Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

Hi, Preston, how are you? Okay, I've got six o'clock. I would like to first start by welcoming everybody to the city of Nampa planning and zoning commission meeting, August 25th, 2026. Can we have a roll call please?

Chairman Miller?

Here.

Thank you. Vice Chair Garner? Absent. Commissioner Kehoe?

Here.

Commissioner Daffer? Absent. Commissioner Morgan?

Here.

Commissioner Copeland? Absent. Commissioner Kirkman?

Here.

Commissioner Turner?

Here.

Commissioner Feen?

Here.

Thank you.

Thank you. Looking, I'm looking. Where did he go?

He's right there behind the TV. Where did he go?

I don't see him back there.

Mr. Chair and commissioners, Rodney Ashby, Planning and Zoning Director for the record. We had four final plots that were approved by City Council, Adara number two, Spring Hollow Ranch number six, Trestle Creek number one, and Reflections Edge number five. And then we had two public hearings. The first one was for a variance for reduced front yard setback and reduced landscape buffer requirements at an existing in-home daycare. and that was 3424 East Greenhurst Road, and that was approved. Five in favor, one opposed. The next one was a zoning map amendment from BC to BN and RD, and a development agreement and subdivision preliminary plat for Springshores Commons. You recommended approval on July 14th, and the city council approved it on a three-to-three, and then the mayor broke the tie and approved it. And that's all I have.

Okay. Thank you, Ronnie. Appreciate it. Anybody? Take a motion to admit.

Oh, yeah, sorry, Mr. Chair. I'll make a motion that we approve consent agenda. Second.

It's been moved by Kirkman, seconded by Fien to approve the consent agenda. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. We will go ahead and move right into our public hearing portion of this meeting. So the way it works, if you haven't been here before, we will open the meeting up. call the applicant up. They will have seven minutes to present what their thoughts and plans are to do with the piece of property. Uh, we'll then turn the time over to staff. They'll give us a report on facts and findings, and then we will open it up for public testimony. When you come to the mic, we would ask you to speak into the mic and give us your name and address for the record. It's really important. Uh, for the records that we have that information. And we don't want to stop you once you start. So if you could try to remember that, it's helpful. Each person will have three minutes per item. If you'd like to speak on each item, that's fine. You get three minutes each time you come up to the mic and speak. If you just agree with what's already been said, we have no problem with you coming to the mic and saying, I agree, you know, traffic's bad, whatever your thoughts are. and then sit down and we'll take that to note and it'll be part of the record. So with that, we will start with item 3-1, Annexation and Zoning to RD, Zoning District Conditional Use Permit for Duplexes, Subdivision Preliminary Plat and Plan Unit Development for Southside Duplexes, Subdivision at 1111 Southside Boulevard for Colby Hilbig, representing Enoch Amos Living Trust is the applicant here.

GOOD EVENING. GENTLEMEN OF THE COMMISSION, IT'S A PLEASURE TO PRESENT TODAY. MY NAME IS MIKE WASHBURN WITH FOCUS CONSULTING. MY ADDRESS IS 1001 NORTH ROSARIO, SUITE 100 IN MERIDIAN, So we're here today to present the project at 1111 Southside Boulevard. This is a coordinated application for annexation, a PUD, a conditional use permit, and preliminary plat. And our goal with this project was to create an appropriate infill for the property that responds to the SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD, THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THE UNIQUE CONFIGURATION OF THIS SITE, AS YOU WILL SEE. I'M ABLE TO SCROLL ON THIS. THIS PROPERTY SITS ALONG SOUTH SIDE BOULEVARD BETWEEN SOME EXISTING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS ON THE WEST AND SOME HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USE GOING ALONG SOUTH SIDE BOULEVARD. AND THIS LOCATION IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE SEE THIS PROPERTY REALLY AS A NATURAL TRANSITION BETWEEN THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES LOCATED ON THE WEST AND THE ALREADY HIGH DENSITY USE THAT'S GOING ALONG THE CORRIDOR THERE. Thank you. Okay, this property is approximately 3.98 acres of underutilized property, which includes uninhabitable home currently. The comprehensive plan identifies this as medium density, and so we're not proposing something to go beyond that at this time. Within those we propose a mix of duplexes and six family lots, like I said, creating a transition between both sides where we have single family homes and higher density to the east. Sort of our site plan and a lot of thought and intentionality went into meeting with the neighbors of this community and the surrounding landowners. Even so is that they have provided enough feedback where we actually pivoted and listened to them and changed our initial proposal. So we replaced 14 duplexes and now have six single family lots to match the existing use there on that side. We've put all the existing or the six family lots on the north side to kind of create a buffer, some space there. We've curved the public roadway there to provide kind of a more residential feel as well as for some traffic calming. As far as parking goes, we are providing five additional than the 59 that were required. So we're not putting all the parking on potentially the surrounding neighborhood. We even met with a family. They had a child that loved basketball. And so, hey, we're going to throw in a basketball hoop in our property as well. And then also we've got the open space adjacent there to the property to the south. And then we're also looking at those two lots on the west. We actually have a... A VARIANCE FOR THOSE TWO LOTS, THEY'RE ACTUALLY ABOVE THE 8,000 SQUARE FEET, BUT WE'RE ACTUALLY NOT REDUCING THOSE LOT SIZES. WE WANT TO MAKE THEM LARGER IN ORDER TO FIT WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS THAT ALREADY EXIST ON THE WEST OVER THERE. So the comprehensive plan, it's medium density residential. So the RS slash four zone fits with that. The duplexes are supported through the conditional use permit process, which gives the city the opportunity to evaluate compatibility with the surrounding development. And then with the PUD, we see this as providing targeted flexibility for the site because of its unusual narrow constraints. It's 130 feet wide and it's almost 1500 feet long. And we're really looking to find some good use in that. We feel like we've come up with a great solution here. So the requested belief, like I said, it's a very long, very narrow site. So we would like to have the rear setbacks reduced from 15 feet to four feet. And this allows the duplexes to sit inside this property. The parking setback, we would go from 20 to zero to allow for covered parking. And as I mentioned before, the lot size exception, we want those two abutting lots to kind of fit with that existing single family neighborhood there to the west. And now we just have some renderings on the next few slides. We just didn't wanna make sure this was compatible on paper. We wanted to add some beauty and aesthetic to the surrounding neighborhood. So the intent is kind of like a residential streetscape, and these duplexes will have variations in colors and textures, covered patios, and really a nice emphasis on street presence for that area. We have just a shot there at the front of the duplexes, covered parking. Here's looking at the south side. There. Who doesn't love a nice playground slash basketball hoop? And so a part of the project here is these duplex, the unit design. The company that designs these is actually based in Caldwell. So we're wanting local Idaho in-house builders and manufacturers to contribute to the community. So steel structures, wire sprinklers, high efficiency. Like I said, that appealing street presence. With the staff findings, we really found this to be in harmony with the comprehensive plan, speaking of that medium density residential. The project also qualifies as infill because it's taking an uninhabitable, unusable space and turning it into something for the community. Police and fire services are readily available as well as sewer, water, and pressure irrigation. And overall, we believe this is a thoughtful infill project that will take a space that is currently underutilized and kind of an eyesore there with the abandoned house and provide some housing and some just aesthetic appeal to the neighborhood as well. The PUD flexibility is there to, not so that we can maximize lots on the site, but that we can work with the constraints of this unique site and really make something viable there for the community. So that is all.

