Okay.

I have six o'clock.

Welcome everyone to the NAMPA Planning and Zoning Commission meeting September 23rd, 2025.

Who wants it?

Council action.

Actually.

We need roll call first.

Rodney knows.

Rodney does.

Okay, man.

Garner.

Miller.

Here.

Dapper.

Turner.

Morgan.

Here.

Kirkman.

Here.

Thelman.

Here, Copeland.

Thank you.

Rodney.

I think Mr.

Chair and Commissioners.

Uh just have one public hearing to report on.

And actually it got continued.

So this was the Lakeview subdivision out off of uh Midway and Iowa.

This is the one where they got denied and then uh asked to re-look at the densities and creating a buckler, and then they did.

Uh came back and presented that to you.

You had recommended approval.

Um and city council considered everything, and essentially they had high votes going both ways.

Uh the mayor wasn't there at the meeting, and so it couldn't really move forward, and so they uh requested it to be continued.

And so that one um will be uh it was continued until the third of November, but the applicant stated the next day that uh they couldn't make that date, and so we're gonna ask for a continuation to the 17th of November as well.

So I'll report back after that's all done.

That's it.

Thank you.

I move a reproductive consent agenda.

Second.

Then move by Dapper's second by Selman to approve the consent agenda.

All is in favor.

Any opposed.

Okay.

Um first item on the agenda, annexation and zoning to RS 8.5 potential development agreement to connect cities tour services at 1224 East Iowa.

That's the applicant.

Jerry Lyle.

Okay.

What should we do?

We don't need response.

No, we yeah, I just put them last.

Yeah, you could just you could just defer it to the end of the meeting.

Um, see if they show up.

Okay, that's good.

Chairman, if you'd like that motion, you could um you get a control to order of docket.

So if you're fine with it, that'd be enough.

You want to have no here.

I think I'm long-winded, so you talk almost time for everything.

You're up.

I think we're good at that.

It depends.

That's okay.

You're here.

Yeah, so just give us your name and address for the record and then tell us what you're going to do.

Okay.

Uh, so Jerry Lyle, one two two four East Iowa Avenue, Nampa 3686.

Um, so I'm the owner of the property.

Um that uh I'm applying the NX into the city.

Um it's kind of as you can see, it's um we're kind of this little small portion that's completely encompassed by the city, but there's this little area that's uh still in the county.

Um primary reason is uh I'm on private well and septic right now.

Um the septic system is original with the home.

Um currently I'm not having any issues with it.

Um this is more of a preempted preemptive request.

Um groundwater is fairly high in this area.

Um I know my neighbor to the west has has some issues with uh with groundwater backing up in there.

Um I also just within the past month had to replace the pump in my well.

Um so there's no city water in the immediate vicinity sewers uh through the back of my lot there.

Um but I just like the idea of being in there in case something something pump comes up.

So um to me it makes sense it's this small area that's not in the city.

I mean, I'm right next door to town homes, which is not ideal, but um it is what it is.

So um yeah, that's that's what I'm asking.

Uh I'll stand for any questions that you guys have.

Okay, we'll call you back up.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Damien, you're up.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman and Commissioners.

Your magnetic personality.

Hello.

All right.

All right.

The requested action item for tonight is a pretty straightforward one.

It's annexation and zoning to RS 8.5, uh single family residential.

And the concept is to hook into city services for this single lot.

Property details, uh, it's currently within the county.

It is contiguous to the north through the RML town homes, and a pre-application meeting was held on the lot to split the one lot into two lots, but this application has nothing pertaining to that.

And the comprehensive plan, it is designated as medium density residential, and the RS8.5 fits within that designation.

There are available services kind of outside the area with the sewer line along the north of that lot.

Engineering provided some general comments around the access roads where the city currently maintains utilities in the area, and some conditions, and those will be in the recommended conditions of approval.

We did receive one public comment.

Um this comment was a variety of questions regarding the application with state code, city code.

Um staff responded to this comment.

This application meets state code as well as meets city code.

Um this is a simple request for city hookups for utilities, so most of these were not relevant to the application.

Here are the findings.

So the first is that all private landowners have consented.

Staff's found this to be met.

Um we have an affidavit that the property shall be contiguous to the city limits or be enclave by other properties, so annexed.

The property is contiguous to the north.

The comprehensive, the Nampa comprehensive plan includes the area of annexation.

This falls under the medium density residential.

So staff found this to be met.

And when applicable, annexation of all roadways, all portions of highways lying partially or wholly to be annexed.

Um annexation of roadways are under the memorandum of understanding.

So staff has found this to be met.

And the here are the applicable regulations for zoning that the proposed map amendments would be in harmony with the city's currently adopted comprehensive plan.

That the proposed map amendments provide a user set of uses that would be reason least reasonably compatible with the existing adjoining property uses, and that the proposed zoning map amendments is in the interest of the public and reasonably necessary.

