Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

let's go come on it's i don't have six o'clock yet at 5 59 and 32 seconds okay i'm gonna delay just because he called me mister makes me feel so old when people do Okay, I have six o'clock. I'd like to welcome everybody to the Tuesday, June 9th, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Can we get a call to order, please? Or a roll call, please?

Garner? Miller?

Here.

Gaffer?

Here.

Turner?

Here.

Kehoe?

Here.

Morgan?

Here.

Kirkman? Copeland? Here. Fehm?

Here.

Seven.

uh, staff communications. Christy, you can take care of that tonight.

So, uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. Um, there, we didn't have any public hearings at the last city council meeting, so we don't really have anything to report on from that perspective. Um, you all, most of you attended the comp plan, um, workshop yesterday morning. Um, any questions about that? Is there anything that was brought up that you guys want to talk about? No? Most of you have been involved pretty much all along the way and you've given input up to this point. If there's anything else or any other input that you want to give, we're certainly welcome to take that, but we are using the input that you've already given.

That's all I have. For those who weren't in attendance, are they going to get the email about the homework?

I'm not sure. So there was homework.

Everybody got emailed the packet, I'm sure. So basically our job is to read through the packet and see if there's anything that we're horribly concerned with, things that we need to change, or things that we think we need to add. I think, what was it, like two weeks we were supposed to get that? Ten days. We were supposed to get that to Rodney. So, anyway. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I'll make a motion we adopt the consent agenda.

And moved by Morgan, seconded by Turner to adopt the consent agenda. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay. We will go ahead and move right into our public hearing portion of the meeting. For everybody that's here, the way this works is we will have the applicant come up. They will get time to tell us what they want to do. give us their presentation, and we'll turn the time over to staff, let them tell us about their findings, and then we will open it up for public testimony. When you do come to the mic, we'd ask that you speak clearly into the mic, give us your name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes to tell us why you're for, against, or undecided on the item. And after that time is over, we'll have the applicant come back up, do any rebuttals or answer questions, We'll close the public hearing, deliberate, and make our decision. So with that, we will start with our first and only item, 3-1, Annexation and Zoning to RS-22 Zoning District. The Potential Development Agreement and Subdivision Preliminary Plat Approval for Issa Ridge Estates Subdivision addressed as 8230 and 8054 Eustick Road. For Robert Lightfelt is the applicant here. Okay. Good one. Come on up.

Appreciate everybody's time. Help me here if I make any mistakes. So what is your address? Oh, I live at 82 30 you stick and I own 80 54 you stick also.

Okay.

So the project is those two properties. being annexed in and then subdivided there. What I'm changing it into already falls into the comprehensive plan. So there's no rezoning technically already matches what you guys have planned for that area and falls right in line. And then as you can see, it's an infill and per your guys's or the city's comprehensive plan infill projects are, you know, basically wanting to be, because it's not a waste of property, underutilized property, I guess you guys view it as. So this would fall all into those categories. Here's what the proposed layout is. And with this view, you can see to my east, already exists similar properties, larger properties. And with that low density zoning that's already there, I'm even keeping on the high side of that, like closest to like close to the one acre, not the bare minimum where I'm trying to pack it in. As you can see kind of around me has happened. So to my east it stays and my south is very similar type of housing, larger properties, larger houses. So I'm keeping in line with what was already there and also offering something different and not packing a bunch of houses in apartments, what's around me and giving people that want something different that's not being mass produced right now. So I think it's great for the city and have some opportunity. And then there's just some more of the design, shows the surrounding, the lot lines and the roadway layouts.

Okay. We'll call you back up. Appreciate it. All right. Thank you. I am. Are you?

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 RS 22. And as you may know, the 22 stands for a minimum lot size of 22,000 square feet. And for the preliminary plat for Issa Ridge Estates at 8230 and 8054 Eustick Road. So the property is in the low density residential zone. So the RS-22, or sorry, the low density residential designation, RS-22 is a permitted zone within that designation. Due to the low number of lots on this, the traffic impact study is not required for this development. They will be required to install a 10-foot side path along Ustick. They're proposing a rural two-lane private roadway into the development from Ustick. There is sewer, water, and pressurized irrigation available to the property, and they will be required to construct those utilities to and through the property at the time of development. So currently this property is enclaved, which means it's surrounded by the city limits and is under Canyon County jurisdiction, but it is within the city of Nampa planning area. The properties around it are zoned RS6, RS7, and RS8.5, and to the east there are Canyon County single family larger lots. So for correspondence, we got the standard correspondence from the building department about building regulations. The police department has asked for a commitment to fund .03 additional officers and .01 additional support staff. The fire department has stated that this is approximately 1.7 miles from fire station number four with an approximate response time of four minutes. and they would need an increased personnel demand of .03 firefighter positions with this increase in population. And then the engineering department commented on traffic access, utilities, drainage, and irrigation. So as stated, there are two existing houses that will be split off on the front of this property and then seven additional lots to the rear. The lot sizes within the RS-22 zone can range from 22,000 square feet to 4,560 square feet, which is an acre. And on this, the plat ranges from 34,850 square feet to 51,056 square feet. So the house to the southwest is on an oversized lot, and we will ask for an exception from city council when we take it forward to them. Lot depths and widths all meet code. and the proposed density is 1.01 dwelling units per acre, which does meet the comp plan. So for open space requirements, they're not necessarily required to have a set aside amount of open space. Residential lots that are 32,000 square feet or greater within a development are not required to contribute to the gross parcel area utilized to calculate required open space. The reason for this is because the open space will be contained within the yards of the lots. So when we accept an application for annexation, We have four state criteria that we have to hold against this application. One is that all private landowners have consented to the annexation. And then the property shall be contiguous to the city limits. And it shall meet the comprehensive plan in the area of annexation. And it shall meet the MOU with the highway district that is responsible for the roadways in front of it, which it is because the city owns that. So it meets all four of those criteria. We're zoning the applicable criteria. This project proposes a zone that is compatible with the adjoining districts. This project proposes a use that is compatible with adjoining properties and uses. And the development is in the interest of the public and reasonably necessary because it is a proposed subdivision layout that will extend city utilities, it will install frontage improvements, it is compatible with the surrounding uses, and it complies with adopted city codes. These are your conditions of approval, and these are your potential motions. I will stand for any questions.

