Planning commission recommends pre‑annexation and BC zoning for landscape business at 246 N. Robinson Road

Nampa — The Nampa Planning and Zoning Commission voted Sept. 9 to recommend approval of a pre‑annexation, pre‑zoning to BC (Community Business) and a development agreement for New Life Landscape LLC, a landscape contractor seeking to operate a shop, offices and a display/materials yard at 246 North Robinson Road.

The recommendation to city council includes conditions requiring screening of outdoor storage, compliance with city design standards and a change to the sidewalk condition so that a required sidepath/sidewalk would be installed within 12 months of annexation rather than immediately at development.

Applicant Carlos Torres told the commission he purchased the parcel in January 2024 and wants to run a higher‑end landscape construction business there, including a shop, equipment storage, office space and a display area for nursery and bulk materials. “I purchased the property, 246 North Robinson Road in, January 2024,” Torres said, and described services the business provides: “We do everything from pools, outdoor kitchens.”

Rodney Ashby, Nampa’s planning and zoning director, explained the legal and procedural context: the property sits inside the city’s impact area and any county rezoning request is now reviewed using Nampa’s pre‑annexation process so the city’s recommendations are on record for Canyon County. Ashby said the city and county operate under a joint powers agreement signed in 2005 and that a development agreement recorded against the property would be enforceable as a contract. He told commissioners the agreement would state that “the property owner authorizes the city of Nampa to annex the property following the property becoming contiguous to the city boundaries.”

Staff described code constraints pertinent to the BC zone: exterior storage and equipment must be screened from view, parking and paved areas fronting an arterial must meet city standards, and design‑review‑level fencing (ornamental, multi‑material) is required where fencing is visible from the public right‑of‑way. Ashby explained gravel is permitted only behind a primary building if it is fully screened from public view; unpaved gravel in the front area would trigger paving requirements.

Nearby residents asked the commission to require screening and a solid fence to reduce dust and noise. Steve Kider, who said he lives on 6407 Airport Road directly east of the subject parcel, told the commission: “My biggest concern is having a, fence across there…to block off, that area with their all their stuff going in there.” Supporters of the applicant also spoke: Ken Marshall described Torres’s work and local reputation, saying, “The guy is exceptional.”

Commissioners discussed how strictly to apply city standards while the property remains in the county. Commissioners generally agreed the development agreement should require city standards be met but allowed flexibility on the timing of expensive frontage improvements. After debate the commission amended staff’s draft condition about sidewalks so the sidepath/sidewalk would be completed within 12 months of annexation rather than immediately on approval. The commission also made clear the development agreement would require screening of outdoor storage, paving of front parking areas as required by code when visible from the street, and that the agreement would be recorded with the county so it appears on title searches.

Commissioner Morgan moved to recommend approval of the pre‑annexation, pre‑zoning to BC and the development agreement with the amended sidewalk timing; Commissioner Garner seconded. The motion passed and the commission’s recommendation will go to the Nampa City Council. The recommendation does not itself annex the property; annexation would occur only if and when the property becomes contiguous to the city.