So 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 that.

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.

Chaffer?

Here.

Turner.

Here.

Keyhoe?

Here.

Morgan?

Here.

Kirkman.

Cokeman.

Copeland?

Here.

Feam.

Here.

Seven.

Presence.

Staff communications.

Christy, you can take care of that tonight.

So thank you, Mr.

Chairman and Commissioners.

So we don't really have anything to report on from that perspective.

You all, most of you attended the comp plan workshop yesterday morning.

Any questions about that?

Is there anything that was brought up 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.

So that's all.

Is uh for those who weren't in attendance, are they gonna get the email about the homework?

I'm not sure.

But um there was homework certainly could everybody got to email 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, 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 to ten days?

We're supposed to get that to Rodney.

So anyway.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

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

Then move by Morgan, second by Turner to adopt the consent agenda.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed.

Okay.

Um for everybody that's here.

Uh the way this works is we will have the applicant come up.

Uh they will get time to tell us what they want to do, uh, give us their presentation, and we'll turn the time over to staff, let them uh tell us about their findings, and then we will open it up for uh public testimony.

Um when we 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 RS22 zoning district, the potential developed development agreement and subdivision preliminary plat approval for Iseridge Estates, subdivision addressed as 8230 and 8054 Eust Road for Robert Lightfelt.

Okay, good one, come on up.

Appreciate everybody's time.

Um here if I make any mistakes.

So what just your address real quick?

Oh, I live at 8230 USTIC.

Okay, and I own 8054 U stick also.

Okay.

So the project is those two properties being annexed in and then subdivided.

They're what I'm changing it into, it already falls into the comprehensive plan.

So there's no rezoning technically that 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 year guys' are the city's comprehensive plan, infill projects are you know basically wanting to be promoted because it's not a waste of property under underutilized property, I guess you guys view it as.

So this would fall all into those uh categories.

Here's what the uh 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.

Um so to my east, it stays, and my south is very similar type of housing, larger properties, larger houses.

So I'm keeping it in line with what was already there, and also offering something different and not packing a bunch of houses in, apartments, um that what's around me and giving this 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, uh shows the surrounding the lot lines and the roadway layouts.

Okay, I'll call you back up.

Appreciate it.

All right, thank you.

I am um 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 RS22, and as you may know, um, the 22 stands for a minimum lot size of 22,000 square feet.

And for the preliminary plat for Isaridge estates at 8230 and 8080 54 Eustach Road.

So the property is in the low density residential zone, so the RS22, or sorry, the low density residential designation, RS22 is a permitted zone within that designation.

Due to the number 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 Usteck.

Um they're proposing a rural two-lane private roadway into the development from Eust.

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 0.03 additional officers and 0.01 additional support staff.

The fire department has stated that this is approximately 1.7 miles from fire station number four with an approximate risk response time of four minutes, and they would need an increased personnel demand of 0.03 firefighter positions with this increase in population.

And then the engineering department commented on um 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 4,003 560 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 that.

Um 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 area of annexation.

And it shall be uh shall meet the MOU with the 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 for zoning the applicable criteria.

This project zone 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.

Christy I know this question for you or for Daniel, but I'll ask it and you can decide.

Okay.

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

Um, Commissioner Kehoe, I will let yes, it will.

They're not nodding, but I will let Daniel address your roadway questions.

Um Mr.

Chair, Commissioner Keho.

What they are proposing is really a common driveway to serve these nine lots.

Um so it it will have a street name, um, it will be owned and maintained by the development with an easement over that.

They are not proposing a separate lot uh for that if I remember correctly, and so but it would not be city maintenance, it's not proposed to be uh standard city width for a street.

Um it's more of a common driveway with a turnaround at the end.

Okay, that's sort of my question was what happens in ten years from now.

The road or driveway is deteriorated to the point where it's got potholes and damages in people's cars, but it just like tough up 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 two city 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 over.

Thank you.

No clerk, do we have a sign-up sheet?

We have three signed up to speak.

Okay.

Scott Fackerel.

Very good.

Scott Fackerel, uh residing at 8294 East Timberlake Street, which is just adjacent to this proposal.

Um, I guess because of my ignorance of living in city or congested areas.

Uh 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, okay.

Okay, so that one's out.

Uh, the only other thing I didn't do any studying and wondering about the fencing on the canal of uh Grove Branch lateral.

Uh 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 gonna be protected from a few more residents, which might not make a difference compared to what we have on in the other subdivision.

So not necessarily for or against, just add a few quick.

Thank you.

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.

I think it's a great use of the land if it's gonna be turned into any residential.

I'd rather it be large lots with nicer homes than another track.

Um it just preserves the look of I think of that area.

Um for me, I've lived here forever.

So the farmland is leaving and the bigger lots are you know pulled to me.

So thank you.

Thank you.

I don't have any other speakers sign up.

Okay.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak?

Go ahead and come on out.

Good afternoon, Chair.

Uh Commission, thank you guys for uh hearing us today.

Um my residence 2933 East Snake River Drive.

I live on the other side of town.

Uh as a lot of you guys know, Ewstick Road is being improved right now.

Um 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 Bozier, B-O-S-I-E-R.

Thank you.

Uh but when you look at this uh particular parcel here, you know, 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.

Um the two front parcels will enter off of the private lane.

Uh obviously with uh the HOA and stuff, uh a road maintenance agreement will go into place with that within the CCRs.

Um it's can uh you know it mirrors the the projects to the east of it.

Um I just basically here in support.

I think it'll be a good project.

Um I think Robert's done a very good job uh with the design on this, and um should should be an improvement to the city.

So thank you.

Thank you, appreciate it.

Anyone else that would like to speak or against or undecided?

Okay, Mr.

Lightfelt, would you like to come back up?

Anything you'd like to add?

We have any questions for the fencing.

I just like to address the gentleman's question about the fencing.

Obviously, I know about the traffic, you know, and the housing and people.

Um 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 lots, but there was no plan for a walk path out the center to I believe part of my uh Robert.

Can you just speak into the mic and direct your comments to us instead of him if you could?

Thank you.

Uh so on that fence line across the canal based on some of the design theories that we want in the housing track.

Um consist of privacy fencing anyways, because we don't want the same thing access, uh just people wandering off the the canal into the development anyways.

So some of that would be addressed anyways with that, whether it's privacy fencing or three rail fencing or some sort of divider.

Okay.

All right.

Any other questions?

No.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, thanks.

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 hearings closed.

Oh, okay.

So somebody coming in and trying to cram as many parcels as I can in the whole area.

I like his idea.

I agree.

I think it's a it's a win-win for everybody.

Um with their understanding that the road is gonna be their responsibility sometime in the future.

Um very comfortable with everything.

Go for it, Mr.

Morgan.

I thought you were going to read a motion.

No, you're better at it.

I moved a recommended approval for the project to state it on the screen with recommended conditions of approval and the proposed findings.

Second.

Second it.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded.

Two D roll call.

Yes.

Daffer?

Yes.

Turner?

Yep.

Keyhoe.

Aye.

Morgan?

Yes.

Kirkman.

Copeland?

Yes.

Bean.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Quick and easy.

I I make a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Hey.

Wow.

Oh, I didn't have that journey.

I think that's the supplied proposal.