Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

Okay, we ready to go? Okay, it is six o'clock. I would like to start by welcoming everyone to the City of Nampa Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, June 23rd, 2026. Can we start with a roll call, please?

Garner.

Here.

Miller.

Here.

Daffer. Turner.

Here.

Kehoe.

Here.

Morgan.

Here.

Kirkman. Copeland. Here. Feen.

Here.

7 present.

Thank you. Mr Ashby.

Mr. Chair and Commissioners, Rodney Ashby, Planning and Zoning Director, for the record. First of all, I just want to thank you for those who participated in the comprehensive plan review of what the steering committee came up with, and several of you were active participants in the steering committee, so I appreciate that very much. We didn't get anything back from City Council, and so we are going to go to them in their regular city council meetings and just take a couple of topics at a time. I think the goal here is to have, get to the point where city council understands, knows the comprehensive plan content and can support it, you know, whether they agree with everything in the comp plan or not, that they can support the plan. And so that's why we're doing this, to make sure that they understand that. I'm happy to do presentations to this group, but I think, you know, it's essentially what we've shown you already and what most of you have commented on already, so.

And we thank you for your work. Thanks.

Appreciate it. So just a report on the city council meeting on June 15th. First one was a subdivision final plot approval for Cherry Grove number six. Excuse me. That's northeast of Elm Lane and Franklin Road, and that was for 61 single-family detached units and seven common lots. And that you recommended approval, and they approved that. Next one was a subdivision short plat approval for Middlebury South, number one. And this was for 50 single family detached dwelling lots and seven common area lots. This was recommended for approval by you and approved by city council. Now, the public hearings was annexation for Highline Estates to RS4 and RS6 and BC Community Business. This was on Franklin Road, northeast of Linden Road and Madison Road. And this was for 355 single family detached dwelling units, 33 common area lots, and one commercial lot. And this was... It's been a while since you've heard this. This was on January 27th of this year that you had recommended approval unanimously. And city council continued that at this last, the first hearing that they had because they wanted to see a little more detail in the public open space and see how that open space would be used rather than just be drainage basins and just open space without any amenities. So this went back to them and with added amenities they included, it was approved. So that was, it was a close vote. It was three yeses and two nos. And so it did get passed. They also gave us some direction to come back with some, well, they would like to revisit the idea of those drainage basins and whether they should be used as qualified open space. I provided the, the, the language in code and haven't heard anything back from them. So that was the direction they gave me. Provide us the language and then they would respond and I haven't seen anything. So we may be revisiting that in the future. And then the next one was Nampa City Ordinance text amendments. A lot of these were pretty simple. You heard this on May 12th. and recommended approval unanimously, This one was also approved on a three to two vote. I think there was some confusion by one of the people in the audience about just some of the language in there. And so there were a couple of votes against it, but it did pass. And then comprehensive plan text amendment to remove language. Oh, I'm sorry. That one was the one I was referring to. Um, the comprehensive plan text amendment was to remove language, recommending development of five dwelling units per acre or more be required to get approval over planned unit development or master plan community. That's the one I think was just a little confusing to the public. So, um, but that one, that one did pass as well.

All I have.

Okay. Thank you, Ryan. Appreciate it. Mr. Chairman.

Yes. Make a motion. We approve the consent agenda.

It's been moved by Garner, seconded by Kehoe to approve the consent agenda. All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Passes. We'll go ahead and get rolling right into our public hearing. So how this works, if you haven't been here before, the applicant will come before us. They will have five minutes? Seven minutes. Seven minutes. down in front of me to tell us what they want to do, describe a little bit about their project, and we'll turn the time over to the city. They will give us their thoughts, opinions, findings on the project, and then we'll open it up for public testimony. When you come up to the mic to testify, we just ask that you speak clearly into the mic, give us your name and address for the record, and then you'll have three minutes to give us your thoughts and opinions on the specific project. After that, we just rotate through people. Once the public testimony is finished with the applicant, come back up, do sort of a rebuttal and mainly answer questions that people may have on specific projects. We'll close the public hearing and then we'll deliberate talk amongst ourselves, vote on it and make a determination one way or another for recommendation or approval. So that's how we'll, work through this also keep the speaking. There's not really any people here tonight. So, but just remember, keep your voices down. The meetings are being live streamed and recorded. And it's just when people talk too loud in the audience, it does get picked up fairly well on the mics. And those people that are online or want to listen to it later in a recording, it does fuzzy things up a little bit. So please keep your voices down. Okay, we'll get started with the first item, 3-1, Annexation and Zoning to RA Zoning District with Corresponding Right-of-Way Potential Development Agreement and Subdivision Preliminary Plat for Lake Lowell Estates, addressed as 0 Lake Lowell Avenue for Breckenland Design, representing Ronald Lester. Is the applicant here?