Mr. Chairman. Chris, down over this question for you or for Daniel, but I'll ask it and you can decide.

Okay.

The road that they're talking about beyond the two existing homes is going to be owned and maintained by the subdivision, correct?

Commissioner Kehoe, I will let, yes, it will. They're all nodding, but I will let Daniel address your roadway questions.

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Kehoe, what they are proposing is really a common driveway to serve these nine lots. So it will have a street name. It will be owned and maintained by the development with an easement over that. They are not proposing a separate lot for that, if I remember correctly. But it would not be city maintenance. It's not proposed to be a standard city width for a street. It's more of a common driveway with a turnaround at the

That's sort of my question was, what happens in 10 years from now, the road or driveway is deteriorated to the point where it's got potholes and damaging people's cars, but it's just like tough luck, Charlie, because... It would be their responsibility to maintain that and fix it when needed. And if they wanted to be part of the city, they would have to build to see standards and then donate it or something.

So if, if they were to at some point in the future request to turn that over to the city, yes, it would have to be brought up to city standards before we would consider taking that. Thank you.

No. And I'm clerked. We have a sign up sheet.

We have three signed up to speak.

Okay.

Scott Fackrell.

Scott Fackrell, residing at 8294 East Timberlake Street, which is just adjacent to this proposal. I guess because of my ignorance of living in city or congested areas, I have the question for some of the zoning. Is this a piece of property that, when I did return to Idaho a few years ago, that de-annexed from the city after? Oh, OK. So that one's out. The only other thing, I didn't do any studying and wondering about the fencing on the canal of Groves Branch Lateral, partly because I've been there on the canal enough and observing unruly behavior by a few kids and traffic. So I don't know how well it's going to be protected from a few more residents, which might not make a difference compared to what we have in the other subdivision. So not necessarily for or against, just had a few questions.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is David Smith.

Good afternoon. David Smith. I reside at 86 South Bancroft Way. I've had the opportunity to talk to Mr. Lightfield about this project, and I do approve it.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Angela Gibson.

Let us guess which one that is. Well, hold on.

Good afternoon. Angela Gibson. I reside at 579 West Waterbury Drive. I am for this. I think it's a great use of the land. If it's going to be turned into any residential, I'd rather it be large lots with nicer homes than another track. It just preserves the look, I think, of that area. For me, I've lived here forever, so the farmland is leaving, and the bigger lots are cool to me. So thank you.

Thank you.

I don't have any other speakers signed up.

Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? Go ahead and come on up.

Good afternoon, Chair, Commission. Thank you guys for hearing us today. My residence, 2933 East Snake River Drive. I live on the other side of town. As a lot of you guys know, Eustick Road is being improved right now. I believe they're taking that to a five lane. So there'll be, you know, two lanes going each direction as well as a turn lane. Let me get your name real quick. Oh, sorry, Tyler. Last name, Bossier, B-O-S-I-E-R. But when you look at this particular parcel here, as it sits right now, there's one, two, three, four entrances coming off of Ustick. With this improvement, that's gonna be reduced to one entrance in and out. The two front parcels will enter off of the private lane. Obviously with the HOA and stuff, a road maintenance agreement will go into place with that within the CCRs. So, you know, It's, you know, it mirrors the projects to the east of it. I just basically hear in support. I think it'll be a good project. I think Robert's done a very good job with the design on this and should be an improvement to the city. So thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Anybody else that would like to speak? Or against or undecided? Okay, Mr. Lightbelt, would you like to come back up? Anything you'd like to add? Do we have any questions for him? Go say about the fence.

I'd just like to address the gentleman's question about the fencing. Obviously, I know about the traffic, you know, about the housing and people. Based on my design, there is not a direct access for all the residents to get out of that. I can't, you know, unless I put some bill of regulation that they can't. but there was no plan for a walk path out of the center.

I believe part of my... Robert, can you just speak into the mic and direct your comments to us instead of him if you could, thank you.

So on that fence line across the canal, based on some of the design theories that we want in the housing track will consist of privacy fencing anyways, because we don't want the same thing, access, just people wandering off the canal into the development anyways. So some of that would be addressed anyways with that, whether it's privacy fencing or three rail fence or some sort of divider.

Okay.

All right.

Any other questions? No? Okay. Thank you. All right, thanks.

Chair, I'll make a motion to close public hearing. Second.

It's been moved by Commissioner Turner, second by Morgan to close the public hearing. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay, public hearing is closed.

What do we think? Oh, okay. Instead of somebody coming in and trying to cram as many parcels as they can into that whole area, I like this idea of matching what's to the east and keeping some bigger lots for those that want a little more space. So I'm all for it.

I agree. I think it's a win-win for everybody. With their understanding that the road is going to be their responsibility sometime in the future, I'm very comfortable with everything.

Go for it, Mr. Martin.

I thought you were gonna read a motion. No, you're better at it. 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 and seconded. 2D roll call.

Garner? Miller?

Yes.

Daffer?

Yes.

Turner?

Yep.

Kehoe? Aye. Morgan?

Yes.

Kirkman? Copeland? Yes. Beane?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

I make a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Second. Been moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Yeah. Hey. Wow.

Thank you.