Thank you. Thank you. We'll call you back up when we have questions a little later. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Fry, we're up.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. My name is Candace Fry, associate planner for the city of Nampa. The request before you this evening is an annexation and zoning to RS4 single family residential. The RD was a typo, but we did send out corrected notices and the sign was corrected as well. Conditional use permit for the duplexes, a subdivision preliminary plot, and a planned unit development for south side duplexes. The original concept is 19 residential lots, including six single-family detached homes and 13 two-unit duplex dwellings with reduced rear yard duplex setbacks to four feet and reduced duplex front setback to zero for the garages and the carports. Property details, this parcel is currently under Canyon County jurisdiction. The surrounding zoning to the north is Canyon County, to the south is RD, two-family residential, to the west is RS6, single-family residential, and to the east is Canyon County and RML, limited multifamily residential. Comprehensive plan designates this area as medium density residential. The surrounding land use designation, the adjacent parcels are currently designated as medium density residential and some commercial to the east. Here is a copy of the preliminary plat. and then a lot of applicable regulations. So the first one is for annexation. Idaho State Code Title 50-2225 and Nampa City Code Title 10 Chapter 2-4C outline the requirements for annexation with consent of property owners, specifically those four. You have seen them before, but they are here again for reference. And then the zoning, so 10.2.3.C, conclusions of law pertinent to proposed zoning map amendments. And then Nampa City Code Title 10, Chapter 8, the RS zoning district, single family residential. And then Chapter 27-1.C, which is the subdivision code. Even more applicable regulations, This is for the conditional use permit. So chapter 25 of title 10 talks about the conditional use permit. And then the conditional use permit criteria is below for your reference as well. All right, Title 10, Chapter 26 is the plan unit development chapter. And then they also have under 1026-4.b, the bulk requirements. The bulk requirements that would otherwise be applicable to a project developed in a given zone wherein a PUD is proposed slash allowed may be altered by... the commission as a part of the PUD review and approval process. And then at the very bottom, it is 1026-4.b.2, parking space clearance that talks about the garage and carport shall be no closer to the street or alley than 20 feet. I think we're done with that one. Correspondence, no public comments were received. The Nampa Fire District does not oppose the application subject to compliance with code requirements and conditions of approval as noted in the attached memo in your staff report. Nampa Engineering Division. Engineering provided general water and sewer comments, also provided standard comments regarding access and traffic, and then their attached memo is in the staff report as well. The Nampa Police Department, Nampa PD, projects future service needs based on the overall population. Population density and development type. Southside Duplexes is projected to add 77 new residents to the city of Nampa's current population. Therefore, Nampa PD is recommending a commitment to fund 0.1 additional officers and 0.05 additional support staff if this project is approved to maintain current police levels. So a lot in the staff analysis, so I will dig in. According to the comprehensive plan, we do have a section for infill development. So infill development is the process of developing vacant or underused parcels within the city. Infill development allows the utilization of existing community services, such as water and sewer, rather than constructing new facilities in areas that have not been developed in city limits. police and fire services areas wouldn't need to be extended. And in addition, infill development can, and then I've listed that out here. Oops. And then way down at the bottom is Nampa City Code 1032, which is our land use chart. So in the RS zone, dwelling single family homes is a permitted use in the RS zoning district. And then duplexes require conditional use permit in the RS zoning district. So here, 1085-A is the spatial and bulk requirements for principal structures and accessory structures. So I do have the setbacks listed here. So in the front, it's 20 to the garage and then 15 to the living area. And then the sides are five feet and then the rear setbacks are 15 feet. And then the applicant is requesting those reduced rear yard setbacks. They are requesting to reduce the setback from 15 feet for rear setbacks for standard buildable lots to four feet. And then I'd like to also mention that that reduced setback is only for the duplex lots. It is not for the single family homes. Those will follow the standard setbacks. 1085.b is the density requirements and lot sizes. So the lot sizes in the RS4 zone range from 4,000 to 8,000 square feet. The lot sizes for this project range from 4,323 square feet to 8,817 square feet. There are two lots that exceed the 8,000 square feet maximum lot size. Block one, lot three, and block one, lot two is included in the exception request. City Council will make the final decision for this exception request. And then density, medium density residential designation has a density range of two and a half to eight dwelling units an acre. This project is proposing a total of 32 residential units on four acres. The overall density for this project will be eight dwelling units an acre. And then the parking, so 1022-6 talks about the number of spaces required. So single family homes in the RS zone require two parking spots and one of them shall be covered. And then each, they mentioned staff, The applicant mentioned that all of the duplexes will be two bedrooms. So doing the math according to City code, they need a minimum of 71 parking spaces and after confirming with the applicant there has been a change and it's highlighted here and then later on in the facts for your reference. They have clarified that the 70 they are providing 76 parking spaces which is more than the minimum that is required. There was a mention of, I believe it was 64, that was for the duplexes only. So we did add, once we did the math again for the single family homes, they were over that minimum requirement. And then parking setback reduction. So Nampa City Code 1026.4.B.2 requires garages and carports to be no closer than 20 feet to the street. However, the applicant is requesting for the duplex lots to be located directly adjacent to the internal road with no setback. The open space requirements, so 1027.6.n.2, developments with a gross acreage of two to 4.99 acres need to provide at least 10% of the total gross parcel area for qualified open space. This project is proposing to provide 0.48 acres or 12% of qualified open space. And then some of the amenities that they listed in their narrative was a barbecue area, a shaded structure, a tot lot, and then as you heard tonight, a basketball hoop. And then landscaping 1033-4.c.3.a is the landscape buffer for a single family residential subdivision. So a 25 foot landscape buffer will be required along Southside Boulevard. and a landscape plan will be reviewed to meet code requirements with the building permit. And then I do have here as well as in the staff report, the PUD request and the elements. So I did take all of the information from the PUD code and how it applied to their project and what they were requesting to make it a little easier to read, but I will try and speed through it if I can. So 1026.4.B.1 is building separation and they shall meet current adopted international building code. And then the applicant has indicated that all structures will meet building code separation requirements. And then staff has no issues. The building department will review each permit for compliance with code. And then 1026-4.b.2 is parking space clearance. So that one again talks about the 20 feet for garages and carports. They can't be any closer than the 20 feet. However, the applicant is requesting relief from the 20 foot garage slash carport setback. And then the covered carports and open parking stalls on the duplex slots are proposed directly adjacent to the internal road with no setback. The single-family homes will follow the standard setback requirements for the RS zone. And then city code does require that there will be a 20-foot setback from the front property line. 1026.4.B.3 is regarding access. So access to a public street is assured to each and every building lot slash partial by direct access. And then the applicant has stated that access to a public street is assured to each building lot by direct frontage on the internal public road. And then 1026.4.b.4 is the height of the buildings. So in the PUD code, you can, if you would like, request to extend two stories above the limitation of the zone in which it is located only when the zone does not have a single family residence, residential subdivision, residential zoning district, or lower medium density residential land use designation on the future land use map. And then the applicant has stated in their narrative that all buildings will be two stories. The building heights will not exceed the RS zone height limitations. And then 1026-4.c.2 is the buildable lot size and density requirements. So you may new lots created on or after October 4th, 2021 by a lot split or through a subdivision of the land must conform to the minimum and maximum lot size and density requirements established for the zoning district assigned to that parcel or as approved through PUD in order to be considered a buildable lot. so again the applicant is requesting an exception to the maximum lot size in the rs zone for block one lots two and three the exception request will ultimately be up to city council whether to approve or not so block one lot two is only above the maximum lot size requirement by four feet or square feet and And then lot three block one is over the 8,000 square foot maximum by 817 square feet. 1026.4.b talks about the bulk requirements. And so that could be setbacks, property death, property width, building height, density, and street frontage. So they are requesting that reduced rear yard setback. And then the PUD code allows for the commission to allow deviations from the setback, lot sizes, property death, so on and so forth without one or more variance application permits being required. So that's why they are requesting it through a PUD, not a variance. And then I have at the very bottom 1022-6, which is the parking. And then I do have that corrected here as well, that they are providing 76 parking spaces instead of that 64. So they are above the minimum requirement. So findings for RS4, zoning to RS4, and then findings for annexation. So the proposed zoning map amendment for the parcel listed is in harmony with the comprehensive plan because it proposes a zone of RS that is allowed in the designation of medium density residential. on the future land use map and complies with the principles outlined in the comprehensive plan the future land use map was established after thoroughly analyzing land uses for compatibility the project provides a set of uses that would be reasonably compatible adjoining property because the existing uses are all proposed are residential and it is in the public's best interest and reasonably necessary because it will extend city utilities it will install frontage improvements and it is compatible with the surrounding uses and it will comply with adopted city codes. More findings and then even more findings for the conditional use permit. So weighing the facts in department and agency input, the proposed use is again supported by the comprehensive plan. It is near major transportation corridors and it meets the goals and strategies for economic development. The use is making efficient use of vacant parcels and it will not adversely impact the intended character and appearance of the general vicinity through design, construction, operation and maintenance and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. It will be adding dwelling units to an area adequately served by transportation, jobs and educational opportunities. The proposed development will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment, or conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any person's property or general welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, smoke, fume, glares, or odors because it has access to adequate utility and emergency services. It must follow all city codes and standards at the time of development, including building permits, design review, signage, landscaping, all of those. Here are the recommended conditions of approval and any others that the commission wishes to add your, your potential motions. And I will stand for any questions. Questions.

Yeah. Mr. Chair makes, I want to make sure I follow this parking. So how many parking stalls are required from just the duplexes? 52.

That's what my math says.

And it wasn't clear to me if his guest parking required for duplexes or just multi-family apartments.

Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Morgan, so parking, well, maybe Christy has something to say. Way to hesitate, that was good. I don't want to take the spotlight.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Morgan. The parking chapter outlines a two-family development has to have the 2.5 parking spaces. So anything that includes more than one or two duplexes is considered a development. So it would have to provide the 2.5 for the duplexes.

2.25 per unit. So we're at 52 plus seven, so that's 59.

They're providing 64. 60. Okay.

And I guess what I was driving at is they're not counting parking in front of the single-family residences to meet the requirements for the duplexes.

Commissioner Morgan, not to my knowledge, they're not. The single-family homes have their own parking, garages, all of that, and then everything else is separated with the duplexes.

That's what I thought, I just really, the math wasn't.

Not my strong suit.

One quick question, if you know, and maybe the applicant would know this, but how much space after the,

I mean, how much without the 20-foot setback, you know?

Anything that has to do with wheels.

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Kirkman, the way the preliminary plat shows it, they would have, and one of the conditions that we placed on there, that there would be a valley gutter or ribbon curb delineating the public roadway from the parking area. They would be proposing a zero setback there, and so there would not be... between the public roadway and the parking area, there would not necessarily be any area they are proposing to put the public sidewalk in front of those parking areas so that you don't have people walking behind them when they're trying to pull out. With that being the case, it would be similar to some of the angled parking we have downtown other than this would be perpendicular. And so that's the way that they've shown it on their preliminary plat and their rebuttal if they have something different.

So they were backing out, they'd back in, they'd back out right into the public roadway.

Just like any single family residential would do. It would just be their parking location would be They're right next to the roadway rather than separated by a sidewalk. But it would be no different than me pulling out of my driveway at my house.

If I had a vehicle that was bigger than 20 feet, would I be ticketed for parking there?

If you were overhanging into the roadway, that would be an issue.

But I can't back in because then my hitch hangs over the sidewalk, so I'd get a ticket for that.

So the size of vehicle may play into who should buy these properties if approved. That's what I was going to say. Okay.

Thank you. Other questions?

Um, usually I kind of glance over because it's always kind of pretty apparent on the fire turnarounds and what the fire department asked for Daniel.

Sorry, got to get back to, okay. So the, this, the, you would have your access on South side and then there is a stub street that was installed with the Taylor subdivision, Eagle Claw subdivision, Taylor street that they would connect onto. And so there would be no need for a turnaround there. The fire would have fire and the public would have access in and through, through multiple public streets. So this will connect to the existing, that is the proposal and what, what staff has, uh, that is the purpose of that street being there. Um, and so staff has made that recommendation that that, that connection is required. Okay. Thank you.

Good right now. Okay, I think that's it. Madam Clerk, do we have a sign-up sheet? Okay.

Thank you. Calling Lenita Canavese.

Good evening. My name is Lenita Canavesi and I live at 2810 Taylor Court. And that piece of property, my backyard would face the single family home area. And my concern is Number one, our neighborhood, which is just really three streets, it's Georgia, Taylor, and then Taylor Court, which I live on, they have no sidewalks. So the children, because it's such a quiet area, the children play in the streets. Because there's no sidewalks to walk on, so they're riding their bikes on the streets. And they're planning on if I have this right.

Sorry, I'm not.

They're planning on busting out Taylor Street to go into their area. Correct. And so To give you an example, we had one high-speed chase that came through our neighborhood because a weird driver didn't realize he was going to come into a non-access. The police had to chase him. In my piece of property in the front, I have three boulders, or several boulders that are right next to the property. And The guy knocked one boulder over and matched up his car and kept on going. Anyway, the police finally came back and wanted to make sure we were all okay. Well, these kind of things scare me because this can happen because now we're going to have access. Well, the other night... I don't know what happened, but Saturday night, somebody came through in the middle of the night, knocked one of those boulders, and I'm kidding, these are big, I couldn't even move it, five feet into my front yard. And my neighbor had to push it back for me. So these are the things that worry me about opening that up, and the speed. Also what worries me is my property, that faces that area, it's all country back there right now. And on the other side of that skinny place, they're gonna put all these houses. On the other side of that is a cow ranch. So I just have a little horse fence that you can see through. So my request is that there be a wall. So no one can see into my property. And that would be my number one request because that would be frightening to me to have all those people and all those duplexes and everything being able to have access to my property. So.

Thank you.

Those are my concerns.

Okay, we'll ask the questions for you.

And I'm concerned about the traffic coming through there. tonight trying to get through onto Southside just from Georgia took me a while because Southside is really busy now because we have the other apartments now. And this is just a, Southside's just a little street, you know, it's becoming a highway. So that's something the city needs to think about.

Thank you, that's your time.

Okay, next.

Andre Solovey.

Good evening, my name is Andre Solovey. I live at 1119 South Taylor Street. The concerns I have is it's nice that my kid wants the basketball court, but he's 12 and he doesn't realize the danger of all the traffic like mentioned before. There's no sidewalks. All of our kids just get outside, ride their bikes, play basketball right now outside on the streets. So if that street is gonna be through street, I mean, we're gonna get a lot more traffic. The home I live in has been in our family since 2007. It's been quiet neighborhood, no extra traffic coming in, coming out. And just now realizing that we cannot let our kids go in the front yard, pretty much just make sure you play in the backyard. We take our kid to private school every morning and leaving from Georgia Street to Southside sometimes can be three, five minutes wait. There's a lot of school buses stop right in front of the new townhomes or apartments, whatever there is, and sometimes impossible leaving. So with that adding an extra street, it's just going to create even more traffic. It's going to be a disaster because some of those people are going to try to exit the other way. whichever they go. So that's our concerns is safety, traffic. Like I mentioned before, Southside has been nothing but like a highway lately. You know, I know sooner or later it's going to have to be built no matter what, but if it gets continued with like sizes we have, you know, close to half an acre lots on there, I'm sure, you know, everybody's going to be fine with that. But on a four acre lot, I mean, if you're just going to, bring more people that already live in the whole subdivision, it's just gonna be .

