don't know exactly what they're going to propose at the time of annexation but they know they want it to have to be a little more dense. Did I answer the question? Yes, there's a slippery slope.

No, no, I I think so. And and yeah, I I think it's just it's in the we take it on a case by case basis. I mean, that's what this is for. This process is Okay. Thank you. Looks like Rodney wants to say something, but I've got a comment. I'm not quite sure.

Mr. Chair, I thought I'd just jump in here real quick. um the the um we have done individual parcels uh for comp plan changes, but generally and I think Terry has has has clearly stated that generally we like to see a broader perspective be in zoning is truly a parcel by parcel situation. Right? Comp plan changes we like to think of them holistically for the community. What do we want for the community as a whole? That's our vision, right? That's why a comp plan is just a little bit different. Um, you need to think of it holistically for the community. Is the is this the right thing for that area, not just for that parcel? So, I I just want to make sure that's clear. That has been done. Um, I can think of a a situation along Caldwell Boulevard north of Lake Carter where we um redesated an area um as industrial and um and that so that has been done for a specific parcel but generally is it right for the entire community and is it right for that area is the intention there.

Thank you. for right now. Good for right now. Good for right now. Madam clerk, do we have a signup sheet? We do have one Cassandra Schaefer. Okay. Yep. Come up to the mic. Come up here. You raised your hand. You got to come up here. And please give us your name and address. My name is Cassandra Schaefer. um address the one you're all talking about. 5601 East Locust Lane. Okay.

Trailer 6. Um I'm not here to oppose. I'm not for or against. I get it. I get it, Ray. I get it. I live in a for lack of better word kind of a butthole kind of area. So, but can't beat the rent. And that's, you know, that's why I live there right now. So, with pretty much slum no slum lords, not you, Ray. Um, anyways, I just have some questions. Developers, poor Ray. I don't have your contact info, so I don't know who to talk to. I'm getting no answers here. Um, I'm a single mom. I have two boys. There's a lot of other people there who live on that property who have lived there longer than me. I've been there three years. Um, uprooting them, ripping down their homes. You know, you might want to consider in your whole application all of this

need to actually speak to the

giving. Sorry. Giving them some time and more warning than a 30-day. I don't know the laws and the rules, but as someone who lives there currently, who's trying to get out currently into a better spot, um I don't know the time frame on any of this. So, my lease is up August 1st. I, you know, I just hope it doesn't go that fast because I have no where to go right now. No money saved because this econom economy. Um, I don't think I need to speak on that much because everybody knows. So, I just have questions about that. I don't I know you said thank you for addressing that about what are the people who live there. I appreciate that question and you don't have a plan yet. Um, so maybe that does give me more time, but think about the people who live there and, you know, if you're going to develop it, maybe maybe give them a, you know, low-inccome housing. Shoot, there's a lot of that needed. Just some suggestions. Maybe a cute little park instead of just putting some random homes right there. It would be awkward. I agree with the person who brought that up. But like I said, I'm not here for or against. I'm just someone who lives there currently who's a little freaked out and stressed out about where I'm going to live. How quickly is this going to proceed? I don't know. But that's why I'm here to speak tonight.

Thank you. So, if anybody has any answers for me, Ray, that'd be cool because I don't know where I'm going to go August 1st if I can't do something. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Appreciate it. There's no others. Okay. Is there anyone else here that would like to speak for against or undecided on this application? Come back up. You guys want to speak? Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. Okay. Okay. Yeah. We're gonna let them go ahead. Yeah. Sorry. We'll call you back up in a second. So, go ahead.