Good evening, guys. Is that better? All right, good evening, or excuse me, my address is 4818 West Campus Street, Boise, Idaho, 83795. Okay, good evening. Name? Yeah, sorry, Becky Isagary. I've never done this before. No, I'm just kidding. All right, good evening, my name's Becky. I'm with Brecken Land Design. I'm here tonight to present applications for preliminary plot and annexation for Lake Will Estates. The project is located west of Midway Road and north of Lake Willow Avenue. Surrounding land uses include existing two-acre single-family residential properties to the north, the future home of Grace Weibel to the east, and Cope Sand and Gravel to the south, and a mix of half-acre residential lots and agricultural farmland to the west. The site is located approximately 1 1⁄2 mile from Lake Lowell Park, providing convenient access to recreational amenities. The property also is encumbered by a 120-foot Idaho power transmission easement that traverses the site and influences the overall design of the subdivision. This project proposes 25 buildable lots on approximately 38.7 acres with a requested RA zoning designation. The lots average 1.12 acres in size with a minimum lot size of one acre resulting in a density of just .62 dwelling units per acre. We've also incorporated a 105 foot landscape buffer along the northern property boundary. This buffer was added after discussions with the neighboring property owners and provides a substantial separation between the proposed development and the existing homes to the north. Overall, the design creates a low density estate style community that is compatible with the surrounding rural character. The project is requesting a few minor exceptions due to the existing 120 foot wide Idaho power easement that crosses the property and packs the lot layout. The two highlighted blue lots request a small exception to the one acre lot size minimum, while the red highlighted lots request an exception to the 150 foot frontage requirement. These exceptions allow the development to work around the existing easement while maintaining consistent lot patterns throughout the subdivision. So like I said earlier, this project provides 6.24 acres of open space. Although the open space and amenities are not required by code, the development includes a pickleball court, a 10 foot by 20 foot gazebo, and a four stall parking area. Turf, sod, and landscaping are also proposed throughout the common areas and in the Idaho Power Easement, creating an attractive usable open space for residents to enjoy. All right, roadways. The proposed roadway network is designed to meet city standards while providing safe and efficient access throughout the development. Internal streets include a 60-foot right-of-way, a six-foot parkway strip, and a four-foot detached sidewalk. Along Lake Lowell Avenue, the project will construct improvements to the center line and provide a 40-foot right-of-way dedication, an eight-foot parkway strip, and a 10-foot detached sidewalk, improving both safety and connectivity throughout the area. And then as for utilities, the city has confirmed adequate capacity to provide sewer, water, and pressurized irrigation to the development. That's all I have for you tonight, and I'll stand for some questions.

Questions, anybody? Okay, if you don't have any for you right now, we'll call you back.

Okay, thanks.