Thank you, appreciate it.

No one further has submitted public testimony for this topic.

Okay, is there anyone else that would like to speak for, against, or undecided on this item? Okay, Mr. Washburn, would you like to come back up? answer some questions for us.

Mr. Chairman and Commission members. Firstly, we want to address Anita. We're willing to put in a six-foot fence. I think we had plans for that fence along there in our preliminary plat. And she currently, as it sits, will be abutting the open space park. and there'll be lots of trees growing into mature trees eventually, so we don't foresee an issue of privacy there in the long run. And for Andre, it says he didn't want a neighbor directly next to him, so we put an open space as a buffer behind his lot as well. And that, yes, that is all I have.

We have questions.

Yeah, Mr. Chair. The fence, what type of fence? You just said a fence. I was just wondering if you could clarify what type.

Yeah, it will be a vinyl fence.

Okay. So a vinyl privacy fence, not a chain link.

Correct. Okay.

Anybody else? Okay. I think that's all we have for you. Thank you. Motion to close public hearing.

So moved.

Then moved by Commissioner Kirkman, seconded by Kehoe to close the public hearing. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay, public testimony portion is closed. What are our thoughts?

My thought is if this passes, I hope they give that abandoned house to the fire department and let the fire department burn it down for training.

Yeah, no kidding. Such an eyesore there.

I think this is a, you know, it's a very unique piece of land there. Yeah. Extremely challenging to do something with, but I, I liked the design and I liked the accommodations that the applicant has made to some of the concerns that were, were brought forward. I know it didn't alleviate all of them, but I think they've mitigated most of them with the open space and putting the, multifamily, the duplexes down at the other end where there's no homes. And anyway, so I think it's a great infill project for this particular, I'm not particularly happy right there at South side, because that goes right around the corner there. And it's almost a blind corner when you have some of that traffic coming out of the apartments and some other developments there, but we just have to drive more carefully, I guess.

I GOT A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS. I'M NOT SURE WHICH WAY I WANT TO GO ON THIS, BUT FOUR-FOOT BACKYARDS IS NOTHING. I MEAN, GRANTED THERE'S SOME OPEN SPACE, PLAY AREAS FOR THE KIDS, BUT MOMS CAN'T BE DOWN THERE CONSTANTLY WITH THE KIDS. THEY'VE STILL GOT TO DO LAUNDRY AND DISHES cook meals and the kids don't have a place to play out back. I mean, four foot I'm six, three, and I wouldn't, I couldn't even lay down in the stupid thing. So I really struggled with that four foot because that just, there's nothing back there. Typically the townhouses don't do much. They don't have much of a backyard anyway, but four foot is nothing. And then I started to have concerns with that property to the south. When somebody goes to develop that and they've got a,

to a two story building.

Yeah. It's going to, I know this is a very difficult lot to try to do something with because it is so long and skinny. And I'd love, I'm like, yeah, if I'd love to see that old thing burned down or tore down or something, because I get to drive by it at least twice a day like you do. So it would be nice to see it gone. But I, I think that, man, that four foot and, it's going to make that South property to the South difficult to do something with down the road. So I, that kind of bothers me with what, what could happen there. And I think it's saying four foot and then you got a two story building.

And I think, I think my thought, my thought with that is, you know, yes, the four foot, but then you got no front yard either.

Yeah, neither. Yeah. You have no place for a sidewalk in front of the place and then a four foot. Yeah.

Well, it's just like, if you're the kind of person who has a, vehicle longer than 20 foot, maybe you won't live here. And if you're the kind of person that wants a front and back yard, you won't live here either.

I guess there's some of that too. It is just a two bedroom, not multiple bedrooms. That's my thoughts for now. Daniel, go ahead. Sorry.

I agree with both of the commissioners that the lot is extremely unusual. bowling alley is about the only thing that would fit in here, but don't have too many outdoor bowling alleys. And the parking situation doesn't leave a lot to be desired either. The answer, I guess, is just if you don't like it, when you look at it, don't rent or buy there and you'll be all right. So but I would say I would be in favor of it. But it looks like we have a comment.

I have a question.

Question.

So in a situation like this where we are potentially tying into an older subdivision with no sidewalks, is there something that the developer could do that the city could do as like a traffic calming?

Um, there is certainly, um, that could be a condition that was placed on it that they installed traffic calming along Taylor and Georgia. Um, if that's a concern, um, that would likely look like, um, speed humps along that. Um, typically, um, when we look at, um, These types of things my recommendation would be that we collect speed data on Georgia and probably not Taylor just because of its length but on Georgia to prior to the development going in and the condition be placed that those evaluations are done and then. say, at the point where 50% of the homes in that development are owner-occupied, we go back and redo that evaluation and that the developer has designed and bonded for those traffic calming improvements in the other subdivision, but we only do them if those speeds have... now warranted it more than they did previously. If the, if the residents of the existing subdivision are going 25 miles an hour, you know, is their typical speed. The development goes in that continues to be the same situation. the volumes we would be talking about increasing there would not warrant that unless the speeds significantly increased.

Speeds increased to 45, then it's a different conversation.

Yeah, I mean, even if they increased to 30 at that point, then yes, it's... It's had an impact if the though if those speeds stay the same as they were pre-development At that point it probably doesn't warrant putting in those But that's kind of the evaluation if that's something you're inclined to place as a condition my recommendation would be that It's a condition that those speeds are evaluated prior to the development and the developer is required to design and bond for those improvements, uh, to then be installed, say after 50% occupancy and a reevaluation to determine if it's appropriate. That's still not going to account for the guy running from the cops and those are outliers that, you know, as much as I would love to be able to account for those, I don't, I don't have a way to do that. I had the street I grew up in. We had one of the very nice cross drains that would take out a transmission. And we had a guy running from the cops when I was a kid and took out his transmission and had to get out of the car to run from him continually.

How many transmissions did you lose? Thank you, Daniel. Appreciate it. Any other questions or comments?

Go ahead. I like the idea of getting in some housing diversity and continuing to do that in this area. We need to continue to have that supply in order to keep prices where we want them. I think this is as good of a design as you can do on this type of a lot. I, however, am concerned with the four-foot setback and having, if it was a one-story building, maybe I don't think it would bother me as much, but heaven. five foot tall, structure four feet away. If I were to make a motion, I would approve all of it except for that exemption. What would you do though? What's the applicant to do? Building shorter.

Well, Mr. Chair, in response to Commissioner Morgan's comment, I agree. I had a next door neighbor who had a, it was probably a six foot backyard. And when she was building her house, we thought she was nuts to put in, but she only needed three strips of grass to sod when she put that in there, but it was small. We couldn't believe it was right up next to the, in a normal subdivision. I don't know that we can make a decision or at least for me anyways, my opinion can make a decision based on what might be south of this. we'd have to address that when that, or if that would ever come up and then make at that point, we could certainly make a look at making conditions like the first, this row up against her, it has to be one story, you know, or something like that. We've done that. Another app, uh, and other, uh, public hearings also, I just don't know. I think we just have to address what is presented to us here rather than assuming down the road, what might be, because it may not be either. for duplexes if that helps. One story duplexes.

I guess my thought is we're minimizing the impact on a neighbor.

So Rodney, does that create a future problem with a four foot setback and then the neighbor asks for a rear setback of five feet, then we have nine feet between buildings.

I'm kind of looking at the attorney here because we have to evaluate each project on its own merits, right? So I'm heading down the right direction, I hope, there.

Yeah, Commissioner, for the record, Preston Rudder, yes, what Rodney's proposing, we've got to take each of these case by case. Though that's relevant for a future one, it's not before you tonight. Thank you for the clarification. Appreciate it.

I think, Mr. Chair, one of my other concerns is that connection through the existing neighborhood and home values and how that impacts them. It's a dead-end street. It's not a through street. And how people buy what they look for, low traffic, et cetera, et cetera, that's wiped out now. I'm all for property rights and people will be able to do, but now when does that cross the line? When does that start impacting somebody else's also?

So what are your thoughts then on Traffic Call Me? Does that help ease your mind a little or no?

Not really. No, not really. If it were already a through street, if there was already traffic that could run in multiple directions, then yeah, maybe traffic calming just because you're going to add more traffic that would be accessing that street as it is right now.

And I guess my only thought on that is we've got plenty of subdivisions around the Valley, not just Nampa, but around the Valley that are very similar to this older subdivision have those stub streets. And the reason that they're stub streets is so they can connect. So, you know, if they were trying to purchase a piece of property, take a house out so they could connect through that lot, that's a little different conversation, but it's just connecting a sub street that was intended for connection in the first place. So that's my thought. I mean, I understand what you're saying, but, Look at what the original thought was.

That's the intent. Otherwise, it wouldn't be developed that way.

They would have put a lot there, made a lot bigger. There would have been a lot of things different, but that's the whole intent is for future growth and connections.

Yeah, cul-de-sac there at the end of it. Taylor Court 1 and Taylor Court 2.

Back to my setback thing. hypothetically if we had both projects before us today it would make sense to allow the exception on this slot hardship you know not be quite as lenient on

And I think that's where my thought is, too. The constraints on this piece of property are pretty big. And I think they've done a pretty good job designing what they have and also speaking with the neighbors and trying to accommodate as much as they possibly can and still make some money doing it.

And if I were to, I probably wouldn't make them go all the way back to 15 either, maybe.

horse type it is but i mean you know like has been stated maybe people will look at it say yeah all i want to put back there's my barbecue anyway so what difference does it make no room for barbecue i don't know that's how big your barbecue is if you only got two people living in the house all you need is a little round guy anyway

Mr. Chair, if there's no further comment or discussion. All right, then I will make a motion that we recommend approval of the project as stated on the screen with the recommended conditions.

Been moved by Kirkman, seconded by Kehoe to recommend approval for this item. Madam Clerk, can I get a roll call?

Mr. Chair, before that, I just want to make it clear in that motion that that does not include any traffic mitigation, no speed humps or bumps or anything like that. Okay. That wasn't included.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Garner. Absent. Miller.

Aye.

Daffer. Absent. Turner.

Nay.

Kehoe.

Aye.

Morgan.

Yes.

Kirkman.

Aye.

Feen.

Nay.

Copeland, absent. Four ayes, one nay. Sorry, four ayes, two nays. Thank you. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, just a quick question. Wasn't there a conditional use permit in there that was approved? Does that have to be, do you have to read that? I mean, does that go along with the conditional use permit process?

Chairman, I'll speak to this.

This one actually is an interesting application.

It has a lot of moving parts to it. Because you're lumped in there with a COP, a preliminary plat, a plan unit development, a COP and a plan unit development are usually approved by you. However, because this is lumped in with an annexation request, it actually all becomes one bundled package that you recommend up to city council. And at that time, they'll need to make a first and initial finding on the annexation piece, which you've talked on tonight. And then if they get through that hurdle, then they'll have to see if it meets the criteria of a CUP and a plan unit development. So kind of from an academic standpoint, there's a lot of parts here, but that's why it moves up.