Bob S, 5401 East Terrace Falls Court. Um, I'm actually for the project. I'd like to see him do something with it. Um, I'm not for reasonzoning it. Um, a little there's a lot of controversy on Terrace Falls. It's on the plats. It says it's an RS12. Um, they changed it to an RS 8.5. There's nothing in Terrace Falls that's 8.5. Uh, we actually exceed the chart, the top of the chart for 8.5 is 17,000. We have 173, 18, 19, and 20,000 square foot lots. I don't know how it even says 8.5. We're not even in the category. Um, so as far as Terrace Falls goes and that map that they have on page four, my page four of your notes, that was adopted or updated this month. So the city council is drawing a line a line in the sand. I think we need to keep that line. Uh, you know, you you you adopt this. I believe they call that stretching. And pretty soon, like Mr. Kirkman said, you stretch that, then the next household wants to stretch it and they want to stretch it. But everything here is low density. There's nothing compatible to medium density except over at Hayden. So, and that buffer is there, like you said right here in your notes, to to break the city from the agricultural land. So, I'm for it, but not reszoning it.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Norin Nunes and I live at 5547 East Victoria Falls Drive in Napa. And I I'm I'm shocked to get this. I just I look out my front door and I have my neighborhood, but I look out my back door and I I can see what the guy's planting and the ducks that are flying and there's one house and then the trees and then the the the whole property that we're talking about here, the trailer park. And I really I really don't think it's a good idea to put to change it from low density residential to medium density residential. that that's just too many too many houses in that small area. We're we're having orchard acres all over again, which we came before you a few months ago about. So, I just think that um the medium density is going to be too many, especially if they're talking town houses. Um I the traffic on lowest is already horrendous. Um the cars just haul. They just haul down there fast and it's just going to be not only going to be more cars if people move in there, you know, when we find out how many houses you're planning on building, but um it's just going to be louder and more dangerous for people who live in that area. So, I really like looking outside and looking at the looking at the crops and I instead of having, you know, 10 more houses or 20 more houses if you extend this up to medium density. I'm just totally the medium density. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. Now, thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the commission, if I might first address just real quick uh a timeline for for one of the residents here. So, um, from this process, um, uh, a decisions made by the planning and zoning commission that then goes to the city council. What would be the earliest date that that would go to the city council?

Um, I believe these are all scheduled. The last batch you did, I think, are scheduled for June 15th. So this one would go on July the first Monday in July to finish this process, right? To finish this. Yes. Yeah. First Monday in July would be when? The first Monday in July. Thank you. So, so first Monday in July would be the first time that the city council would hear this particular application and then if if approved then the applicant would um engage design professionals u make application to the city and go through the through the hearing process. Generally speaking we talking somewhere between six and nine months to get to hearing from there.

Uh that depends on the design process. So, a preliminary plat, if that's what's proposed, um has a 40 to 60 day review time before you would get scheduled. So, when we receive a complete application, 60 days out to give you enough time to review the preliminary plat before it would be scheduled for a public hearing. So, and I'm just trying to give the residents some assurance that this this process will will be around a year and there will be lots of notices um signage uh notices to residents, things like that. Public hearing processes. Yes,

Mr. Chair, just a a quick correction. We we already have um city council scheduled out through July and so this would be in August at the earliest. Thank you. I'll make sure Ray gets in touch with them. Uh, okay. Back back back to the issue at hand. Um, I appreciate staff's presentation and and staff's um analysis of the project. Um, I I do want to to concede that this is an unusual application. Um, it certainly is. And I would and I can I can say that if uh we were a mobile home owner downtown um and and wanted to have some a little bit more density that this would be a very different uh discussion. But we're in the county um and we're out off of Locust Lane and the and the community is moving towards us. Um and so we are we are asking again um for a change effectively back to where we were. Um, I know it's not the same exact zoning, but um, it was originally designated medium density residential. One of one of the the questions that we have here is is and we're not bringing a full project in an application because um, we haven't hired a design professional. We haven't thought through all of the access issues. We haven't thought through buffering or all of those things because I'll be very honest with you, that takes that takes money and we have zero incentive today with our current zoning to make a change. And so just to make sure that we're on the record there, we do anticipate bringing you uh a good application, engaging with the neighbors on on what that looks like, what kind of density is there, how do we screen those kinds of things, but that's frankly uh a discussion for another time. And so we're here today on again an abnormal application with with small acreages. And so you did hear that that comprehensive plan amendments have been considered in the city of N before for individual parcels. I understand the the planning process and that we would

typically come in with the hundreds of acres of agricultural around and talk about what we look like and how that moves in, but we only control the 2.19 and the 10 units that we have today. And so, um, again, we we we believe that that this would be a benefit to the community and allow us to at least present a project to this commission, to the neighbors, uh, potentially to the council that we could consider um, that it would be a little better than what we have. And with that, I would stand for any questions. Questions? Thank you.

Thank you. If there's no more discussion with staff, I would move that we close the public hearing. Second. Been moved by Garner, seconded by Kho to close the public hearing. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Public hearing is closed. Thoughts? dumb question. There's no dumb dumb question. Unless they're coming from him. They're all dumb questions.

Um, so how many houses is the difference between low density and medium density on two acres? That's kind of a loaded question. Oh, thank you chairman and commissioner. Um so in a medium density residential they can range anywhere from 2 and a half to eight dwelling units per acre. Um in the low density residential it's um the one acre to or one dwelling unit per acre to two and a half dwelling units per acre. So it meets that low end. So two acres could possibly be five could potentially

Thank you. Yeah, you're welcome.

