OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Nampa Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting - June 23, 2026

Public MeetingsTuesday, June 23, 2026
BodyNampa, Idaho
SessionPublic Meetings
DateTuesday, June 23, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 53:55

Transcript — Verbatim
0:53

Okay, we ready to go?

1:09

Okay, it is six o'clock.

1:11

I would like to start by welcoming everyone to the City of Ampa Planning and Zoning Commission meeting uh June 23rd, 2026.

1:19

Uh can we start with a roll call, please?

1:23

Garner here Miller here, Turner Keyhoe here.

1:32

Morgan here.

1:34

Kirkman, Copeland, Fiend.

1:38

Here.

1:39

Seven present.

1:41

Thank you.

1:43

Mr.

1:44

Ashby.

1:51

Mr.

1:51

Chair and Commissioners Rodney Ashby Planning and Zoning Director for the record.

1:55

Um 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.

2:09

Um we didn't get anything back from City Council, and so we are going to go to them on a on in their regular city council meetings and um just take a couple of topics at a time.

2:21

Uh I think the goal here is to have to the point where City Council understands, knows the the comprehensive plan content and can support it, whether you know whether they agree with everything in the comp plan or not, that they can support the plan.

2:40

And so that's why we're we're doing this to make sure that they they understand that.

2:44

I'm happy to do presentations to this group, but I I think you know it's it's essentially what we've shown you already and what most of you have commented on already.

2:54

So and we thank you for your work.

2:56

Thanks.

2:57

Appreciate it.

2:58

Um so just a report on the city council meeting on June 15th.

3:03

Uh first one was a subdivision final plat approval for Cherry Grove number four number six, excuse me.

3:09

Uh that's northeast of Elm Lane and Franklin Road, and that was for sixty-one single family detached units and seven common lots.

3:17

Um and that you recommended approval and they approved that.

3:21

Uh next one was a subdivision short plat approval for Middlebury Middlebury South, number one.

3:28

And this was for 50 single family uh detached dwelling lots and seven common area lots.

3:35

Um this is um this was recommended for approval by you and approved by city council.

3:44

Uh now the public hearings was uh annexation for Highline Estates uh to RS4 and RS6 and BC community business.

3:55

This was on Franklin Road, um northeast of Linden Road and Madison Road.

4:01

And uh this was for three hundred and fifty-five single family detached dwelling units, thirty-three common area lots, and one commercial lot.

4:10

And um this was continued.

4:13

It's it's been a while since you've heard this.

4:15

This was on January twenty-seventh of this year that you had recommended approval unanimously.

4:23

Um City Council continued that at this last uh the the first hearing that they had um because they wanted to see a little more detail in the public open space um and see w how that open space would be used rather than just be drainage basins and um just open space without any amenities.

4:47

Um they so this went back to them and um with added amenities that they they included it was approved.

4:55

Uh so that was um it was a close vote, it was three yeses and two no's and so uh it did get passed.

5:00

It was three yeses and two no's and so uh it did get passed.

5:03

Um they also gave us some direction to come back with some um some well they they would like to revisit the idea of those drainage basins and whether they should be used as qualified open space.

5:16

I provided the um the language in code and uh haven't heard anything back from them.

5:24

So they that was the direction they gave me, provide us the language, and then we they would respond, and I haven't seen anything.

5:30

So we may be revisiting that in the future.

5:34

And then the the next one was uh NAMPA City Ordnance uh text amendments.

5:40

A lot of these were pretty simple.

5:42

You heard this on uh May 12th and recommended approval unanimously, and um we this one was also approved on a um three to two vote.

5:58

Um I think there was some confusion by one of the uh people in the audience about just some of the language in there, and so um there were a couple of votes against it, but it did pass, and then comprehensive plan text amendment to remove language.

6:15

Oh, I'm I'm sorry, that one was the one I was referring to.

6:19

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 of a planned unit development or master plan community.

6:31

That's the one I think was just a little confusing to the public.

6:34

So um, but that one that one did pass as well.

6:38

Well, I have okay.

6:40

Thank you, Robin.

6:41

Appreciate it.

6:43

Mr.

6:43

Chairman.

6:44

Yes.

6:45

Make a motion to be approve the consent agenda.