Thank you for the clarification. Appreciate it. Okay, we will go ahead and move on to the next item, 3-2, annexation and zoning to an IL zoning district on two parcels addressed as 22 Happy Valley Road and 0 Happy Valley Road for Scott Marshall, Straight Line Architects representing Cashing Holdings LLC. Who's the applicant here?

Dennis Durant, 1465 East Bird Dog Drive, Meridian, Idaho 83642. I will be representing the applicant today. I'd like to begin by just giving you a brief understanding of what the applicant actually does. So in this room, there are three doors that are visible, one to the left, one to the right, and actually two doors, a double door to the rear. So those doors are the product that Western Specialty supplies and they do slight modifications to those products as they come in from their suppliers. So they'll bring in a blank door and they'll bring in frames. And if we were using the door to the back as an example, you'll notice that there's a glass transom above the door. That requires a little bit of modification to the frame. The glass is gonna be custom. And so they'll put in the horizontal seal for that glass, and that will be their modification that they're making to the frame. So what they're doing is they're bringing in product that is mostly preassembled, but then they're going to do some finishing work inside of their finished building. So if you were to take the door to the left over here, it's actually a wood door. That door has a steel frame, and it has a small window unit in it. And so they would take a blank door. The door's already probably cut for hinges in the lock set, but they need to cut in the window frame opening. And so that's what they'll do is they'll cut that in in their little wood shop, and then that door would then be delivered to their end use customer. I've known Western Specialties for approximately 20 years. They're currently located in Garden City, Idaho. They started with a very small operation, about four people total. Currently, they have between eight and 10 employees, and their hours of operation are Monday through Friday, about 7.30 to 5 p.m. Granted, there are emergency situations where a customer may need something, maybe on a Saturday or something where they need a lock set or something, and they'll supply those products for them on an emergency basis, but they're not operating their fab location or doing anything like that. All of the operations that they perform are contained within the building unit. They do not perform any operations outside. They don't store things outside. Everything is confined inside. This building is designed for growth. They currently have about 10,000 square feet that they're utilizing in one location and then they have several remote storage locations because their current facility is not large enough to stock all the inventory that they do. So this building is large enough for growth times two and what they anticipate is as they grow, And if they were to fully utilize the building, they would probably have a total of 14 employees. Currently they receive about one truck per day as far as incoming freight, as far as a semi truck coming in. They might have a delivery from an incidental carrier like Amazon or something like that to drop something off. And they do have a little bit of will call traffic. And when we say a little bit, it could range from two to three people, customers stopping to get something in a day, or it could be five or six. This is not a Home Depot operation. This is a specialty business that caters to specifically doors and frames. The building has been designed in the lot. I'd just like to speak a little bit to the actual application. So we are requesting that we do an annexation on this piece of property from the county into the city, and then a rezone from the current zoning, which is rural residential, to an IL zone. The IL zone is compatible with what our use is. Currently the surrounding properties are to the south, is a city owned property which is IL zone. Properties to the west include the airport. And then to the north is residential and to the east is residential. Through our planning and discussions with the city, we had an opportunity to meet with city staff and in that meeting we discussed with all the local jurisdictions some of the thought and the requirements that would be placed upon the property in order to develop it in this way. The Highway District made a proposal that since there are two lots, the existing residential house, which is on the northwest corner, and then the larger lot, that there'd be one combined access point to service both lots. And our plan shows that combined access point, and so the house would enter with the main entrance, and then they would turn to the north to enter the residence. In this application, the residence is designed to stay in place as a non-conforming use. It would be rezoned to an IL zone, but the owners prefer to stay and live in this location. And as long as they're inhabiting the house, which is to their discretion, it would remain as a residential living area. As you enter the facility, you'll notice that the building is placed, the large building, to the eastern end of the property. is placed that we have a fire lane around the whole building and then landscaping buffering to the north and to the east. We have approximately 55 feet from the building to the property line to the north and about 50, 60 feet to the east when it's all said and done. We place the truck ramp on the building to be located away from any residential areas. It actually is situated to the south property, which is the IL zone city piece. All of the unloading of trucks will be done at the loading dock, and the loading dock is enclosed, and all of the traffic is contained within the building. Additionally, there is a building which we call building number two, which is located on the western side, of the property. This is a flex space building and is designed to have contractors of similar nature to inhabit the space. And I think that ends my seven minutes, I think. So if there's any questions I can answer, I'll just sit down.

I have a question. Looking at your site plan here, are those trucks, depictions of trucks making turns on the roadways?

Yes, so what we're depicting is how a truck would actually circulate or could circulate in the lot. And we're depicting that so that we can have the proper radius so that as a truck is making a corner, they're not driving over a landscaping buffer, hitting the corner of a building, hitting a car. So it's just for space constraints for our planning purpose. It doesn't look like they're running over things. It appears that they might be, but as this is designed, they will not be. So yeah, that's what it's all about is design so that we're not running over things. They don't all have to be 54 foot trucks either. What's that?

They don't all have to be 54 foot trucks either. 50, 64. Could be. Could be. It could be various sizes. Could be, yeah. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Chair? Yes. What's the height of your warehouse and of your flex buildings?

32 feet is the finished height of the warehouse. And then on the flex space building, less than 20.

Do you have any landscape plans for the north and east sides of the property?

So the landscaping is, we're very open to what we can do on the property for landscaping. We have a landscaping buffer reserved. We're planning on fencing, which would be compatible with a residential nature. We don't know if it would be best for wood or for vinyl or what that would be best served. One of the restrictions that we have on the lot is a landscaping requirement from the airport that the landscaping is not to allow wildlife or especially birds, I think, is what the overall concept is.

Get those trees that birds don't like. Yeah, right.

Yeah. It does make it tough. Yeah, so we're willing to do whatever is best in that regard, but there's some restrictions with what the airport would prefer or want to have there.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, this rendering just shows two loading docks. Is there only gonna be one?

Um, the render, the loading dock is actually to the right side of the upper building. You can see the curb. Those are overhead doors and are not loading docks.

Okay.

We'll call you back up.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Ms. Friend.

Good evening, Commissioners and Chairman. My name is Terry Friend, Associate Planner for the City of Nampa. The request before you tonight is annexation and zoning to IL or Light Industrial for two parcels along North Happy Valley Road, which is in the airport overlay zone. The application covers two parcels, those total five acres. The comprehensive plan designation in this area is low density residential within the airport overlay area. The applicant is requesting a stretch of the industrial land use designation from the city airport area from the west of Happy Valley Road. The two properties are adjacent to parcels that are within the city of Nampa, but they are currently under Canyon County jurisdiction. They are within an area of rural residential under county's zoning definitions and their map. The surrounding properties have varying zoning to the north and to the east are under Canyon County jurisdiction in an area of rural residential, but to the west and to the south, those are areas that are owned by the City of Nampa and they are zoned IL, light industrial. The applicant is requesting annexation and zoning to that light industrial designation to match the south and the west. This is the proposed site plan for the project. It really contains three components. The first would be that existing residential property to the northwest. There is a house and there is a shop structure that are intended to remain. And then to the east is the 30,000 square foot building for Western Specialties. And then, as he discussed, that's gonna have office, shop, and warehouse space. And then to the southwest, that portion of the property is intended to have a 10,000 square foot multi-tenant flex building. Right now, as it's drawn, they're proposing four tenant spaces. Here are the conceptual drawings for the two new industrial buildings. The Western Specialties building is intended to be about 30,000 square feet. At the front, it's planned to be 32 square, sorry, 32 feet high. It does slope towards the back, so the back was like 28. And then the multi-tenant building is gonna be single story, about 16 feet high. So for our applicable regulations today, we're really just talking about annexation and zoning. So that's what the code we're looking at. Idaho state code does expressly provide for cities to be able to annex lands, which are reasonably necessary to assure orderly development, which allow efficient and economical and viable provision of municipal services. that enable the orderly development of private lands, which would benefit from those cost-effective municipal services, and to equitably allocate the cost of public services in management of development on the urban fringe. The annexation must satisfy four requirements, which are detailed in Idaho Code, Section 50-22, and then they must also pass a test of reasonableness. To accept the annexation application, it's gotta meet those four criterias as listed at the top of the slide, and this application has been evaluated and confirmed to meet each of those criteria For zoning, City Code 1023.C details three criteria for approval of the requested zoning. These are shown on the bottom of the slide and will be addressed a little later in the presentation here. As you know, we do send every application out to be evaluated by various departments and connected agencies in our area. So here we have some comments that have come through from the engineering department. They do not oppose the application. They've provided the comments about the availability of domestic water, sewer, and pressurized irrigation in the vicinity of the project. They've also specified some access and layout requirements. They indicated that access to the property is provided by North Happy Valley Road. That's classified as a minor arterial and it has a speed limit of 40 miles an hour. The applicant will be required to dedicate 50 feet of right of way along North Happy Valley with the annexation, and they will be responsible for frontage improvements at the time of the property development. The two properties will be required to share one access point, which they've designed for you in that site layout. The existing access points will be required to be permanently closed. A traffic impact study may be required at the time of development if the project meets the threshold that's identified by engineering policy. And just two general comments about needing to employ a surveyor to provide legal descriptions for the various components of this application and that any online wells or septic shall be abandoned at the time of development. Nampa Airport did also provide comments. They indicated that the proposed light industrial use would be compatible land use near the airport. The developer will be required to submit an application 7460, which is a notice of proposed construction with the FAA prior to building permits so that the FAA has a chance to evaluate any conflicts. The developer should use landscaping that does not attract wildlife such as birds. And then any proposed buildings should have finishes that are not reflective. And the last thing is that all the building and site lighting should be focused downward. Nampa Highway District did not oppose the application subject to the MOU. And the fire district provided comments indicating that the development is approximately 0.9 miles from fire station number five with an approximate response time of one minute. They did indicate that all of the development plans would be evaluated compared to applicable regulations at the time of the building permit, but specifically noted that based on the scope of the project, it will require a full life safety plan review. Couple of public comments received regarding this application. Maria and I'm... I'm gonna take a stab at it, Sifuentes of 28 North Happy Valley Road wrote in. She formally opposes the application and the proposed industrial development. Maria states that she chose her property for its rural character, which she believes would be compromised by the new development due to issues such as incompatibility with the surrounding area, increased noise, light pollution, loss of privacy, heightened traffic and safety concerns, and potential health impacts, and possible depreciation of property values. excuse me, Drake Sifuentes, also of 28 North Happy Valley Road, wrote in. He formally opposes the application and the proposed industrial development. Sharing offense with the adjacent parcel near the Nampa Municipal Airport, Drake expresses concerns about airport compatibility, highlighting the risks posed by potential air traffic conflict created by the development, such as obstruction, of visual light issues and wildlife attraction which could jeopardize pilot safety. He emphasizes the importance of protecting the airport's long-term viability from future complaints that could limit its operations and supports concerns addressed by his mother Maria Cifuentes regarding incompatibility with the rural character of the area. noise, light pollution and other negative impacts. And not included originally in your staff report but emailed to you separately was a comment from Mike Heidemann of 30 North Happy Valley Road. He opposes zoning for the industrial development. Having lived in the area for over eight years, Heidemann and his wife appreciate the quiet private atmosphere and scenic views of the Waihees during the day and stars at night. which influenced their decision to purchase their home. Although they anticipated future additional residences, Heidemann states that introduction of two large industrial buildings, one reaching 32 feet in height, would significantly disrupt their quality of life, with increased noise, light pollution, and potential decreases in property value. Heidemann has gathered signatures from neighbors within a 300 foot radius with nearly unanimous opposition to the rezoning, emphasizing the inappropriate nature of industrial zoning amidst a residential community. He urges local authorities to deny the rezoning request for the parcel. And here you see the petition that went through. This slide shows the petition that he circulated. The map in the upper right corner, I've actually pinpointed the addresses that are shown on those to indicate the neighbors that we're talking about. All right. So proposed findings for annexation. The property is contiguous to city limits. The property is located in Nampa's planning area and has a future land use map designation of low density residential. The application requests a stretch of the industrial airport overlay land use designation from the property to the west. and annexation of roadway will be subject to the revised MOU and other agreements between the City of Nampa and Nampa's Highway District. The facts for the rezoning have mostly been gone over in the rest of my presentation. I highlighted a couple of important things. On this slide, we've already gone over them. But on this slide, I just wanted to point out some things because we didn't talk very specifically about the comprehensive plan. So the project proposes that the existing residential single family dwelling units on the one acre parcel will remain with their residential use to continue. Now, based on our land use controls chart, a single family dwelling is not an allowed use in an aisle zone. So we are technically creating a nonconforming use for that property during the duration that it is continues to be residential. The comprehensive plan does address public airport facilities, specifically in Chapter 14, The objective of the planned land uses need to be compatible with the airport. And the strategies to do that is to adhere to guidelines provided by the airport's master plan for land use compatibility, to zone for commercial and industrial uses in proximity of the airport, and to prohibit uses in the airport area that would attract birds, create visual hazards, and emit transmissions, which might interfere with aviation communications or otherwise obstruct or conflict with the airport operations. And according to the comments provided by the airport, they're satisfied that this application can meet all of those requirements based on the comprehensive plan and the airport's master plan. And again, three written public comments were received. The third written comment included a petition indicating opposition by 38 residents in the immediate area. And that below outlines the things that we've already covered for what their concerns were. And city codes are written to protect the public interest by providing guidance for development. Therefore, the project is presumed to be in the public interest because Any further development or redevelopment of the property will be required to meet city standards for development and shall install appropriate site improvements upon development. This paragraph summarizes everything that we just went over and provides a potential conclusion for approving IL light industrial zoning. This is listed in your staff report. And the proposed conditions of approval also listed in your staff report that detail the things that engineering was going to require that the airport needed to address. And finally, any other additional conditions that you wish to apply. And there are your potential motions.