I got a couple of thoughts or one thought anyway and it runs along the line with Mr. Kirkman's over there that staff and the council and the commission spending a lot of time on these future land use maps and trying to get them right. And my concern would be if we change this, it opens the Pandora's box to start encroaching on the rest of that farmland that's supposed to be large lots. And I I don't want to see that. They we made the change for a reason and I think it I think it should stay that way. So, I'm not in favor of this at all. So,

yes. A lot of our applications um go the opposite direction. We always want to put in more homes, more density established area. The city made it pretty clear the last times I addressed this issue that they wanted it to be a low density area. I don't necessarily like to follow the plans of the council, but I think it's best for community. Sorry, any commissioners. These meetings are recorded. Yeah, I know that. But I'll stand my ground. That's why we mayor is going to fire you. Oh, really? Who's the mayor?

Um I think I think it's tough for me, Mr. chairman because you would want to they want to see something done like I mean the the trailer park and and if they could develop that out but I do agree with those that have spoken so far that yeah it's uh I don't think it's in the best interest if we change that uh designation at this point. Further thought, if we decide to leave this, I think we should put a lot of emphasis on making sure that they clean the property up. I saw now it's in the county. It's not ours. Can't do anything. You can go out there with your rake if you want. Volunteer. I I would do that.

Yeah, Mr. Chair, my thoughts along the same line, but u this is comparison with all the land that's out there. And I say that kind of all the land that's out there. In reality, there's not a whole lot of land that's out there that's left. But if this was a 10 acre or a 20 acre or something like that, a very large piece, I could totally understand the concern about about annexing a large piece of property like that and changing it to density because that would really eat into the land designation now as it sits with low density. However, this is a very small piece close to what is already medium density. It's not like it's a mile or two out from where medium density already is. It literally is just on the other side of of that demarcation line, if you will, at 2 acres. On the flip side of that though, that's why I asked the question, are we setting up a little bit of creep into that low density uh area that that the city council has established with input from the community. It wasn't just the city council said we're going to do this.

It was consensus, which is again why I asked that question. There was consensus of of those who participated to voice their opinion and say we want to keep this low density. So I I struggle a little bit because this is so small and it is so close to what already is. But then does that encourage reap into, you know, what's the next developer next door going to do? Or this this other developer or this other land owner may have one acre and wants to put five homes on it and go I want to ask a question because I I want to make sure I'm understanding though. So if this piece did touch the residential mixed use, then it would be eligible for a change. It would be different, right?

Different scenario. But then that's what I'm thinking too. But but then but then if that did touch the residential mixed use, then the parcel on the other side of them could apply for it and they could do and so the creep thing doesn't really work because it could happen either way, right? Yes, but okay. Sorry. Go ahead. Yes, but I was wrong.

If they were touching the residential mixed use, that parcel, it's allowed to be stretched one parcel deep. That doesn't actually change the map. So the next parcel that wants to do it that maybe is touching that one, we we've already used up the one parcel deep. So it can't creep like that. Perfect. What I was looking for,

but that doesn't stop what you're I think what you're saying it it can possibly encourage others down the road. And I I think the problem with that is we have we have this canal

property that if this buffer was intended to be there through a lot of deliberation consensus this then there's a border to it. You can't you can't extend you can't extend that border now. That border is there because of other cities, other entities. So it's either the buffer is there for a reason. It exists and you shrink it then it kind of wipes out the purpose of it. There's no extending it. So that's my two cents.

You know, I always the intent of what legislative bodies do is always interesting to me and and I'm I'm kind of thinking about that now. The I and I don't know. I'm just this just my opinion. The intent of the city council to establish this swath of land, if you will, this buffer as low density was to not um perhaps allow 200 300 home subdivisions in this area. And again, that's what I I mean, I'm looking at this parcel over here that's that's commercial in the, you know, along Mcder

that's future land use is they've got designated as commercial. And how is commercial going to develop without

bodies, without rooftops. So I I don't that that's kind of that's what I'm struggling with. I I look I try to I try to imagine or think of what the intent of the legislative body was being our city council and wonder if if it was more geared towards keeping this low density keep out for lack of a better term the massive subdivisions that have been and and in that case if that's indeed what I may think the intent of the city council was this two acre property with five possibly five whatever the the whatever the configuration will be that a big enough drop in the pond difference

well I guess without the encroachment of the next person the next person the next person and I and again that's why we have these processes is and the flexibility in doing that I um oh god Gosh, it was a thought or chair, but it was fleeting. Yeah. And I And I think