Here are the relevant facts.

The RS zoning district single family falls under for medium and low density residential, which this is in line with uh the comprehensive plan defines this as compatible with the visual relationship to the near vicinity, no development will be happening.

There are city services readily available to the property or within the near vicinity, and the current property is currently an enclave, so we would want to see these annexes.

So in conclusion, staff found that these criteria were met for zoning for the requested zoning.

Here are the recommended conditions of approval that the applicant owner shall comply with all city codes policies and standards in place at time of property development or redevelopment, and the applicant owner shall pay standard utility connection and impact fees prior to connecting to city utilities and shall obtain a right-away permit from the Nampa Engineering Division and plumbing permit from the Nampa Building Department prior to performing the service tap and connection to the home.

Here are your potential motions, and I will stand for any questions.

So that's why we don't have the typical have to get so much of an easement.

Or dedicate the right-of-way.

Correct.

How does that happen?

Like let's say this whole area eventually wants to get redeveloped, but when does that right of way get dedicated?

So the in this situation, the so in this situation, um the I the thought for Iowa Avenue is not that it connect Iowa to Iowa on either side of the Elijah drain there.

Um it would actually we would be looking to connect Hawaii, um which it would be along the north line of this property to Iowa on the south line, and so there would be some type of jog through there between in probably within those first two properties, this property and the adjacent property.

However, in this situation where it's not just an existing road there that's coming in, and we don't have an alignment there, that would be something when the time comes, we would be looking at doing a negotiation and purchase of the right of way that is needed through this property rather than doing a dedication at this time.

Any other questions?

Oh, no, I forgot that on this.

We can live without it.

Yeah, you can move to approve as stated on the screen right now.

Okay, so we'll go ahead and open public testimony.

Uh, is there anybody signed up for this item?

Yeah, we have Mark Pridgin.

Yep, go ahead and come on up.

So go ahead and give us your name and address for the record, and then you've got three minutes.

My name's Mark Pridgin, 1223 East Iowa Avenue, Nampa, Idaho.

I live across the street from this property.

I own the property on the eastern boundary of Mr.

Lyle's place and on the western boundary on the at least.

Um we've had conversations with city planner, engineering, county, JD, Mr.

Lyell.

And um you have no opposition to this.

So I don't know if I can be neutral, but uh it could be neutral, but no opposition to it, and um that's it.

Thank you.

Anybody else?

anybody else in the crowd that would like to speak for or against or undecided on this item?

Name and address for the record, and you've got three minutes.

Lindsay Beacham 1209 East Iowa Avenue.

I'm on the map.

I'm due west on the little triangle piece that's right up along the stream there on the just to the south of the road.

So yeah, right there.

Um so uh I second, Mr.

Pridgin.

Um really the road and uh if there was any damage to the road, I couldn't find anything in any city ordinances that stated that it would be repaired.

Um that was about it.

So I'd neutral as well.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for your time.

Appreciate it.

Anyone else?

Okay, Mr.

Lyle, is there anything you'd like to add?

Say no.

Okay, public hearing.

Second.

Then moved by Commissioner Keyhoe, second by Selman to close public hearing.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any public hearing is closed.

Mr.

Chair, I got a quick question.

Uh, just on that road, could you go back to the map?

River's customer.

Our hour.

That that little road, that's a private road, correct?

So there is a yes, it's a private access drive.

It's named because there's addresses off of it.

It's but it's just a gravel.

So this particular application does not have any ownership of that private road.

I guess the the end of the question would be if this is approved, would that include a portion of that private road?

No, we would just be annexing the property that's been requested.

We would not be annexing any of the private access drive.

Yeah.

Sounds like he wants to pay us taxes and not use any of our services, so we probably ought to let him.

Well said.

I'll make a motion.

Um move to a recommended approval of the anxiety zoning as stated on screen.

Second.

Motion by Dapfer.

Second by me.

Yeah.

We need to do a roll call though.

Miller.

Yes.

Dapper.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, still here.

Morgan.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Copeland.

Yes.

Yep.

Just new.

Motion carry.

Motion carry.

What are we saying?

I don't know.

I was waiting.

If you say that, if I say that, it's new, so she can say.

Okay.

So just uh Mr.

Chair, just clarification.

Is that how from now on it's gonna be roll call for every decision?

Okay.

I'm I mean I'm good with that.

It's really up to you on a recommendation vote.

Um it's just that a recommendation it's not binding.

Want to do a roll call for um sermon for city council as required by roll call.

Um, but here it'd be up to you.

What do you think is of this?

So like we had a conversation before the meeting, and it's CUPs, yes, because we're approving them, not recommending them, but if we just get an ad to do it that way all the time, it's probably simpler and easier.