Ms. Fry, you're up.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Candace Fry, Associate Planner for the City of Nampa. The request before you this evening is an annexation and zoning to RA, Suburban Residential Zoning District, with a subdivision preliminary plat approval for Lake Lowell Estates. The original concept is 24 single-family detached units, six common lots, and right-of-way. Property details, the parcel is currently enclaved and under Canyon County jurisdiction. The surrounding zoning to the north is Canyon County, to the west is Canyon County, to the east is currently Canyon County. However, the parcel directly next to this property is currently in the process of annexation. Once it is annexed into the city, it will be zoned RA and then RS7 to the south. And to the south is also Canyon County. The comprehensive plan designates this area as very low density residential. Note the path to annexation is provided by the Zero Iowa Avenue parcel, which is contiguous to annexed Nampa City parcels to the south and east. Applicable regulations, so annexation is taken care of in Idaho State Code, Title 50-222, and Nampa City Code Title 10, Chapter 2. It outlines the requirements for annexation with consent of property owners, specifically all private landowners have consented to annexation. Property shall be contiguous with city limits. The comprehensive plan includes the area of annexation and when applicable for annexation of roadways, all portions of highways lying partially to be annexed with a contiguous parcel unless by express agreement with highway maintenance district indicates otherwise. more applicable regulations specifically for the zoning, so 10-2-3.c, conclusions of law pertinent to the proposed zoning map amendment. The commission shall conclude the following conclusions of law before recommending to city council approval of an amendment to the city's official zoning map. Title 10, Chapter 27 is related to subdivisions, and then Title 10, Chapter 7 is suburban residential chapter. Here is the proposed preliminary plaque. Correspondence, we did not receive any public comments before the deadline. We did, however, receive one late comment that is included in your packet tonight, but it was not included in the staff report because I did not have enough time to analyze it. Highway District 4 provided comments for Lake Lowell State. and all of those details are included in your staff report. Idaho Power provided general comments regarding the plat and the easement that goes through the property. Nampa GIS, the applicant shall submit an updated site plan to the City of Nampa Engineering GIS staff reflecting these changes prior to final plat application submittal. The Nampa Fire District provided comments. They do not oppose the application, subject to compliance with all of the following code requirements and conditions of approval. However, they do not approve of the access road as submitted, and they also provided general water supply and fire access comments. Nampa Engineering Division provided A complete review of the preliminary application and the full comments and conditions are listed in the staff report. Nampa Police Department also provided comments. Lake Lowell Estates is projected to add 57.6 new residents to the city of Nampa's current population. The cost for additional officers is $122,100. 122,128 and additional support staff is 25,000 for the first year of employment. The closest police department is five miles away. Developments near this reporting district have a lower call volume of 214 calls annually in this area. preliminary plat analysis so lot sizes within the ra zone shall be a minimum of 43 560 square feet or one acre the lot size is shown on the plot range from one acre to 1.19 acres the maximum gross density shall be one dwelling unit an acre the density for this project is 0.62 dwelling units an acre The applicant is requesting an exception for the 150 foot minimum frontage requirements for lots nine and 13 of block two. In addition, they are also requesting an exception to the one acre minimum lot size for lots 16 and 17 of block two. All other frontage and lot size requirements have been met. So as stated by the applicant, qualified open space 10-27-6M.3 talks about developments with a gross acreage of five acres or more shall provide at least 15% of the total gross parcel area shall be qualified 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 the required qualified open space. This project includes over the 15% at 17% or 6.7 acres. So findings for annexation, all of the facts are included here as well as your staff report. The property proposed for annexation falls under criteria outlined in Idaho Statute 50-2.22. Because the property owners have given consent to the annex of the property, it is contiguous with city limits. The proposed parcels are available for annexation because they are located within the current Nampa area of impact boundary as shown on the future land use map in the Nampa 2040 comprehensive plan and it matches the very low density designation for RA. Findings for the zoning for RA, all of the facts are again listed here and in your staff report. City services are within the vicinity of these properties and have adequate capacity to serve this project. The proposed properties will be subject to building code requirements for the proposed use and any new construction as presented. The proposed zoning map amendment is in harmony with the city's currently adopted 2040 comprehensive plan and comprehensive plan land use map as well as the southwest napa specific area plan and its land use map it establishes an area of ra zoning that is compatible with future and existing zoning in the area and because the proposed zoning district is permitted under the comprehensive plan future land use map designation of very low density residential. A single family home subdivision is a use that will be reasonably compatible with adjoining properties because the proposed use is determined to be compatible according to the compatibility definitions in the comprehensive plan. It outlines with the uses listed in NC NEPA City Code 10-3-2, schedule of uses for the RA zoning district. And it is in the public's best interest and reasonably necessary because the development of these parcels will extend city services and utilities. Any new construction will bring improvements to the property per city code. Here are the recommended conditions of approval and any others that the commission wishes to add. Here are the potential motions and I will stand for any questions.

