OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Nampa, Idaho/Public Meetings
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Nampa Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting – October 13, 2026

Public Meetings — Tuesday, October 13, 2026
BodyNampa, Idaho
SessionPublic Meetings
DateTuesday, October 13, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:20:27

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

Speaker numbers apply only to this recording. Names come from transcript evidence. “Possibly” marks uncertain attribution.

Speaker 1

2:18

Okay, six o'clock.

2:20

Let's go ahead and get started.

2:22

Madam Clerk, do you want to start with roll call?

Speaker 2

2:26

Garner.

Speaker 1

2:27

Here.

Speaker 2

2:28

Miller.

Speaker 1

2:30

Here.

Speaker 2

2:31

Miller present by remote.

2:33

Daffer.

2:36

Absent.

2:37

Turner.

Speaker 3

2:38

Here.

Speaker 2

2:39

Keyhoe.

Speaker 3

2:40

Here.

Speaker 2

2:40

Morgan?

Speaker 3

2:41

Here.

Speaker 2

2:41

Kirkman.

Speaker 3

2:42

Here.

Speaker 2

2:43

Copeland.

2:45

Absent.

2:46

Finn?

Speaker 1

2:47

Here.

Speaker 2

2:47

Thank

Unassigned speaker

2:48

you.

Speaker 1

2:51

Um, my name's Matt Garner.

2:53

I'm the vice chair of the planning and zoning commission.

2:55

Commissioner Miller is out of town on work, but he's remote, participating online.

3:00

So we excuse him, and I'm glad that he can participate with us.

3:03

Um we'll go ahead and start with uh council report on council actions.

Unassigned speaker

3:09

Thank

Speaker 4

3:09

you, Mr.

3:10

Chair, and Commissioners.

3:11

Uh Rodney Ashby Planning and Zoning Director for the record.

3:14

Uh so we only had one public hearing at City Council last week.

3:18

Uh it was the project to the east of the airport, uh, on the eastern side of Happy Valley and north of Victory, um, that was proposing to have um a industrial project.

3:31

Uh two buildings.

3:32

And if you recall, it's the one with uh the doors, the kind of finished doors and some carpentry work on those finished doors.

3:41

And um this was uh recommended by the commission to be approved.

3:47

And um there were several speakers in opposition to it, as was the case here as well.

3:57

Mostly those county subdivision uh residents.

4:01

And then uh city council voted, and it was three uh three to three, three in favor and three opposed.

4:08

And the mayor broke the tie and uh he voted in favor of that project, so it was approved.

4:14

And then I just wanted to um uh remind you about the the hold we put on your agenda or your calendar for Thursday morning.

4:25

It's a seven a.m.

4:27

uh workshop with city council.

4:29

And I just think it'd be a good opportunity for you to be involved there and come to the meeting.

4:35

Um it's not a joint workshop, meaning we don't have to have a quorum, so it'll probably sit in the audience, but um it would still be really good to be involved there.

4:45

What we're gonna cover is the annexation process.

4:49

Um after state code changed this last year.

Unassigned speaker

4:54

Uh our attorney's office did an analysis of that process and have um an outline of how to go through that process for annexation.

Speaker 4

5:04

And the city council have has asked about the potential of annexing enclave properties, and so we've been doing some analysis and and gonna be presenting that to them uh on that morning.

Unassigned speaker

5:17

So,

Speaker 4

5:17

any questions for me?

5:19

Any questions?

5:20

I have one rather.

Unassigned speaker

5:21

Okay.

Speaker 5

5:22

I have a question.

Unassigned speaker

5:24

Go

Speaker 5

5:25

ahead, Brett.

5:26

Um, so on the uh deal that city council passed.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Land Use Planning█████████████████████████████████████████41%
Transportation Safety██████████████14%
Zoning███████████11%
Procedural█████████9%
Public Engagement████████8%
Public Safety█████5%
Infrastructure Funding████4%
Affordable Housing████4%
Engineering And Infrastructure██2%
Summary of Proceedings

Nampa Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting – October 13, 2026

The Nampa Planning and Zoning Commission met at 6 p.m. on October 13, 2026. Vice Chair Matt Garner presided. Commissioners Miller (remote), Turner, Keyhoe, Morgan, Kirkman, and Finn were present; Commissioners Daffer and Copeland were absent. The meeting record is dated 2026-10-13 23:58:39+00:00. No written agenda or minutes were available for this meeting; this summary is based solely on the transcript.