What can I answer for you? Mr. Chair, one of our findings says that this is in accordance with our comprehensive plan. Is IL approved zoning for Oded City Residential?

No, but our future land use map does allow for a land use designation to be stretched one parcel deep. So when we look at that future land use map, sorry, gotta click that, a number of slides, you can see that to the west of the property is to the west and to the south are industrially zoned and is industrial future land use map designation. So they would be allowed to stretch that land use designation over the two parcels because each one is adjacent to that aisle. sorry, industrial land use on the future land use map.

So it would be more accurate to say we're stretching land use from adjacent parcels rather than it's in accordance with the comp plan. Rodney would like to speak to that.

Mr. Chair and commissioners, I think we need to remember the purpose behind a comprehensive plan, future land use map, and there never were intended to be exact, right? So those boundaries are kind of blurry. for comprehensive plans. And in this situation, that's exactly what it is. It's kind of in that gray area where you can stretch it. We have it specifically stated on our comprehensive plan future land use map that you can stretch it. And so I would say that it is consistent with that statement on our comprehensive plan.

Just didn't want Preston to have something that's not accurate in the findings.

the current residential portion of this property, what would it take for them to just eliminate that and build another building?

Once it is zoned to IL, they would be allowed to repurpose either the buildings on that property for an industrial purpose if it met the requirements. building requirements or they could raise those buildings and build others to meet the industrial requirements.

But they couldn't do any redevelopment and keep it residential.

Thank you. Very, very limited changes would be allowed to the property.

What about hooking up to city services?

they would be annexed into the city so they would be able to hook up to city services.

That doesn't qualify as a redevelopment. Okay.

Okay, thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have a sign-up sheet? Here we do.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Calling Mike Heidemann.

Good evening, my name's Mike Heidemann. My wife and I are the owners and residents of 30 North Happy Valley Road, which directly borders the parcel being discussed tonight, just to the north. I've worked from home as a construction estimator ever since we purchased the home over eight years ago. We chose this location because it's outside of the city, it's not under development, surrounding properties are spacious, they're residential, and they feel private. The view of the Owyhee's during the day and the stars at night due to minimal light pollution. We've always been aware that one day a house or two could be built on the neighboring parcel since it's zoned for residential. Had it been zoned for commercial or industrial, we never would have purchased it. Not just because it's extremely close to the house, but also the additional noise, traffic, and light pollution. All the windows in our living room, dining room, and kitchen face this neighboring parcel, as does our backyard, deck, outdoor seating, and dining. We spend most evenings in our backyard, enjoying the sunset and many times the stars afterwards. On weekends, we enjoy our morning coffee outside before starting the day. Now we're faced with the possibility of two industrial zone buildings being built right outside our back door in an area surrounded by homes on three sides. The largest and closest building is proposed to stick more than 32 feet in the sky above finish grade. Even with a six or eight foot fence, it would still be visible from both outside and inside our home. We're looking at increased noise from vehicle traffic, trucks navigating through a parking lot and idling backup beepers, forklifts, loading and unloading material, as well as the sound of saws and drills while they do their modifications. We're also looking at a considerable increase in light pollution at night, from parking lot lights to building mounted lighting on every side of the buildings. Lastly, the decreased home values that are sure to follow. Even if the potential new owners say the noise and traffic will be minimal, that's subjective, and it can always change once they're there. If they decide to sell or lease more of the property in the future, what type of industrial businesses, noise, traffic, and light pollution will that bring to all the surrounding homes? I brought with me a copy of the petition containing signatures from all the neighbors within 300 feet who were opposed to the rezoning and the proposed use of this property. I focused on those homes first, since that's all the city was required to notify. I also collected signatures from neighbors next to them, including those within the light of sight. Every neighbor I talked with, except for one, signed in opposition. The only neighbor I didn't talk with is the one trying to sell the residential property as potential commercial or industrial use because it's worth more money. The property listing's shown pending since at least the beginning of this year. It's a safe guess that that's contingent on the rezoning for post-use being approved. The current view, It's up on your screen right now, zoomed in. It doesn't show how close all the surrounding homes are. I ask you to consider these issues and ask yourselves, is this an appropriate location for industrial zoning when all the neighbors who live around it are opposed to it? Thank you.

Steve Greathouse.

I want to go back to that screen we just had. Have you got control or not? All right, that works. The laser pointer doesn't work. All right. The only meeting that was held to discuss this... Name an address for the record. Oh, I'm sorry. Steve Greathouse, address is 13 North Campbell Lane, Anampa. It's literally the right side, that they've cut it right along my property line, and it's the right side of that image. We were out of town. when they held the meeting on June 27th. So when the first time I was ever really able to see what the plan was, was when these prints were loaded up to the website and submitted to the planning and zoning. It was only then that I found out that the size and nature of this monstrosity of 32 feet high, 30,000 square foot literally becomes my west side of my property. There is, I can't see over it, I can't see around it. Everything is a big blank wall. There's not even windows in it. It's totally shielding me from anything. I've never even imagined that something like that could happen. We have a bounce house that we use often with kids, grandkids and stuff that come in. That will be, in the shadow. When the sun goes down, that building will shade that. It'll shade our house. Semi-trucks, as you can see, are between my kitchen window and the building. I've only got 16 feet from my house to the middle of that property line. and they are putting 40 feet of asphalt to get the semis to be able to go through there. Do you like to have semis driving in your backyard? Literally within a rock's throw. Everything, trying to sleep, our bedroom windows are just straight to the right of where that bottom semi is. I mean, it's intolerable. that we have to live and think of that in our future. If this is the final designation of what they're going to do, they're going to have some lawsuits. I will not put up with that kind of thing. This is just ridiculous that you would force this just because somebody feels that they want to have this property, which isn't compatible with the whole rest of the neighborhood. You know, when you rezone something that's already residential and the people around it have incorporated that as a residential plan in their thoughts, and you then change that, the person... Now assuming the ownership has to work with the existing people to be able to be integrated into them. We have to integrate this into us. It won't. This design, this plan does not integrate into the whole rest of the plans from Happy Valley Road clear over to Robinson.

Mr.

Chair, time. Thank you. There's... I could go on and on and on, but literally we have nothing in our backyard except a monstrous building. Unacceptable. Thank you.

Virginia Great House.

Virginia Great House, 13 North Campbell Lane, Nampa, Idaho, 83687. Thank you for this chance to offer our opinion on this building. I thought the name of the company was Big D Builders. That's not the case, apparently. That was on some of the paperwork, but nonetheless, I'd like to take you all with me for a minute and imagine your backyard of your house. Now I know they're probably all very different, but visualize those backyards and what you do in those backyards. You relax, you play, you entertain, you have children and grandchildren that come and they play in the yard. Now think of those fun and entertaining moments and the memories that you're building and the ones that you have planned coming up, think of them with a huge industrial building in your backyard, because literally, as my husband said, that's what it would be, right in our backyard. And we'll have the increased noise of loading docks, backup alarms, semi trucks with their loud rumbling engines driving around the building, emitting diesel exhaust and fumes into the air that you and your guests and your children, grandchildren are breathing in, reducing your outdoor enjoyment all the while while you're trying to relax and have some happy memories and be with loved ones. With all that noise is the noise that will come from the industrial machinery itself invading your family time. And even before any of that gets rolling, there's the noise of the construction of such a huge building and property. Morning shifts will start, I heard, 7.30. Some of us are not morning people. That's why we like to be out by ourselves. And with residential people, Usually that area is pretty quiet and early birds can get up early, late birds can sleep in late. But if I'm getting up to all those machines whirring and buzzing and hammering, nobody's gonna sleep through that. Also we mentioned the dust and concerns for health and safety, the light pollution, the ground vibrations from the semi trucks, potential contamination risks and odors from the occupants' garbage, which is directly across from our patio, like 30 feet maybe. So don't forget, and I don't wanna forget the negativity of the having a huge building and the effect that it will have on our property value. Please, I ask you to say no to this annexation. Leave it residential. We're ready for houses to move in behind us, but not a big, huge building.

Thank you.

Ian Twitchell.