This might be a question for the attorney. So both of you listen up. This application is kind of dependent on it being annexed by the property next door, more or less. What happens if that property next door doesn't get annexed? Say they go bankrupt or something like that. Did this application go away or does it continue? Because at one point it was contiguous. Chairman?

Yeah, maybe we look at the conditions and if I might, staff, if you have any image of the two properties, I think that'd be helpful.

Mr. Chair, this is a little outdated picture. The Grace Bible Church just went to council and was approved for annexation.

I got a couple questions for Candace. One, I think you said that it was dependent on Zero Iowa. Is that a typo? Should that be Zero Lake Lowell? Oh, is it? Like Iowa's like quite a way south of Lake Lowell, so that's why I thought maybe it was this typo. The other thing I had was the fire department's requesting a change in their turnaround. If they have to enlarge that and some of those other parcels around that get below the one acre, Can they just ask for that exception when they go to city council? Or do they have to come back to us if there's other lots? Because if we approve it with those few exceptions that they asked for tonight, anything else has to have an exemption. Can they just handle that city council? Yes.

Mr. Chair and commissioners so by by our code any exception has to be approved by City Council so it it's not just your decision it must go on to City Council for their decision.

If there's another exception that has to be done for another lot or two, do they have to come back to us or can they just handle that at City Council?

Yeah, good question, Mr. Chair and Commissioner Turner. We have to advertise what exceptions they are requesting, and so it would have to go back through the process in order to work.

Sure. Sorry to make you come back up. Do you or the planning department have any thoughts on the exceptions? Are you okay with them?

Chairman and Commissioner Morgan, we don't have an issue with it. It is an ask. They can ask for that exception, but ultimately, It is up to the council to have final say.

Who was it up to? The city council. City council. Sorry.

So one of the minimum lot size ones, they weren't very far under one acre, were they?

Mr. Chairman and Commissioner, no, the two lots are 0.8 acres, so they're just under the one acre, so not far off.

And then the lot width one, that one seemed like it got pretty narrow, did it?

Yes, it did, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. That 20-foot Idaho power easement kind of made it, so the width, the lot depth is 150 feet.

And it seemed like they flashed up. And maybe I can ask the applicant this. Flashed up what might have been an earlier version where that was all one lot at the bottom. That might not be, that was in her presentation. It might not be in yours. I'll ask her when she comes back up. But you don't have any concerns?

No concerns from where I'm standing.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Questions?

Hey, Madam Clerk, do we have a sign-up sheet?

I don't have anyone signed up.

Okay. Is there anyone that would like to speak? Go ahead and come on up and name and address for the record and tell us what you think.

Good evening, my name is Jill Hallows, 603 West Crimson Loop, Nampa. Cheryl Higley couldn't be here tonight. She and I have been discussing this project and she sent me an email with some concerns, so I'll read that first and then tell you what my concerns are. She says, I have mixed feelings about this application. It is for very low density land use and zoning of RA, which is what is appropriate and what I would like to see for this area. However, it does seem like sprawl to develop in the undeveloped area on the west side of Midway when there is still so much land on the east side and within the city limits that is available for development. One of my concerns is at City Council, I've recently learned that our city is about $600 million in the hole as far as deferred maintenance. I'm concerned about what the cost will be to the city for adding or annexing and and taking utilities out to this project. I'm concerned about the deferred maintenance that eventually it will bring. I'm concerned about the traffic that was discussed for the Grace Bible Church. At that public hearing, people were very concerned about the amount of traffic in that area, and this will only add to it. Continuing with Cheryl's concern, she says, I did not see an inquiry email. It says, the main thing I want to know is has the county been notified of this application since this is outside of the Nampa impact area? I did not see an inquiry email to them or their response in the agenda packet. If not, what role, if any, does the county play in cases like these where it goes outside the impact area? Another concern that I have is as we keep, I went to the water summit meeting for the Treasure Valley and there are serious water concerns and as we keep adding developments and adding green space to these developments. We are putting ourselves in jeopardy of overusing our water, and I just think it's time to kind of pull in our reins on developing, particularly outside of the impact area. I'm concerned about cost, infrastructure, all those things, so if you'll take that into consideration as you determine how to move forward, I would really appreciate it and so would Cheryl. Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak for, against, or undecided on this item? Okay, seeing no one. Ms. Isegiri, you'd like to come back up? Questions for us, please?