And it's the that's what I was thinking, right, is that it's small, but yet I think that they were thoughtful in that that cottage layout I think was interesting because um you know, it it looks like it's sparssely populated, right? It doesn't look like a normal and I think that that's why it could look uh you know, good out in that area. I think it also changed and chair that was it could change and that's why I asked the question. Exactly. That's the that was the thought I was going to ask Mr. Chair is

is if there was and maybe you know I I don't want to use this term loosely but you roll the dice and then wait until they come back with uh a plan when it's time to zone and then uh address possibly a development agreement to perhaps keep it in line with the division to the north and to the east, which is an option. I think I think it's a viable option.

I I think that like you say that there's a lot of input into the future land use map and they're working on it right now to see if there's any changes. If if it turns out that the way it's moving, they want to change it to medium density residential, a big portion of that. Okay. But as of now, their goal is to keep it low low density. And I don't think putting something medium density residential spot on there is the right idea. I think we keep it low density residential until until future land use map changes and the consensus by the public and city council says, "Yeah, that's what we need to change it to." I don't think we should be taking one parcel and making a change on it. If you want to make a motion, I'll accept it.

Well, I I don't think I don't think Mr. Kirkman's done with his thoughts. I'm not plenty of chances. No, I have one more question for staff, Mr. Chair, if you'll allow me. That's why I'm not asking. Um, the commercial designation there on McDermott and Locust, why is that commercial designation out in the middle of freaking nowhere right now? Pardon my language. I apologize. I I think I know the answer, but

So, Mr. chair and commissioners. Um there this was an area that um our a a leader a previous leader for the city of Nampa um felt pretty strongly that we needed some commercial in that area. Um and so that proposal was brought forward to city council and to this commission and that change was made as part of um that comprehensive plan amendment. Um the other aspect we we may need to consider and and probably was a consideration is eventually um if state highway 16 continued south um we're currently working with Compass um to outline a plan for how that would look and what land uses would look like at that point. and and frankly when transportation is in place there's a real drive for increased density. Um so if the long-term vision of this area is truly low density but then the the roadway comes in I I think there's going to be a lot of pressure to change that and um maybe medium density is is appropriate for that reason. Um, we are looking at that right now in our future land use map for the updated comprehensive plan that will be hopefully be adopted next spring.

Well, I was just saying we we thought Highway 16 to where it is now was still another five or 10 years down the road and ITD up that schedule quite a bit, didn't they? So, who knows what long-term actually means as fast as we're moving now. Mr. Chair, um, and commissioners, um, yeah, I I agree with you. I I think that was a shock to everyone.

Um, and it not to say it couldn't be done again, but it it was surprising. um it's not doesn't have a lot of precedent how we had that much money to throw at a project that quickly. Um so it was a little bit out of the ordinary, but you're right that something could happen and and drive that need to to go south. Um again, Compass is already looking right currently. We are um working with Compass and the other cities in the valley and counties to look at some options. um for an alternative route to the south and um all along the southern border of all of the cities in the valley. So that's still an option that we're considering and if that occurred that would certainly put some pressure on this area.

Rodney, while you're still there, just a thought on the Highway 16 when it finally does get connected to the south that it'll be coming pretty close down McDermad. Could it possibly have been part of the thought process on this being commercial is if that does come down, we need the space to do an overpass over the track so it's not a obstacle if the freeway comes down that way. Could that be part of the reason why that was designated that way?

Mr. Chair and Commissioner, um yes. Um I can't speak to specifics there because it was a direction from a leader to to take this effort rather than um a lot of community input to to get this commercial designation here. However, from a planning perspective, this is a this area is a food desert. Um and it just we don't have a lot of options for for food in this souththeastern part of our community. And so, you know, picking a spot out there is is still important uh that we look at some commercial services in the future for service servicing the people that live out there. Um but your point about densities being needed for that commercial to survive and even locate there in the first place is a valid one.

We know Sorry, Mr. Chair. Do we have any idea as to next city over what they're planning in that southern region? So if there's density, so if we have commercial designated for that there at that spot, then I would maybe is it safe to assume that the neighboring city has some sort of plan with their development and what they're going to what they're allowing to bring into that area.