Good evening, Commissioners. Ian Twitchell, 4906 East Victory Road here in Nampa. I want to thank you guys for the opportunity to speak on this matter tonight. My wife and I bought our home here 10 years ago because it offered the best of Nampa. It still felt like the quiet, open, old Nampa that we love and grew up in while keeping us close to services. We'd planned for this to be our forever home. We have wonderful neighbors, many of whom are here tonight to oppose this annexation. Over the last decade, rapid expansion has chipped away at our community. Coming home to the Valley doesn't feel quite the same as it used to. I'm sure a lot of you have felt that same way when the residential and farming properties that built this community are constantly targeted for industrial growth. I stand before you tonight to respectfully ask that you recommend denial of this proposed annexation and industrial rezoning. While there are light commercial uses near the airport across the street, this proposal introduces critical conflicts. The field directly adjacent to the property is flagged against future development because it falls within the designated airport approach zone. Because no future industrial expansion can ever happen on that adjoining land, forcing a single industrial complex on this lot creates an isolated, incompatible footprint. If development's inevitable here, keeping it residential creates a logical, safe transition zone between the airport restrictions and our homes. Our household relies on a shared domestic well located on my neighbor's property, Mr. Greathouse, which directly adjoins the subject site. The wellhead is less than 10 feet from the direct property line. We also have a very shallow well at 35 feet. The applicant's proposal mentions the future possibilities of connecting to city sewer, but currently plans to install a commercial septic system. Once installed, if there's no enforcement mechanism to force a future connection, the issue becomes what contamination issues possibly lie in that. Has there been any geological studies mapping the rock layers and fracture angles to determine how the affluence going to migrate towards our properties? Annexing industrial uses without requiring immediate connection to the city proposes that risk. The applicant claims the traffic will be minimal, citing just one or two trucks and up to 14 employees, but that estimate only accounts for the warehouse, completely ignoring the compounded traffic generated by the multi-tenant building. Happy Valley is already past its limit. Anybody who has driven that in the peak times knows that it is extremely busy. We've seen multiple accidents less than a mile away at Airport and Happy Valley, as well as the streetlights at the roundabout being knocked over multiple times due to this traffic overload. Pushing freight, delivery vehicles, shift change traffic to two commercial structures creates an additional hazard. Nampa's primary light industrial hubs are established directly across the freeway over by Amazon. That's where the industrial buildings are happening. That's where these types of things should be forced and not into our locations, putting that unwarranted industrial parks where they don't belong, where they don't fit with it being residential. Placing that 30,000 square foot warehouse in flex space, loading docks, vehicle idling, night security lights directly up against established homes creates an immediate diminution of value for those surrounding residential properties as has been discussed. Existing homeowners should not be forced to absorb that real estate devaluation to subsidize spot rezoning that belongs in an industrial park. Growth in Nampa should be orderly and respecting existing homeowners. Please protect our water, our roads, our airspace, and our neighbor's stability by recommending denial of this project. Thank you.

Thank you.

Clark Kreider.

CLARK CRIDER, 34 NORTH HAPPY VALLEY. I WASN'T GOING TO SPEAK THIS EVENING UNTIL I SAW THIS. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN THIS. HERE'S THE THINGS I ASKED ALL OF YOU TO CONSIDER. 34 NORTH OR HAPPY VALLEY ROAD LINES UP WITH THE AIRPORT IN THE GLIDE PATH. COULD YOU SHOW ME THAT PICTURE, PLEASE? YOU SHOW A 54-FOOT TRUCK UP THERE, AND IT'S A LOT TALLER THAN A REGULAR VEHICLE. The other day when I came home, the airplane was down low enough to where it could have struck a vehicle. Another thing I want you to consider is, what is the manufacturer's noise limits going to be? Just as the neighbors mentioned earlier today. They're going to have vacuums. They're going to have all kinds of stuff that's outside the building, not depicted on that building. So they're going to have to listen to that every day. And also, you're going to have the trash. Going to now be increased noise from that. So I would ask that that be considered as well for all those people that are living around that building. The next thing in there is the light pollution and then the track vehicles that come into this site. Right now, as they said, Monday through Friday. I actually work with people that build this stuff. They're going to be there on Saturday. They're going to be there on Sunday. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what you or I say. They're going to show up at whatever hour they need to get the job done. So please consider that. But ask that the fire department come back out and look at that site and make sure that it's supported. There's nothing that depicts fire hydrants. And I would ask that the fire protection officer that's reviewed those plans go back and look at that again, especially the radius is around those vehicles. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Paul flat.

My name is Paul flat. I live at 12 North queen Victoria court. And that's located about 400 feet to the right of the property line of where that property is. I've been there 24 years and moved there because it was residential, light residential. And as somebody, I'm opposed to it. Many of the reasons people have already said. Among the things, this is isolated. The property to the south is going to be encroaching on the glide path of the airport. LAST YEAR, I HAD AN AIRPLANE FLY SO LOW, I REPORTED IT. HIS N NUMBER WAS, LIKE, IN MY FACE. HE WAS THAT LOW. AND I REPORTED THAT, HAD A CALL BACK A FEW MONTHS LATER THAT HE HAD PROBLEMS. HE MADE THIS BANK TURN, AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN, LIKE, MAYBE 100 FEET OVER THIS BUILDING. PROBABLY NOT VERY GOOD. I ASK YOU TO LOOK AT THE BIGGER PICTURE. SEVERAL YEARS AGO, A HIGH SCHOOL WAS BUILT TO THE SOUTH. SOME SIDEWALKS AROUND THE HIGH SCHOOL, GREAT. NOTHING EXTENDED NORTH OR SOUTH. Roundabout was built really nice, wonderful. It took care of traffic a lot. Again, no pedestrian access at all. Pedestrians tend to walk through that area. Good luck. And every day I see pedestrians on the side of Happy Valley. Now, Happy Valley is going to grow. Understand that. It is a major north-south road. We already have congestion where it intersects with the interstate. There's a lot of this is a much bigger picture. Looking at this one little thing, oh, it's only small little change. but it affects everything around it. I oppose it. Please don't do this. Thank you.

Mario DeLeon.

Good evening. Mario DeLeon, 985 West Corporate Lane. I'm here. We believe light industrial is a logical and compatible use for this property for several reasons. First, the property is contiguous with the city-owned property immediately to the south, making this a natural extension of existing city land and development patterns rather than isolated industrial use. Second, the property sits directly across Happy Valley Road from the municipal airport. Allowing appropriate light industrial development in this location can help protect the long-term viability of the airport by creating compatible uses around it reducing potential for additional residential development immediately adjacent to the airport operations. Third, this area of Happy Valley Road is already changing. Between Victory Road and Stan Lane, multiple commercial and light industrial properties have been built or have been approved. This proposal is consistent with the direction this corridor is already moving in and would complement those existing uses. Light industrial also provides an opportunity for additional business investment, employment in its and expansion of Nampa's tax base. For those reasons, I believe light industrial is an appropriate long-term use for this property and a good fit for the city of Nampa.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Jared Hobson.

Mr. Chair, City Council, my name is Jared Hobson, 10622 West Sandpiper, Boise, Idaho. I'm actually the owner of Western Specialties. And I've been looking forward to this project for many years, as well as my employees. We are a growing business. We are maxed out where we are currently, in Garden City, as was mentioned earlier. And this is a project that we look forward to for many years. Hopefully you can see that, as stated, it matches adjacent properties, and it will be a good improvement to that property currently. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

And Chairman Miller, if I may, for the record, just out of a total abundance of caution, I do know Mr. Hopson. Technically, he is a relative of the fifth degree to me. If you want to know what that is, that would be my wife's cousin's husband. And Idaho law would not require this. There's no financial interest I have in it, but just an abundance of caution. Just note that for the record. And the legal advice I'll give here is as if it was another stranger here as an applicant, but Just an abundance of caution. It's good to see you, Jared.

That's assuming we would have figured out what fifth degree is. I'm still trying to Google it.

Thank you, Preston.

Thank you. I apologize if I get your name wrong. Juliano Seferl?

Thank you for letting me speak tonight. My name is Juliano. I live over at 11 North Queen Victoria Court, a little bit closer than Paul, but I had written a whole list of things to talk about, but at the end of the day, every single one of my neighbors hit on each point. It is important to emphasize the amount of traffic that will be increased on Happy Valley, I understand it's part of the master plan. It'd be one thing if that master plan was already in place to the point of traffic control, but it's not. We've got a roundabout down there that was done a few years ago. People have hit in that light. I have experience as an EMT. I did some medical training. I have assisted multiple people in accidents along that road, including a gentleman who got sideswiped on a motorcycle. As a writer myself, motorcycles are cautioned in that roundabout area just because of the severe amount of traffic and people generally not knowing how to use a roundabout. I'm pretty sure everybody here in this room knows that one. So traffic is a huge issue. But the other thing, too, is I am a consultant for a cleaning company here in the Valley. We service over 400 customers, small businesses, stuff like Western Specialties. Some of my customers today are Greylock, Gem State Doors, and Millwork. I understand the work that these gentlemen do. So when somebody tells me that they're going to be there from 730 to 5, I'm a cleaner. I'm a cleaner. I know what time you'll be there. I know when we take your trash, I know when to clean your restrooms. And that's just a flat out lie. I've been there many times in the weekends and have people do double shifts and overnight shifts because they got big orders. This kind of building put into a place where there's adjacent to residential properties makes me wonder why I bought my house in the first place. You know, if that's the kind of zoning that'll be, I mean, I think everybody in this room who lives close by, if you told us that you're going to put six or seven homes on that property, I'm pretty sure that other developer would have loved this place. Um, I probably wouldn't be opposed to it. Probably a little pissed off about eight, nine, 10 homes there. Right. But this, this is a whole different monster. I serve as so many places that look like this that have traffic levels, um, are just insane. And at the end of the day, the numbers that are probably given, you know, 14 employees, the gentleman from Western specialty said himself, he's a growing company. They've already maxed out their space. What's to say as time goes on, they don't try to fill this space even a little bit further, push it a little further, store a little bit more. I can only imagine the kind of risk it'll put. The other thing too is I've got a wife, four kids, right? We sit in the back, in our backyard. I've got a giant covered patio that we look out of. My neighbors probably think I'm crazy because the kind of patio that I put in, but we enjoy it. We look at the war hawk shows that they put off in august the war hawk roundup if you all have seen it we enjoy looking outside of our backyard putting something like this up blocks it the sun sets blocked and that's just the comfort side of things i'd probably say those are insignificant to the safety side of things again as somebody who's serviced over 400 people in the valley who appreciates the growth who benefits from the growth I don't think this is the right kind of building to put in a place so close to residential homes that are counter to it. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. No further names were submitted for public testimony.

Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak for, against, or undecided on this? Okay, we'll just take you one at a time. So go ahead and come on up and give us your name and address.

I'll bring her with me.

No, you have to speak.

My name is Chris Avery, and I am the great house woman, Virginia's sister. So I'm at 13 North Campbell. Her home and Steve's home has helped our family. It's a large home. They've lived there 13 years. They have helped our family many ways. Many people have come and stayed and enjoyed Christmases there, New Year's there. We go out on their deck and you can see the valley on the 4th of July. One of our favorite things is watching the air show this weekend. I am greatly opposed to this and my family that is out of town is like, you get in there and tell them. No, we're opposed to all of the reasons that they have given. And I appreciate, you know, owner of Western Specialties, I love that he's local. There are many places in Nampa that are already industrial. No reason, leave it residential, and we can work with that. But this, with the airport right there, I oppose greatly. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience who'd like to speak this evening? Nope, nope. Got to come up. Need your name and address for the record, please.

Reiter, 34 North Happy Valley Road. I submitted an opposed comment online and I didn't see it. Does that actually make its way to you?

Why don't you just tell us what you have.

It's pretty much what everyone else says it will severely disrupt the nature of our neighborhood we have livestock and Most of our neighbors do also so that is a concern the health and well-being of our livestock as well as our families the Emissions that are going to be in the air the noise is very disruptive to all the livestock actually, horses, cows, chickens. They get very distressed by that type of thing. The gist of it is this does not fit in this neighborhood. It's a nice, quiet neighborhood. You don't need industrial here. It's zoned as residential. I would like to see it remain residential. Thank you.