Okay, so we can go back to that one that shows the exceptions, the slide that shows the exceptions. While she's doing that, I'll address the fire comment. So there is room to put, you can see it when she pulls it up, but there is room to put a fire turnaround where the fire department has requested one. So we won't be requesting an additional exception. We can just put it in the easement around the area there. Yeah, so it's not gonna hurt anything. We just left it just in case there were more comments. We don't wanna make more changes to the plot. But it is, we can accommodate that for sure very easily. And then as far as the water that the neighborhood brought up, this development's planning to hook up to city services. So the city has told us that there's adequate services that can be supplied to the development. So I think we're good there. And then as far as the traffic goes, we're proposing 25 lots and that's pretty low in the scheme of things and we're meeting code and we weren't required to do a TIS on this piece of property just because the lot count was so low. We are also improving our half section of roads, so we're adding a lot to the city. We're adding sidewalk, 10 foot sidewalk too, which will be a nice addition as development moves out and kind of connect to that Lake Will Park, which would be kind of cool. So here's the exception request. So we are proposing exceptions here. The reason, I mean, I've worked on the design on this thing a thousand times. I've tried to rework it to meet those law of frontage requirements. and then meet the one acre. But man, that Idaho power easement is tough to design around. And so it is kind of what it is. And if we were to combine the two lots, the blue lot down at the bottom, it just looks really weird when you have a massive parcel. It just doesn't fit with the rest of the development. So that's kind of why we wanted to split that in half, because it just adds the cohesiveness of it all. And then as far as that red one kind of to the north there, that's kind of bordering the power easement, there again, that would be a massive lot if we were just to combine the lots. So that's kind of why we're doing that. And then same with the one to the south there. There's just, that easement's kind of, tough um so that's that's what i got for you guys any questions yes on the pickleball lot what's the size of that area that area

That's your main and only amenity is the pickleball court, right?

Yeah, so that area is 2.69 acres.

2.69 acres?

Yes, that is correct.

The board courts aren't that big.

Oh, just the court itself? Is that what you're wanting to know?

The area for it. So you've got two acres of area set aside for pickleball and anything else?

We have, we're proposing a gazebo there as well, a 10-foot by 12-foot gazebo in that two-acre area. Yep.

12-foot on each corner or side? Square.

Yeah, just a square, you know, like your standard gazebo thing.

What's driving my question is what do you do, what would you do if pickleball was a flash in the pan and everybody says, no, we don't want that, get rid of it? but do you have a backup plan for something like that?

Or is it just like? If that is the will, you know, there are like sports courts.

Do you have any plans for something like that if it happens? I mean, you have other subdivisions. We're talking about this one tonight, but you have other subdivisions. It's possible that your amenity is no longer a fired amenity.

You know, it's tough because in other projects that I've had, a lot of residents love it. And then there again, some don't care for it. It just really depends. I had a project in Meridian that was, they were very excited to have a pickleball court.

I guess there's no set answer for it.

Yeah, if it's the will of Planning and Zoning and City Council, we can definitely change the amenity to something else. That's up to you guys for sure.

I think if it goes away, the HOA will change it to bocce ball or handball. She'll no longer be involved, so shoot.

Yeah, that's all right. It's a tough question to answer, so. If that point comes, so.

Questions? Okay, thank you. Appreciate it.

Move to close the public hearing.

Then moved by Commissioner Morgan, seconded by Kehoe to close the public hearing. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The testimony is closed. What are our thoughts? I guess I have a couple questions for Daniel. Come on up. Um, I'm pretty sure you can answer both of these. Um, I'm confident you can. Um, so the first question, what role does the County play in decisions or comments or things like that when it's outside city impact area?

Rodney, I lied.

I was confident.