6:49

Okay.

6:50

It's been moved by Garner, seconded by Keyhoe to approve the consent agenda.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Land Use Planning█████████████████████████████████████████████71%
Procedural█████████14%
Water And Wastewater Management████7%
Public Engagement██3%
Parks and Recreation██3%
Engineering And Infrastructure2%
Summary of Proceedings

Nampa Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting - June 23, 2026

The City of Nampa Planning and Zoning Commission met on June 23, 2026, at 6:00 PM. The meeting covered updates on recently approved projects, a report on City Council actions, and public hearings on two development applications: Lake Wool Estates (annexation and preliminary plat) and a short plat for 805 Park Center Way. Key discussions included density, water capacity, infrastructure costs, and the role of Canyon County on properties outside the city's impact area. Both applications were approved by the commission.

Report on City Council Meeting (June 15, 2026)

  • Cherry Grove No. 6 Subdivision Final Plat – 61 single-family detached units and 7 common lots at NE of Elm Lane and Franklin Road. Commission recommended approval; Council approved.
  • Middlebury South No. 1 Short Plat – 50 single-family detached lots and 7 common area lots. Commission recommended approval; Council approved.
  • Highline Estates Annexation – 355 single-family detached units, 33 common area lots, and 1 commercial lot on Franklin Road (NE of Linden and Madison Roads). The commission had recommended approval unanimously on January 27, 2026. Council continued the hearing to request more detail on public open space amenities beyond drainage basins. After amendments, Council approved on a 3-2 vote. Council also requested revisiting whether drainage basins should count as qualified open space; staff provided code language but has not received further direction.
  • Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment – Removed language requiring developments of 5+ dwelling units per acre to obtain Planned Unit Development or Master Plan Community approval. Commission recommended approval unanimously on May 12, 2026. Council approved on a 3-2 vote, with some public confusion noted.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Lake Wool Estates – Jill Hallows and Cheryl Higley (not present) expressed mixed feelings: supported the low-density RA zoning appropriate for the area, but raised concerns about suburban sprawl west of Midway Road while land remains available east of the city, the city's estimated $600 million in deferred maintenance, traffic impacts, lack of Canyon County notification since the project is outside the Nampa Area of Impact Boundary, and water overuse given the Treasure Valley's water summit discussions. They urged a slower approach to development outside the impact area.

Discussion Items

Lake Wool Estates – Annexation and Preliminary Plat (Item 3-1)

  • Applicant: Brecon Land Design on behalf of Ronald Lester. Parcel address: 0 Lake Wall Avenue.
  • Proposal: Annex 38.7 acres and zone RA (Suburban Residential) for 25 buildable lots averaging 1.12 acres (min. 1 acre), density 0.62 dwelling units per acre. The property is west of Midway Road, north of Lake Lowell Avenue, near Lake Lowell Park. The site is encumbered by a 120-foot Idaho Power transmission easement.
  • Key Features: A 105-foot landscape buffer along the northern boundary (added after neighbor discussions); open space (6.24 acres; 17% vs. 15% required) with pickleball court, 10x20 ft gazebo, and four-stall parking; 60-ft right-of-way internal streets with 4-ft detached sidewalk; improvements along Lake Lowell Avenue (40-ft ROW, 8-ft parkway, 10-ft detached sidewalk); city utilities confirmed adequate capacity.
  • Exceptions Requested: Lots 16 and 17 (Block 2) – exemption from 1-acre minimum lot size (proposed ~0.8 acres). Lots 9 and 13 (Block 2) – exemption from 150-ft minimum frontage. Staff had no objections.
  • Fire Department Comments: Did not oppose but did not approve the access road as submitted; requested a fire turnaround, which the applicant said can be accommodated within the easement without an additional exception.
  • Commission Questions:
    • Chairman asked whether the project depends on the adjacent Grace Bible Church annexation; staff confirmed the church annexation was approved by Council, providing contiguity.
    • Commissioner asked about water capacity; staff (Daniel) stated the city's domestic water system has adequate capacity, and the city proactively participates in regional water planning (e.g., RAFFIN water rights) with no imminent concerns from the water director.
    • Commissioner asked about city costs for new development; staff clarified all infrastructure is developer-paid, and new ratepayers help spread maintenance costs across the city.