Mr. Sure. Um I think the answer to that is I I don't know. Um when we do our comprehensive plan updates, we do a lot of coordination with the other cities around us even in the Ada County side of things. So absolutely that would have been a part of the process. This was just a little bit unique because the I mean the commercial being designated there is um was at the direction of a a leader. So I I don't know that that same analysis was done at at that time. Sounds like to me there's a lot of moving parts that are lot lot of pieces in play on the chess board that are all possibilities in that can't that could be in the future. But with that being said, that's a long ways down the future. I mean, yeah, 16 is being is being a little bit more fasttracked, but at the same time, there's there's not even a plan. There's there's sounds like there's talking about a direction and a possibility. Um, but nothing concrete yet as to even say this is it going here. So, sounds like we've got we have time and there's a lot of time in the middle for uh things to maybe even happen.

Ready? Sure.

Mr. Kirk, you know, I again I vacasillate back and forth, but I just think that small parcel In light of the conversation, if it was designated, if it changed to medium density, I I really do think that when they come back, when the when the applicant were to come back for zoning that we could address density at that point in time because I do believe that as this develops out, yes, we'd like to the plan is to keep it low density, but I honestly think that at some point in the future, and who knows, maybe sooner than we think because of what happened with Highway 16, we're going to need density in that area to support whatever might go out there, whether it's commercial or

But but we don't know. We don't have a I know. But what I'm saying though is that we there there's an option there that if this were to go medium, we could still address the density issue when they come back for zoning at that point, maybe with a development agreement or otherwise. And it would still maintain the same look and feel, if you will, of a low density. And it's only two acres. It's not 20 acres that's being developed with 200 homes or 300 homes. Look at the people on that property. That young lady that was here, what's she going to do? Said they have about a year to Yeah, there's going to be a year probably even.

So that that we know what's going to happen in a year. What you're talking about may or may not happen in six years or 10 years. We don't know. Let's work with what we've got.

And the only other thing that I think about that that that I struggle with a little bit is property rights, right? I mean, he wants to do something with his property, but it has to pencil out, right? And I mean, what they're going to do, is it going to be worse than what's there now? Um, and so that's that's in the back of my head, you know, and so I'm I struggle with it. I do I kind of go back and forth because we have that map for a reason. We do. But you know just as the way things stand right now not very compatible you know we get that writing this in particular. Mr. Chair, if there's no further comments, I'll move to recommend denial of the project as stated on the screen due to the fact that it does not not compatible to the future land use map and surrounding properties.

Second move by Turner, seconded by Kho to deny this application. Uh, can we get a roll call, please? P. I Copeland. I Kho. I Turner. Hi Miller. Nay. Garner. Hi Kirkman. Nay.

You oppose. Motion carries. Okay. Item 3-2, subdivision short plat approval for Happy Valley Industrial, addressed as 76 North Happy Valley Road for Blake Wolf. Mr. Wolf. Good evening. My name is Blake Wolf. I live at 843 West Horizon Way in Nampa. Um, this proposal and project I brought to you uh late summer, early fall last year. Um, and had intended to plat this about this point this spring. Um the concept I submitted then is the same concept I developed and the whole intent is to be able to sell off each of the four buildings um for on their own individual tax parcel. I I am currently still developing two of the buildings are up um on this particular plat. Lot two and lot five have the structure up. Lot three and lot four will be uh the same structure just down the road when lot five sells. Uh the the ownership will be similar to a residential ownership where there'll be an owner's association to uh own and manage lot one along with some simple guidelines for the little development. Um yeah, just everything we've done at the beginning, we followed all the way through to this point uh with this intent to be able to subdivide it and

sell these off at the end. Questions? Looking good. Thank you. We might call you back up, but why not?

Miss Watkins. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. Christy Watkins, principal planner for the city of Nampa. Um, the request before you this evening, as stated, is a request for short plat approval for the Happy Valley Industrial Subdivision that serves to divide a property into four lots for four separate buildings that are currently under construction. Um, this property was annexed in September of 2025. There was a demolition permit for the house that was there, um, issued in September of 2025. And in October of 2025, then the building permits were issued for construction of those buildings. The property is 2.24 acres. There's five lots proposed, one of them being a common lot for the landscape buffer in the front. Um, short plats and commercial projects are exempt from open space requirements. So, they don't have they don't need any of that. Uh, there are no minimum lot areas for the IL zoning district. So, that that meets code. There are no uh width and lot depth requirements in the IL zone, so it meets code. The landscape plan was reviewed and approved by city staff when the building permits were issued. And the parking that is provided was reviewed at the time of building permits as well. There were no comments received for this development outside of those that have already been received during the building permitting process. Uh their recommended conditions of approval are listed in your staff report. basically just says shall meet code and these are your potential motions. I'll stand for any questions. No.