So, um, the the state code actually says specifically in it that impact areas are not to be used for growth restricting growth right so an impact area is a coordination boundary it's where we must contact the county and and have coordination with them however this since this is outside of the the boundary we still contact the county and um essentially it's going from their authority or their jurisdiction to our jurisdiction And frankly, I've just never seen a county respond and give comments on things like this because they don't really care if it goes into the city or not, if they're meeting our standards and meeting the state standards for annexation. This is a permitted annexation. Even if it isn't in the impact area, the county is welcome to give comments, but they just don't. THANK YOU.

THEN THE NEXT ONE, PROBABLY DANIEL. GUESSING AGAIN. TALK ABOUT WATER AND THE CAPACITY THE CITY HAS AND WHAT FUTURE PROBLEMS WE COULD HAVE.

So the city's domestic water system has plenty of capacity to handle this proposed development. Each time we receive a development application, we run a water model. So we have our domestic system model and our pressure irrigation model. system model that we we run those to verify that the existing system has adequate capacity to serve The development or if there are improvements that are necessary to the system to serve that we in addition to just the physical water system side of things, we also proactively work on what's called a RAFN, or a reasonable anticipated future needs water rights that preserve what we will need into the future, our ability to obtain water rights for those. And so we're actively participating in the groups that are being discussed and how to proactively Maintain the the water infrastructure here in the city as well as the the aquifer and the ability to serve You know the water needs of the valley So so we are actively part of those conversations for this specific development. The city has adequate within our existing Rights and within our existing Network and system to handle this development Thank you

I know you're not a water professional, but those discussions and meetings you have, have you heard anybody who is a hydrologist, is that guy that's the water guru that sees serious long-term issues with our aquifers in Nampa, in Canyon County? Because I've heard a lot of people talking about we're getting to the point where our aquifers are going to dry up if we don't stop.

Yeah. So I I'm not the one directly attending those meetings anymore. And so for the last couple of years, that's been our director of water. So John Spencer currently in my discussions with him, um, there has not been concerns raised that would make me think that we're at an eminent cliff.

Yeah.

Thank you. Yes.

Um, Daniel, you could probably answer these questions. Um, Can you talk to how much it costs the city to have this development come in? What does the city pay for in order to provide this development?

so the all of the development costs are paid by the developer and so they will put in brand new infrastructure the water sewer lines all of those type of things the roadways that will go in will be brand new and so there's no cost to the city other than future maintenance and the infrastructure that they're putting in now obviously is going to last for on the water side of things you know we the current pipes are typically if they're installed properly we're talking you know 75 to 100 or more years before we would be looking at a replacement of those and so growth when it comes in we those those new ratepayers there's very little demand on the maintenance side of things and so that helps spread the cost for the needs within the core of the city that have more needs for immediate O&M operation and maintenance on the lines that we have more core to the city.

So the city is not paying for these people to come in and these people are helping to pay for the costs that we already have?

Correct.

Thank you.

So thoughts on this? I think it's great. I mean, it's what everybody asks for it. Almost every hearing we have as far as, Hey, you're on the, you know, the outside of the city. We don't want to see a subdivision. We don't want to see apartments that belongs in the core of the city or closer to the freeway or closer to a downtown corridor acre plus lots. I mean, it's literally what everybody asks for. Especially out there by the lake. I like it. I think it's a good project, and it's going to fit well in the area. My thoughts.

And just to hammer that home, if we don't do it, if we don't choose to bring them into the city, they'll just develop it in the county, and they'll still drive on our roads and not help pay for it. And then they'll punch 25 wells because they won't have our services. Mr. Chair, I recommend we approval of the project as stated on the screen with recommended conditions.

Second.

And moved by Morgan, seconded by Garner to approve this item. Let's get a roll call.

Garner.

Aye.

Miller.

Aye.

Staffer. Turner?

Aye.

Kehoe?

Aye.

Morgan?

Yes.

Kirkman? Copeland? Aye. Beane?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Thank you. Okay, we will move on to item 3-2, subdivision short plat approval for 805 subdivision. in an IP zoning district addressed as 805 Park Center Way for Frank Frederick. Is the applicant here?