Council Report

  • Planning and Zoning Director Rodney Ashby reported that City Council approved the industrial project east of the airport, north of Victory Road, and east of Happy Valley by a 3–3 council vote, with the mayor breaking the tie in favor. Several county subdivision residents spoke in opposition.
  • The project includes two buildings with finished-door and carpentry work. The developer incorporated the commission's recommended change to move the building as far west as possible away from neighboring properties.
  • Ashby reminded commissioners of a Thursday 7 a.m. workshop with City Council on the annexation process after recent state code changes. The November workshop will be noticed as a joint workshop requiring a commission quorum and will be available online through Teams.

Consent Calendar

  • Commissioner Morgan moved to approve the consent agenda except for the minutes, and Commissioner Finn seconded.
  • Morgan identified errors in the September 15 draft minutes, including incorrect absence notations and incorrect seconding/approval and adjournment entries. The commission tabled the minutes for correction and approved the rest of the consent agenda.

Public Comments and Testimony

  • In-home daycare hearing: no one signed up or spoke.
  • Resting Rock hearing: Christine Thomas, 19885 Franklin Road, said she represented neighbors who could not attend and opposed the project. She cited 1,300 approved building sites within a one-mile radius, a traffic impact study she said was not complete, the 2026/Chinden project not yet started, Franklin Road not widened, Cherry Grove flooding and standing-water issues, packed schools, and overwhelmed police and fire services. She said nothing should be built there until the highway is widened and a stoplight is installed.
  • Midway Sports Park hearing: no public comments were offered.

Discussion Items

Conditional Use Permit – In-Home Daycare, 1764 North Onaway Avenue

  • The request was for a conditional use permit for an in-home daycare serving 7 to 12 children in the RS7 single-family residential district. Applicant Lisa Moline said she already had a city permit for up to six children, wanted coverage for up to 12, had operated a daycare for 38 years, and had already obtained an approved electrical permit.
  • Staff reported a 1.7-acre parcel with public utilities, surrounding RS6/RS7 zoning, compliance with home occupation standards, required building and electrical permits, an engineering estimate of 6 to 10 peak-hour vehicle trips, and a fire marshal inspection that passed for a 12-child daycare. No public comments were received.
  • The commission approved the conditional use permit 7–0. The permit becomes effective 15 calendar days from the written decision unless an appeal is filed; no action may be taken until the appeal period concludes.

Resting Rock Annexation, Rezone to RS6/PUD, Preliminary Plat – 0 Franklin Road

  • The request included annexation, RS6 zoning, a potential development agreement, a preliminary subdivision plat, and a planned unit development for 151 single-family detached lots and 22 common area lots on approximately 36.65 acres. Wendy Shreef, a planner with KB Home representing HLB LLC, presented in support.
  • Shreef said the project is a continuation of Cherry Grove, and the earlier proposal's property north of the site along 2026 is no longer included. The RS6 PUD would allow 50-by-110-foot lots slightly under 6,000 square feet; proposed lots would range from about 4,976 to 10,172 square feet, density would be 4.2 dwelling units per acre, and all proposed homes are four-bedroom plans from 1,382 to 2,755 square feet. Staff noted the RS zone standard is 6,000 to 12,000 square feet, with the PUD permitting a 20% reduction.
  • Shreef cited approximately $700,000 in water line work, $770,000 in sewer work, $800,000 in public roadway work, and $500,000 in off-site improvements, excluding 2026 mitigation. She said the applicant agreed with all staff conditions and was amenable to an ITD mitigation agreement for proportionate funding of improvements.
  • Staff reported one public comment from Mr. Wilson about standing water, drainage, drawdown limits, and developer/HOA accountability. Nampa Police requested funding for 0.45 additional officers and 0.24 additional support staff to maintain service levels. Highway District 4 commented on roadway classification, right-of-way, access, and traffic impacts.
  • Vice Chair Garner disclosed that he had spoken briefly before the meeting with Paula Dwinkered Bond, a neighboring property owner and employee, only about the acreage and scope of the proposal; no position was discussed, and he did not recuse.
  • In response to testimony, Shreef said the traffic study had been completed and was under city review; Cherry Grove standing water after torrential rains had been addressed with homeowner follow-up and pit drains; drainage and grading would be detailed in final plat and construction drawings.
  • Traffic staff said the development's traffic impact study did not identify improvements required specifically for this project; background traffic issues would be addressed by other pending developments, including Haltham Heritage and Ridgeview North. Staff identified Franklin/Linden signalization as a background warrant, with design starting in fiscal year 2027 and construction anticipated in 2029. The Franklin/2026 intersection is under ITD jurisdiction, is planned for future signalization, and this development would contribute funds if approved.
  • During deliberations, commissioners noted the previous concern about losing commercial land along 2026 was resolved because that property was removed from the application. Commissioner Finn supported the project as an economical housing product, and the commission found it consistent with the comprehensive plan.
  • The commission voted 7–0 to recommend approval to City Council, including the ITD mitigation agreement condition.