805 Subdivision Short Plat (Item 3-2)

  • Applicant: Jared Walgren, JGT Architecture, on behalf of Frank Fridrick. Address: 805 Park Center Way.
  • Proposal: Divide a 2.9-acre parcel in the Industrial Park (IP) zoning district into two lots: Lot 1 (existing 30,000 sq ft office/warehouse and parking) and Lot 2 (0.84-acre undeveloped portion) for future flexibility. No immediate development plans.
  • Key Details: The original subdivision (Arbon Subdivision, 1991) has been split over time; this short plat is simple and exempt from open space requirements (IP zone has no min. lot dimensions). No public comments received. Staff found the plat complies with all codes. Conditions include establishing an easement for a fire hydrant lateral from the street to the parking lot.

Key Outcomes

  • Lake Wool Estates – Motion to approve the project as presented (with recommended conditions) passed unanimously on a roll-call vote: All commissioners present (Garner, Miller, Turner, Keyhoe, Morgan, Kirkman, Copeland, Fiend) voted aye. (8-0)
  • 805 Subdivision Short Plat – Motion to recommend approval passed unanimously on a roll-call vote: All commissioners present voted aye. (8-0)
  • The meeting adjourned shortly after the second vote.

Meeting Transcript

Okay, we ready to go? Okay, it is six o'clock. I would like to start by welcoming everyone to the City of Ampa Planning and Zoning Commission meeting uh June 23rd, 2026. Uh can we start with a roll call, please? Garner here Miller here, Turner Keyhoe here. Morgan here. Kirkman, Copeland, Fiend. Here. Seven present. Thank you. Mr. Ashby. Mr. Chair and Commissioners Rodney Ashby Planning and Zoning Director for the record. Um 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. Um we didn't get anything back from City Council, and so we are going to go to them on a on in their regular city council meetings and um just take a couple of topics at a time. Uh I think the goal here is to have to the point where City Council understands, knows the the comprehensive plan content and can support it, whether 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 we're doing this to make sure that they they understand that. I'm happy to do presentations to this group, but I I think you know it's 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. Um so just a report on the city council meeting on June 15th. Uh first one was a subdivision final plat approval for Cherry Grove number four number six, excuse me. Uh that's northeast of Elm Lane and Franklin Road, and that was for sixty-one single family detached units and seven common lots. Um and that you recommended approval and they approved that. Uh next one was a subdivision short plat approval for Middlebury Middlebury South, number one. And this was for 50 single family uh detached dwelling lots and seven common area lots. Um this is um this was recommended for approval by you and approved by city council. Uh now the public hearings was uh annexation for Highline Estates uh to RS4 and RS6 and BC community business. This was on Franklin Road, um northeast of Linden Road and Madison Road. And uh this was for three hundred and fifty-five single family detached dwelling units, thirty-three common area lots, and one commercial lot. And um this was continued. It's it's been a while since you've heard this. This was on January twenty-seventh of this year that you had recommended approval unanimously. Um City Council continued that at this last uh the the first hearing that they had um because they wanted to see a little more detail in the public open space um and see w how that open space would be used rather than just be drainage basins and um just open space without any amenities. Um they so this went back to them and um with added amenities that they they included it was approved. Uh so that was um it was a close vote, it was three yeses and two no's and so uh it did get passed. It was three yeses and two no's and so uh it did get passed. Um they also gave us some direction to come back with some um some well they they would like to revisit the idea of those drainage basins and whether they should be used as qualified open space. I provided the um the language in code and uh haven't heard anything back from them. So they that was the direction they gave me, provide us the language, and then we they would respond, and I haven't seen anything. So we may be revisiting that in the future. And then the the next one was uh NAMPA City Ordnance uh text amendments. A lot of these were pretty simple. You heard this on uh May 12th and recommended approval unanimously, and um we this one was also approved on a um three to two vote. Um I think there was some confusion by one of the uh people in the audience about just some of the language in there, and so um there were a couple of votes against it, but it did pass, and then comprehensive plan text amendment to remove language. Oh, I'm 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 of a planned unit development or master plan community. That's the one I think was just a little confusing to the public.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com