Okay, anybody else? Okay, Mr. Durant, come back up, answer some questions. We have questions.

So regarding some of the comments, I'll address a couple of those specifically. Regarding the gentleman who referred to Western Specialties as maybe being dishonest in how they perform their business, I would suggest that he is completely incorrect. He may service 400 other businesses. I believe that he services Western Specialties, so he should not be speaking as if he does. The hours represented that Western Specialties works is the hours that they work. The vehicle trips that we discussed are accurate and they are exactly what we do. The number of 14 employees would be with doubling the size of their current operation. Currently they have eight to 10 employees. I would also like to just share with the fact that the seller made a strategic decision in how they proposed to market and sell this building. Their choice was to go the light industrial route because they were going to continue to live in this location. There were offers available and opportunities available for high density housing, which is located just to the north of this property across about a half a mile away. And if this were to be annexed in and go to the high density route, well, you would have buildings the same size as far as the height. Your vehicle trips would be triple or quadruple to what we're suggesting that they would be with this development. The noise pollution would be immense. the pollution that would come just from children and neighborhood traffic would be incredible. It was discussed that potentially that the waste from Western specialties could be hazardous to the health of the neighborhood. Completely incorrect. I think that the concerns that have been addressed, while emotional, may not be completely factual. And I appreciate the emotion. Emotion is a really, really important thing. One of the guarantees that we have in the state of Idaho is the right to use our property. And as a property owner, I do not have to guarantee the visual sight line of my neighbor. I have a property that has a wall from my neighbor. The only way I could control that neighborhood property is if I chose to buy it, then I could control that. The property owner has the right to use this property in the highest and best manner in which they see fit, so long as it's compatible with a comprehensive plan and the codes and ordinances that the city imposes. The property and the development that we're proposing is to annex the property light industrial, which is contiguous across the street to the west and to the south. We're proposing that we put in a project that may appear large to a homeowner, but actually is quite small when you view it in a light industrial application. And to find a lot that you can put a smaller project on is very challenging in the whole Treasure Valley. very, very challenging. And so we're proposing this project and we ask you to review it on its merits and to approve the annexation.

Question. Yeah, Mr. Chair, I have a question. And please don't take this, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I just wanted to comment on what you said as far as compatibility. I don't, disagree with you a hundred percent, but wouldn't compatibility in that context also include the surrounding existing residential homes? How would, how, how do you square the compatibility of this project with those that are literally 20 to 40 feet away?

Thank you for the question. If I started on happy Valley road and I was driving from let's say airport road headed south. And I was making a visual observation of the neighborhood and how that neighborhood was developing and the compatibility of that corridor. I would have light industrial projects intermixed with residential. I would have high density residential and I have an airport. And when I'm squaring the compatibility in the neighborhood, I'm looking at the whole, what is it today? What is it gonna be in five years? And where is it gonna be in 20? I believe that the city has forecast the direction that they wanna go by approving the light industrial projects around Happy Valley that are in close proximity to this property. I believe that the airport has forecast that we want light industrial properties to surround the airport. And so that's how I square my compatibility issue.

I must be not remembering, but what other light industrial properties around that area? And other than the closer you get to the freeway, Are there any other, and the airport obviously,

Yeah. You've got a couple that new, new one just south of airport on the east side. They've got two of the buildings up. I think there's one or two more buildings going on there. That's right. Just you got the brand new one on the other side, that cleaning company that has that great big barbecue.

Oh yeah. Okay. There's you drive that a billion times a day and you forget, you just forget all this stuff. So I appreciate that. And then there is some down airport or down victory. Um,

Now there's that new one that's going in, right? Okay. Okay. All right.

Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. I appreciate the comments. Thank you.

There was, there's questions about light pollution and noise pollution from not, I mean, I think the truck noise is pretty clear. Do you want to speak to what the, the operational noise? like in the shops is and then like the lighting? Yes.

So the operational noise that would come from, I'll address the 30,000 square foot building. There's several components that are happening within that building. You have the weld shop where you're gonna weld a frame of a hollow metal frame door. And then you have the wood shop And the wood shop is cutting like a window unit into an already developed wood slab. So within those units, there will be dust mitigation controls. And those dust mitigation controls will be housed within the building, but bagged outside. So there will be a hopper that is collecting that sawdust or that refined dust. In the shop itself, there will be a saw to cut and there will be a drill that would actually drill a hole for a lock set. And then there would also be a welding machine. The welding machine, I mean, I couldn't speak to decibels. I know that I've been at the existing location where these functions are performed. They're inside. As a customer outside, I've never noticed any noise. The shops, both shops aren't running. I don't think more than six hours per day as far as actually timeframe. It's done during business hours between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. There could be people home, but I don't think that the noise from inside the building would be audible to anybody standing at the property line. What about loading and unloading trucks? Loading and unloading trucks, like I said earlier, Currently there's about one truck that comes per day. If that were to double and maximize, then that would be two truck per day, and that would be a semi truck enclosed van. It takes approximately, from the time the truck arrives until he's unloaded, it takes approximately an hour, hour and a half to do the unload. truck will back up into the loading dock, dock cushions around the truck, and then a forklift will go inside the loading dock or inside the truck to move the material inside into the appropriate place or rack storage. The forklift, electric or propane, it does have a backup sensor. It's contained inside the building. Again, I don't know that you would, you would hear it outside. Have to be extremely good hearing to hear that. The other operations inside the shop are just office as far as clerical work and sales.

Good. Thank you for your time.

Chair, I move to close the public hearing. Second.

It's been moved by Commissioner Kirkman, seconded by Kehoe, to close the public hearing. All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Okay, public testimony portion is closed. The southern property, Rodney, for the city. What are potential development? Could that ever develop into anything?

What's the race?

Or Daniel?

I think we know this, both of us. Because it's in that airport runway protection zone, RPZ, there's really nothing that can be developed on that property. Okay.

Or the endo park?

Excuse me. In an industrial zone like this, is there any decibel limitations?

Mr. Chairman, again, Rodney Ashby. I mean, this is a subjective question. I think you need to balance the needs of the area and the compatibility of the area, and that's a tough decision. We don't have specific decibels listed in code for this zone. So you'd have to think about that, but our code just says a nuisance it shouldn't become a nuisance I I'm I've struggled with that language because I don't know what that means exactly Different for different people so I think this is a decision you have to make So the airport manager is for this and

What would the airport prefer to have close to it? Would they rather have industrial or residential?

Yeah, Mr. Chair and Commissioner Turner, so I've had this conversation with the airport commission and with the airport superintendent, and both of them have said what they prefer is industrial. What they don't want is lots of people gathered together in residences that if there was a terrible accident that there'd be a lot of damage done. So what they see as less likely to cause a problem is the industrial use over the residential.

Is that all questions you have?

Go ahead.

Okay. I didn't want to interrupt. You looked like you were looking for another one. I'm in thought.

Go ahead.

All right, Daniel. You know, this was about Happy Valley, so you knew this was going to come up. You get one car on Happy Valley that's traveling south, and I don't care if it's up by Locust or if it's up by the freeway. if it wants to turn left and it's at four or five o'clock, it's going to back up 50, 60 cars. I've been involved with that number of times. You put one big semi 52 footer that is going to turn left into this coming South on happy Valley is just going to exacerbate the problem. So what is the possibility of putting a turn lane if this project were to move forward in that location to at least keep some of that traffic moving, if a truck were there.

That is certainly something that if you feel is appropriate, you can place as a condition of approval.

Is there enough space?

The existing right-of-way in those areas, we have a 50-foot total, so a 25-foot prescriptive on either side of the roadway. So that does provide enough room that with some widening on either side, that can provide for a turn lane.

But you're going to have to put one long enough to accommodate a...

52 54 foot truck is there enough space that way too yes so so we have that 50 feet up and down the entire length um and so they would ultimately just have to design it such that that that's has the appropriate tapers and storage length and that for that okay can i follow up on that please i'd like to know the legality of

Like, can we require that? And can we require them to add a turn lane beyond the extents of their property or what's, how does that work?

Is that our road? That's not our road. Is it happy Valley? Um, half of it anyways. The Eastern half. I can tell them they know answers.

Regardless of whether it's our road or not, we would be able to work with the highway district to make that happen. If that, that would not necessarily be a hindrance. Okay.

Yeah, Commissioner, if I may, this gets to some constitutional principles. Nolan and Dolan are some famous cases that talk about where when you put a condition on, it has to be roughly proportionate to what their impact is. That's one prong. The other one, it has to be a nexus, right? It has to be related to it. So you can't have them put a water tower in or amusement park, right? That's not related as much as you may want either of those or not. And so... what's being requested here, if there's a rational, if there's a nexus connected with the project, and what is being requested as a rough proportionality to their impact, that's what the law does allow you to do. Obviously the condition can't render the property entirely, you know, deprived of all economic use or just make it futile. So that's the analysis you want to run, Daniels, or the condition that's being discussed through. ROUGHLY PROPORTIONATE, AND IS THERE A NEXUS CONNECTION?

WELL, IN THAT LIGHT, IF THE COMMISSION WERE TO MOVE DOWN THAT ROAD, NO PUN INTENDED, I THINK THAT THAT DEFINITELY WOULD. THERE WOULD BE A LEXUS NEXUS?

IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

A NEXUS. HE'LL GET THE JOKE. A nexus and, yeah.

Even just coming out of there to turn right and head back north, that road's not that wide there. It would just give them a little more room with a semi to be coming out of there to, you know. The ones that are turning right at airport there with those blocks right on the corner, they got to take up both lanes to get around that corner. They do.

So, clarifying. So nexus would be that it's related, which I think the left turn lane into it would be really proportional mean if it costs $10 million to do something. And you know what I mean? Like in the property selling for like, is that where the proportionality comes in or what's proportionally chairman.

So the proportionality is really what impact they're anticipated. And if there's a, you know, a study provided here, if there's a traffic impact study or other data, It might not, just a hypothetical, right? It may not be proportioned to require, you know, a seven lane road coming out of there, right? Based off the volume that's generated. So you want whatever's there, it needs to have a rough proportion to what they're bringing to the table. And it needs to have that rough fit, if you will. It doesn't be exact science. It's with a loss of, it's a rough proportionality.

Thank you.

And then the other test you'll run through on these is, okay, would this condition be arbitrary? capricious or an abuse of the discretion, right? And there's pretty, the case law says there's pretty vast discretion. And so those are kind of the fail safes so that, you know, there's not, you know, crazy or ludicrous things that are imposed. But starting point is that nexus and then the rough portionality.

So what I'm hearing is we don't want to be putting on conditions that are making it so hard you just can't develop because we want to stop.

if the conditions were a nexus to it and roughly proportionate to their impact, the law allows that to be imposed. Now, just to be clear, the word reasonable and unreasonable has not been used here.

It's nexus and rough proportionality, right? So putting the condition to add a center lane, a center turn lane from Victory to airport, it would not be, yeah, that would not be. an appropriate condition. I, you know, on another note, I am struggling a little bit with the compatibility of this location. As much as I would love to bring business to Nampa and steal jobs away from other communities in the Treasure Valley, I really struggle with the location of this industrial area in the compatibility arena of the residences that have been there for, well, as long as I've been around. Just throwing that out there.