Midway Sports Park Annexation – 14309 and 1425 Midway Road

  • The request was annexation and RS6 zoning of the city-owned Midway Sports Park, currently under Canyon County jurisdiction. Principal Planner Christy Watkins presented for the City of Nampa.
  • Staff said the annexation is tied to the Lone Star Annexation MPC scheduled for City Council on October 19, 2026; if that annexation is not approved, the city would withdraw this application.
  • Staff found the annexation and zoning criteria met, no agency or public comments were received, and RS6 zoning would match the medium density residential comprehensive plan designation.
  • City staff cited benefits of city jurisdiction: allowing parking lot and sports court lighting, improving public safety, and removing the Midway Road left-turn prohibition, which was a highway district requirement. Parks Director Cody Swander said completion of the park proceeds regardless of annexation; a prior contractor was terminated, a new RFQ would move forward as early as next month, and phases 3 and 4 would be combined for full 52-acre completion.
  • The commission voted 7–0 to recommend approval to City Council.

Key Outcomes

  • Consent agenda approved; September 15 minutes tabled for correction.
  • Conditional use permit for in-home daycare approved 7–0.
  • Resting Rock annexation, rezone, PUD, and preliminary plat recommended 7–0 to City Council with ITD mitigation agreement condition.
  • Midway Sports Park annexation and zoning recommended 7–0 to City Council, contingent on Lone Star annexation approval.
  • All 7–0 roll calls included Garner, Miller, Turner, Keyhoe, Morgan, Kirkman, and Finn in favor; Daffer and Copeland were absent.
  • Upcoming dates: Thursday 7 a.m. annexation workshop; October 19 City Council Lone Star MPC hearing; November joint workshop requiring a quorum.

Meeting Transcript

Okay, six o'clock. Let's go ahead and get started. Madam Clerk, do you want to start with roll call? Garner. Here. Miller. Here. Miller present by remote. Daffer. Absent. Turner. Here. Keyhoe. Here. Morgan? Here. Kirkman. Here. Copeland. Absent. Finn? Here. Thank you. Um, my name's Matt Garner. I'm the vice chair of the planning and zoning commission. Commissioner Miller is out of town on work, but he's remote, participating online. So we excuse him, and I'm glad that he can participate with us. Um we'll go ahead and start with uh council report on council actions. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Commissioners. Uh Rodney Ashby Planning and Zoning Director for the record. Uh so we only had one public hearing at City Council last week. Uh it was the project to the east of the airport, uh, on the eastern side of Happy Valley and north of Victory, um, that was proposing to have um a industrial project. Uh two buildings. And if you recall, it's the one with uh the doors, the kind of finished doors and some carpentry work on those finished doors. And um this was uh recommended by the commission to be approved. And um there were several speakers in opposition to it, as was the case here as well. Mostly those county subdivision uh residents. And then uh city council voted, and it was three uh three to three, three in favor and three opposed. And the mayor broke the tie and uh he voted in favor of that project, so it was approved. And then I just wanted to um uh remind you about the the hold we put on your agenda or your calendar for Thursday morning. It's a seven a.m. uh workshop with city council. And I just think it'd be a good opportunity for you to be involved there and come to the meeting. Um it's not a joint workshop, meaning we don't have to have a quorum, so it'll probably sit in the audience, but um it would still be really good to be involved there. What we're gonna cover is the annexation process. Um after state code changed this last year. Uh our attorney's office did an analysis of that process and have um an outline of how to go through that process for annexation.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com