Good evening, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. My name is Jared Walgren. I'm with JGT Architecture, 3137 South Meridian Road, Suite 110 in Meridian. representing the applicant for this proposed plat at 805 Park Center Way. This is a 2.9 acre parcel that about five or six years ago was developed with a 30,000 square foot office warehouse building and improved parking lot. As you can see from the image on the screen, a good portion of that lot was left undeveloped. We have a simple request tonight that is we're just going to convert that undeveloped portion into its own lot just for future flexibility. We've done some preliminary planning where we can fit 8,000 to 10,000 square foot building with parking and some yard space behind. No immediate plans to do that, but the owner would just like to have the flexibility to do so. I'll be short. That's as simple as that. We've reviewed the staff report and agree with all the conditions, and I'd be glad to stand for any questions.

Okay, doesn't look like we have any now. We'll call you back up. Appreciate it. Thank you. Miss Friend, you're up.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Terri Friend, Associate Planner for the City of Nampa's Planning and Zoning Department. The requested action item for today is approval of a short plat for the property at 805 Park Center, which is in an industrial park zoning district. When the application went through, it was mismarked as IL, so that's why you see the correction there on the screen. The applicant is property owner Frank Friedrich, who proposes to keep the existing industrial building and parking and create a separate 0.84 acre parcel out of that undeveloped portion for a future industrial building. The property is, future land use map is industrial, is currently zoned industrial park. Surrounding in this area to the north is an industrial park area that currently has a US Postal Service facility. To the south is local businesses in the BC zoning district. Those are up against Caldwell Boulevard, just to kind of get you acclimated there. To the east is light industrial that is Union Pacific property and to the west is BC community business zoning that is Bethesda Christian Church this area of the city went through a subdivision process in 1911. That was the Arbonne subdivision. It actually divided this area into three really large parcels. Over time, it's been subdivided and property boundary adjustment or whatever. So that's why we're here tonight for just two parcels with a short plat is just a lot of things have happened with splitting the land that was originally that Arbonne subdivision. In 1991, this area was annexed and zoned to the industrial park. And then in 2021, they got certificate of occupancy for that existing industrial building. The existing property is 2.95 acres. This short plat is gonna create two parcels dividing off that undeveloped land onto its own parcel and the existing building and parking will remain on the balance of property. The short plat is exempt from open space requirements. The IP zone does not have minimum lot dimensions so the plat is compliant in regards to lot area width and depth. the landscaping and parking will be reviewed at the time of building permitting when that new parcel is proposed for development and so based on the analysis of the plat staff finds that the plat complies with all the applicable city codes and development policies and standards if it complies with the conditions of approval that have been listed For correspondence for this application, we didn't receive any public comment. Engineering did do an evaluation of the plat and they recommended a couple of conditions of approval. They also noted that when the original plat was done, there wasn't an easement for the hydrant lateral that extends from the street to the inside of the parking lot. So they need to establish that easement now was part of the comments. And then here are the recommended conditions of approval. These are also listed in your staff report. It does mention that easement requirement. The rest of them are pretty standard conditions. And here are your potential motions.

Madam Clerk, do we have a sign up sheet?

I don't have anyone signed up for this one either.

Is there anyone present that would like to speak for, against, or undecided on this item? Do you have anything you'd like to add? No? Okay.

Move while you're at it. I move we close the public hearing. Second.

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

Aye. CHAIRMAN BRYANT TILLERY.

Aye. CHAIRMAN BRYANT TILLERY. Okay. Public hearing is closed. Thoughts? It is industrial space, and it's going to add a lot, so more industrial space. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT TILLERY. Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN BRYANT TILLERY. Yes.

CHAIRMAN BRYANT TILLERY. I move to recommend approval of the project as stated on the screen. CHAIRMAN BRYANT TILLERY.

Second.

CHAIRMAN BRYANT TILLERY.

It's been moved by Garner, seconded by Morgan. to approve the item. Uh, get a roll call, please.

Garner.

All right.

Miller. Dapper. Turner Kehoe. Morgan Kirkman. Copeland theme. Motion passes.

Thank you. Yes.

Second.

It's been moved by Copeland, seconded by Morgan to adjourn the meeting. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Meeting is adjourned.

Sweet and to the point, folks.

Deserve high fives on the way out.