Yeah, as chairman, uh you gotta control the mode, the manner um of some of those kind of parliamentary stuff.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, we'll move into item 3-2, annexation and zoning to RSA point five and potential development agreement at 7736 Birch Lane for Joshua and Michelle Ruman.

Applicant here?

Okay, go ahead and come on up.

Tell us what you want to do.

Uh Josh Ruman, 7734 Birch Lane.

My wife and I own 7734 and 7736 Birch Lane, which used to be one parcel.

7734 is in the city while 7736 is in the county.

We purchased both lots together in December 2021.

Unbeknownst to us, we have come to find out that 7736 was improperly zoned in 1986-87, although a house sat there for 30 years and taxes were fully paid.

Canyon County is now stating that we are in non-compliance and they will involve the Kenyon County prosecuting attorney in effort to gain compliance if we do not annex into the city.

Options are limited then.

So that's your request.

Pretty straightforward.

We request annexation of 7736 to be a part of NAMSA.

Straightforward.

Okay, we'll call you back up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman and Commission.

Um, my name is Christy Watkins.

I'm the principal planner for the city of Nampada.

The action requested from you this evening as stated by the applicant is for annexation and zoning to RS 8.54736 Birch Lane.

The property is in the medium density residential designation on the future land use map.

It is currently enclaved, completely surrounded by RS6 zoning.

To the north is Franklin Village, to the south is Sunset Oaks Park, to the east and west is also Franklin Village.

And there are city services available in Birch Lane, although I don't know that they necessarily have any intent of running services back to this lot because that's not what they're using it for.

It is in the public interest to annex these types of properties for the reasons stated, so that we don't have properties that are under the jurisdiction of the county, completely surrounded by properties that are in the city and then also owned by said resident.

This is the correspondence that was received, so the engineering division was the only person that we heard from.

They gave their standard list of general comments and conditions.

And for findings, there are four findings that you need to uh determine for criteria that you need to determine for annexation.

The landowners have consented to this annexation.

The property is contiguous to the city limits.

The comprehensive plan includes this area within its area of annexation, and the property does not have any roadway frontage, but the parcel it is adjacent to is subject to the City of Napa right-of-way regulations and the MLU with the highway district.

For zoning, there are three criteria that need to be used to determine the zone itself.

The proposed annexation along with the conditions of approval and the proposed map amendment are in harmony with the city's currently adopted comprehensive plan and map because it falls within the medium density residential designation on the future land use map.

And the RS zoning district is appropriate for this designation.

It is an infill project.

It is consistent with the plan narrative and the goals in the comprehensive plan.

It could provide uses that would be reasonably compatible with the existing adjoining property uses if they ever choose to build or develop it further.

It is in the public interest and reasonably necessary because it allows for efficient use of this existing property and it has city services and utilities available to it again, just in case they ever wanted to do anything.

These are the recommended conditions of approval.

There aren't very many.

And these are your potential motions.

I'll stand for any questions.

What is the city going to do with all this extra money?

Mr.

Sherry?

Out of curiosity, are we going to see the rest of these parcels here soon?

Or is this because our city owner owns the county property or so uh Commissioner Daffer, it's by property, so if these applicants come in, they certainly would have the option to annex into the city.

Um this is all medium density residential in this area, so they would all be zoned in this RS designation.

I think along Birch Lane, there are actually some businesses.

Um, and so that might be pose a little bit of a problem.

Um we'll have to work through that when they come in and ask that question.

7694, which is immediately to the east of this property, uh, has already requested annexation, and you guys have heard that and it has been approved.

We're just waiting for that ordinance to be recorded, so the big square right next to it on the east will shortly be RS6 as well.

They do a lot of crazy things like this in the 80s, didn't they?

Chair.

Yeah, a couple questions.

Um why not RS6 like everything else around it?

Um Commissioner Morgan, I believe because it's the lot size is as big as it is, that was the largest RS zone that we could get them into in the medium density residential so that they didn't have to at some point in the future split the property to be able to do something on it.

The way we work now, we have a minimum and a maximum lot size.

And if they're outside of that maximum lot size, they can't build anything.

They can't even put an accessory structure on it.

So we needed to fit them into the correct zoning to fit within those minimums and maximums.

So you said the one just to the east is coming in as RS6?

Yes, and they um actually have a property boundary adjustment they're doing.

And what's the current use there?

Just the satellite pictures looks like it's commercial on the on this property or the one.

Um I think it's just their personal storage.

Oh, okay.

But now they can build a house on that back ease if they wanted to.

Well, they could potentially if they wanted to get services back there.

That's an RS 8.5.

Maximum is too small for that.

All right, I'm with you.

Thanks.

Okay, questions.

Okay.

Do we have anyone signed up?

Anybody in the audience that would like to speak for or against or decided on this.

Okay.

I make a motion with close public hearing.

And moved by someone seconded by Keyhoe to close public hearing.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed.