Okay. Guess not right now. Madam clerk, do we have a signup sheet? No, we do not. There anyone that would like to speak for, against, or undecided on this item? No one. Just give him the option. Would you like to come back up and say anything? Mr. Chairman, yes. While you're ahead, I'll make a motion that we close the public hearing. Second. Has been moved by Garner, seconded by Kho to close the public hearing. All those in favor? Any opposed? Public hearing is closed. Pretty simple. I don't think we need a lot of discussion on this. Or do we, Mr. Kirkman?

No. In fact, I will make a motion to move this along. I I move to approve the project as stated on the screen with recommended conditions of approval stated in the staff report. Second fighting over here. It's been moved by Kirkman, second by Turner to approve this item. Uh all those in favor I.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Good times. Okay. Item 3-3. This is the one I came for. I'm not even going to read it. I'm just gonna turn the time over to Miss Watkins and let her

All right. Uh, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, again, Christy Watkins, principal planner for the city of Nampa. These are our six-month code changes. Um, as we implement code, sometimes we run into things where we determine that the grammar needs to be corrected or some things need to be tweaked because when we put it into practice, it doesn't really work right. Um, that's basically what this is this time. Hopefully, you've read your staff report and I guess I would just ask you, do you have any questions for me? Or do you want me to go over any of them in particular? Did anything jump out at you? We might have a few questions for Daniel.

Okay. Just said to make sure he was awake. I'd like to commend you on the detail you must have gone through to you have some changes that just one word. I know it's crazy. Just one word and none of them None of them were pay raise. Did AI do it? Oh, it was on me. I had to ask that question. You said, "Do you have questions?" Okay, no questions. I still commend you for going through and reading all this and getting those onesies and twoosies because they're important. Grammar is important. Really make a big difference. Yes.

Thank you. Do we have a signup sheet? Two people ready to speak.

Is there anyone would like to speak? Please come on up. Good evening. Um board. Um, my name is Ted Jones, 11855 West Pato Drive, Nampa. Uh, I just want to thank uh you and I want to thank the staff and the mayor's office for uh the change. I'm in the vanilla importing and vanilla extract manufacturing business and the artisan addition to the BC zone is just really a blessing. Uh because since I'm in the food business, uh because the current code, I would only be allowed in heavy industrial and light industrial. And most of those buildings are just either way too big, uh the spaces are way too big. But with the BC, um and there's a building in particular that's fully sprinklered and it's a condo and I'd love to buy it. So this allows me that opportunity. So I just want to thank you very much.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Anyone else? Good. Okay. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we close the public hearing. Second. It's been moved by Garner, seconded by Kirkman to close the public hearing. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? No. Uh, Mr. If no one wants to I will make a movement or a motion to recommend approval. You can move too if you want.

I will make a motion to recommend approval of the code changes as stated on the screen with the proposed findings and a big old shout out to Miss Watkins. It's been moved by Kirkman, second by Turner to approve this item. Oh, do we need a roll call? Yes. This is a vote, not a procedural decision. Roll call, please. All right. Fiend. Hi. Copeland. Hi. Kirkman. Hi. Kho. Um. Yeah. Turner. Hi. Miller. Hi. Garner. Hi.

Motion carried. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Nope. You chair, Mr. Chairman. Oh, yes. I'd like to make a motion. Okay. That Mr. Director Ashby get us some magnet cards for the back door. I second it. Have a key card. Hey, it's been moved and seconded. Do we want to have a discussion? Do we need a roll call for this? Well, while you're at it, why don't we get some Why don't we get some nappy shirts? Yeah, we want some Nampa shirts, too. Confused the public. Legal can't even get those in. First thing that happens wrong, guess who they're coming to first.

Okay. I would like to ask Mr. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to adjourn the meeting. Before you do that, can I just make comment? Sure. I take it back. I would like to ask Mr. Rodney to move the screen further back so we can see it. I don't have a bit of problem. shorty. I'll bring you a couple of Chromebooks next week and we'll I move that we get little screens put in every Yeah, it is. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to adjurnn. It's been moved second and seconded and Turner to adjurnn. All those in favor. Is there any opposed? Okay, I guess that means

to move it to move it back. No. What? What did you say? You did it.