Public hearings closed.

Again, pretty straightforward.

Pretty easy.

Interesting to see what the county would do if we said no.

I don't know.

Okay.

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

Second.

It's been moved by Daffer, second by Kirkman.

Adam Klerk, O'Call.

Uh Miller.

Yes.

Turner.

Yes.

Keyho.

Yes.

Morgan.

Yes.

Salman.

Yes.

Copeland.

Yes.

Kirkman.

I got you.

Kirkman?

Hi.

Yes.

Motion carry.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay, we'll move on to action item number three, conditional use permit for unlisted land use.

The BC zoning district at zero North Midland Boulevard.

Rashawn Steele.

Applicant here.

Hey, come on up.

Give us your name and address and tell us what you want to do.

Should I give my personal address or the address of the I am here representing my brother?

He was pretty tore up.

He couldn't be here.

I called him yesterday.

He was at the Statue of Liberty.

He's on his 15th year wedding anniversary.

And so I came to represent him.

The property is 1407.

This is my brother's address 1407 North Midland Boulevard, Nampa.

He has a trying to get a conditional use permit to build a com two structures.

It would be commercial on the bottom and residential above.

The bottom would be a thousand square feet of commercial.

That's the plan that I bring before you today.

So two of those?

Yeah.

It would just be yep.

Yeah.

Oh, we'll call you back up.

Okay, Candace.

Yeah.

Can you hear me okay on this?

Okay.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman and Commissioners.

My name is Candice Fry, assistant planner for the city of Napa.

The request before you this evening is for a conditional use permit for an unlisted land use for two commercial units on the first floor and two residential units on the second floor.

So for property details, the comprehensive plan designates this area as commercial.

Surrounding zoning to the north and east, it is zone BC or community business, and then to the south and west, it is zoned RA.

As far as public utilities go, water and sewer are already provided to the property, and pressurized irrigation is approximately 250 feet west of the site.

So these are the applicable regulations for a conditional use permit, and I will go more into depth on this in the formal findings.

So applicable regulations, unlisted land uses can be found in code section 10-3-2.

B when a land use is not listed, the schedule is not listed in the schedule of uses, or it is unclear the category to which it applies.

Said use may be established or determined to be appropriate by approval of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 25.

So for correspondence, we did receive comments from the NAPA building and safety department regarding the permitting process and to follow the building code.

And then we did receive comments from the NAMPA engineering department regarding access and then utilities, and then the Namplifier District provided general access and water supply comments.

All of those are more in depth in your staff report.

So the proposed findings, the proposed use is supported by the NAMPA comprehensive plan.

This project supports small-scale commercial uses, which could be directly connected to or within proximity of residential development.

The design construction operation and maintenance of the property and project adversely will not adversely impact the character and appearance of the general vicinity.

This is a mixed use property and is currently vacant.

So this would be an efficient use of the property currently.

The proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services.

Water and sewer is already provided at the property.

The proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment, and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or general welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors.

The proposed use must conform to the regulations in the International Building Code and the NAMPA building department.

So in conclusion, weighing the facts.

And the regulations the proposed use must follow all city codes and standards at the time of development, such as the International Building Code, the regulations from City Code 10-3-2, and all requirements at time of building permit.

Here are the proposed conditions of approval and any conditional comments that the commissioner has.

And then hear your potential motions, and I will stand for any questions.

So on something like this, since we don't look the commercial use is, is that just a staff level decision on it?

Mr.

Chairman, um, when they come in for each individual tenant, they will be required to pull an occupancy permit, and at that time we'll compare it to 10 32 for the uses that are allowed in that zone.

Okay.

So I thank you.

Okay.

No other questions.

We'll open public this morning.

I'm clerk.

Is anybody signed up?

Is there anyone would like to speak for against or decided on this item?

Mr.

Steele, do you have anything you'd like to add?

No.

Okay.

Close the public hearing.

Second.

And move by keyhood.

No DAF or second by keyhouse.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Public hearings closed.

Okay.

Properties not being used.

Yeah, Dale.

Warrants.

Chair.

I'll make a motion to approve the project as stated on the screen with recommended conditions and proposed findings.

Then moved by Kirkman, secondary Dapper.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

I mean, yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I make a motion we adjourn.

Need to read the oh I got it.

Oh we got I got ahead of myself.

All right.

So easy that I just motion.

That motion's on the table.

It's been seconded.

So what do we do with that?

I'll withdraw the motion.

All right.

The CUP will become effective 15 calendar days from the date the written decision and reason statement is provided to the applicant unless an appeal has been filed with the planning and zoning department.

The appropriate fee.

No action should be taken on the CUP until the appeal period has concluded.

The applicant must confirm with the planning and zoning staff that there have been no appeals.

Happy anniversary to your brother.

Now I make a motion we adjourn.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?