Yeah, I understand the concern there, building height and all those kind of things. I can also respect property rights for both sides. And I think down the road, what's Happy Valley gonna look like in 10 years, 20 years? Looks a lot different now than it did when I was a kid, that's for sure.

Oh, there's just more cars on it. It doesn't look any different.

No, it's quite a bit different.

But most of that traffic, when Highway 16, or not Highway 16, I think they asked this question at the last hearing, or the last meeting that we had was, was about happy Valley when it came up before. And I think that the trap, the intent is the traffic's going to get pushed over to Robinson with, with Dermot, but yeah, Dermot with highway 16. So there there's no plans to widen happy Valley to a major arterial or a connector, even though it goes straight to the freeway, which I still don't understand Dan, but that's just, that's just my not understanding. We're going to let Daniel, we're going to let Daniel speak to it. So we, That's the emotion that's coming through.

So when you say there are no plans, that is not 100% accurate. Oh, that's good to hear. The Happy Valley is planned to ultimately be a five-lane facility.

Yeah.

I do not have plans for construction of that right now. We are currently redoing our transportation master plan that will reprioritize and identify, and so... not knowing what that will bring. Happy Valley is one of our congested corridors, and that may, the priority structure that we have currently, that may, with things that have been done, that may change those priorities, and so until we have that update in the Transportation Master Plan, I can't give you a definitive of when that will happen, but yes, there is a, the plan for Happy Valley will be ultimately a five-lane facility.

So you it'll have it'll have left turn lane up and down center turn lane Rodney or Terry Is there any other?

large industrial areas that are not developed in this area or close by. I know you mentioned several, which surprised Jeff, but I never go out there. My entire life I've never been out there. I have no idea what's out there.

Thank you, Chairman and Commissioner Kehoe. So what you see on the screen now is the future land use map and you can see that that whole southeastern section is future land use map designation of industrial. So other potential industrial development there, I don't know of anything specifically that's in the works. Oh, thank you. And Rodney points out that it's also everything north of Victory, almost all the way up to Kings Road. So that whole northeast, northwest, sorry, section.

Well, Mr. Chair, I think I have the same struggle you're having is we're a pro-business. We want to bring growing businesses here. Some people are talking about how they'll work harder than they say they work. I don't know if that's a bad thing. We want hardworking business owners that are growing their businesses here in our community. I think if you look at this map, industrial does fit. I mean, we've got industrial across the street in both directions, and then we've got the county residential on the other sides. We're at the borderland where we always... hit right. And when we're at these borders between two different types of uses, we look at compatibility of like, are we transitioning? And this is just such a big building right on that edge that it's, it's hard to transition. I wish that I want to support it for economic reasons for the city, but it is a really big building. on that edge of that lot. And I don't know if there's another way to reconfigure that lot to make this work so that they're closer to Happy Valley. I mean, it gets narrower there.

I would just note that the current zoning of the city-owned property to the south is light industrial. Right. While the comp plan does show it is residential, the current zoning of it is industrial.

which is why I say it fits and it's this border. Yeah. It's just this no man's land between lower low density residential and light industrial. I wish it was more of a transition. Like if the flex buildings were closer to the residential and the larger building was closer to the road, but the lot doesn't work for that care. Yeah.

maybe Roddy can answer this, or that flight path, the red area on that slide right there, that cuts through, looks like over 50% of that south lot. So is that like a no-build zone? That's a zero zone. So yes, this lot is technically right there and light industrial. but it's pretty much unusable. So you can use that. It's almost, yeah.

Chairman Miller and commissioners, I just wanted to respond just briefly to the concerns about height So if this came into the city and was zoned a zoning that matches the low density residential land use designation, that would put it as RA suburban residential or an RS zoning district. In both of those options, the maximum building height for a residence is 30 feet. and it would be a 15 foot rear yard setback and five foot side yard setback. So the potential for a view blocking structure would be there whether we choose this industrial zoning and their proposed 32 foot high building or a residential zoning within the city which would allow a 30 foot high building maximum. And that's again to the top plate of the wall. It's not to the peaked roof.

So technically you could have a very steep roof. You have a very large house, very steep roof, wide house, which then can play into how high that roof peak can go. So potentially you could be another, easily 18 feet or so, potentially, above that 30-foot wall. I don't think that's true. No?

Chairman Miller and Commissioner Fine, I agree that we don't know what that very steeped peak roof could be or how long their building would be. I just wanted to add in that a 30 foot height allowance is allowed and the city measures to the top plate of a building from grade to the top plate without the peak involved. What's been proposed here is a

You have a very high building. You have a very high roof line. Yeah.

I mean, you could even 12 foot, even 12 foot rafters. You're up to 42 feet.

I think to the, the thought that the setback would be significantly closer. I mean, you'd be 15 feet.

So we're talking 24 foot building could be the East East boundary is the rear setback.

Correct. Correct.

We typically determine the front based on the addressing of the building. So assuming it remained this forfeit large parcel, which doesn't necessarily fit in our zoning requirements. Um, yes, front would face happy Valley and rear would be to the east.

What, what are the setbacks industrially for side setbacks? This one has 50 feet. Well, I realize what it says, but my question is what are the setbacks?

Yeah, sorry. Christy is quickly looking that up for me because it makes a difference when it's setting next to residential properties.

So 10 next to residential properties. So it could be 10 feet away from those homes instead of 50 whatever feet. They're not going to do that because they won't be able to.

No, if, if, if this wasn't going to be built, I think what's important too is if this was voted on and passed, do we tie it to the conceptual plan or do we just say it's now light industrial? You can build what you want because then they could say, Oh, well the setback is X. I've just changed my mind and I want to move the building even closer to that.

Chairman Miller, that's an excellent observation and you could recommend to city council that they require a development agreement and things like that could be included in the development agreement.

We've seen plenty of things come before us that they say they want to do one thing and then it's something totally different. So that's why I like to try to tie it to something. So we at least have some idea of what we said yes to, and then what is going to happen moving forward.

I can't thank you for that context of the building heights. It would be a lot in the residential, but I, there's gotta be a difference between a 32 flat building. That's a hundred feet long versus a peak. It's just a different feel.

Yeah.

Unless there's a series of buildings with peaks. That's what I'm saying. That's less obtrusive than one.

Oh, I thought you were just talking about like one building with a peak.

I was like, I don't think they'd put one there. Of course.

Yeah. Which would, I mean, even if that was the case, it'd still bring a lot more traffic. Like the applicant said, there'd be a lot more traffic there with a, if it was residential.

Sorry, I interrupted you.

Well, Mr. Chair, I think looking at that context and what we were just discussing and I think I'm not 100% with this industrial going here, but I'd rather see 32 foot building than a 32 foot building with 12 foot peaks and more traffic. I think, you know, I think it, it's stretching it a little bit, but I think it, it does fit here. I mean, you've got industrial properties down the airport or down victory. Um, and it's, they're not, they're not, not around this area. I, if I were to move forward with this and, uh, and agreed, and vote yes, I would want a truck turn lane into this property too, just to help alleviate some of that traffic that's gonna get backed up. It already gets backed up at the roundabout there, Victory and Happy Valley.

And I'm thinking out loud again, and I guess I should ask the applicant, I wonder if there's a specific reason for the 32 foot height.

Storage racks.

Yeah, but I mean, I visit a lot of facilities similar to this, and I don't think that I've seen any 32-foot-high storage racks because forklifts can't reach that high. Oh, yeah.

I mean, depending, and I guess I understand, but... We don't do these kinds of buildings, but 36 clear height's pretty typical in a big warehouse, you know.

I guess I understand that then, so...

I'm not sure if I'm on which way I'd vote on a motion. I don't, I don't know that I could support a motion that had that requirement. That requirement makes me nervous. What requirement? Why? It's a heavy burden.

It's really high expense.

I like the idea, but I think, but it's not necessarily the expense. It's the proportionality.

I see you're in the thick of it right now. So the proportionality is the scope, right? What the market may or may not be on it could be relevant here, but really the case law is, okay, what is being asked here? And you don't necessarily take into consideration maybe the cost, although, That's more of a second analysis. The first one is, is it justified? Is it roughly proportionate with their impact? And then if so, the second one would be, yeah, do you believe that would be proper to impose? Again, the costs can come into play, but that's not, the first analysis is, is it proportionate?

Well, and I guess I have to look at it too. Yes, this is a specific, a fairly specific analysis proposed use but what if something were to happen and that proposed use went by the wayside and it changes and now it's light industrial and instead of one truck a day we get 15 i mean it's light industrial so i don't know i mean i'm struggling oh then you definitely need a turn line well that's that's what i'm saying i understand both ways and it's it's kind of a

Could we just make a recommendation to city council if we were to move this forward that they take a serious look at possibly requiring it if they deem necessary. Maybe by then Daniel could do a little bit of analysis or something on it just to see if it, instead of us requiring it, put it on there.

Would you be open to a motion that requires them to do a traffic impact study and then...

You know, I'm, I like the traffic impact studies, but I have conducted my own traffic impact study about 50,000 times over the last few years as happy values become busier and busier. And especially since they put that roundabout in, you go at night or after in the afternoon, you can't get through there because everybody's coming West. And it's the same thing at Amity. It's the same thing up at Greenhurst. Everybody's coming west and you sit there, you sit there, and you sit there. And yes, typically I'm one that's like, hey, traffic is traffic. We all got to deal with it. But you add a truck, a 52, 54 foot semi that's sitting in that lane to turn left in this because there's all this traffic that's headed north. That's the, you can do your traffic impact study, but I've already done one. I know that's not supposed to play into it, but it really, especially that close to the roundabout.

Okay. Let me push back on that. I, the purpose of the traffic impact study would be that we have backing that it's got an excess and it's proportional. We would, we would be able to then establish that this property is causing the problem, not background traffic. And therefore, It seems like it protects us. Great.

If the traffic impact study was done when the buses are running in the morning and when everybody's coming home from work.

It takes the emotion out of it.

And I guess I understand that, but I think it's kind of pointless. If it's one or two trucks a day, I don't think it's going to make an impact enough that the traffic impact study is going to show anything.

So then why should we require them to do something? Exactly.

But then my point that if the use were to change from this specific to something different.

And Chairman, I may have Daniel come up and speak on the traffic impact policy.

So looking at this in the square footage and talking to them about the, or listening to their employee counts and that, this is not likely to trigger the need for a TIS. And so I would say that if you are concerned about the turning movements and that, I would recommend that you just recommend that as a condition of approval, rather than trying to have the expense of a traffic impact study that is likely not warranted.

Chairman, if I may, a cleaner way to, if that's the route you wanna go as a condition of approval, though a DA is not put here in the application, this is a recommendation that can be included here. And then it goes up as a package to city council that it could be a pretty skinny DA that talks about this condition of a traffic impact study that that's produced.

So based on the proposed use, is there any way that we could limit the amount of traffic coming and going from this facility? I mean, that's, I know it's. How would you do that? Well, and I don't know. I mean, that's, I have to ask and that's the thing, right? Because like I said, it's proposed it, well, it's one truck, maybe two a day, but. That's the whole premise. What if they outgrow and he moves and now we have a different company that moves in and we got, I don't know. I mean, I'm playing devil's advocate here, but.

Being a little, I think we're all here for limited government, right? We don't want city people going out there counting trucks and then saying. Yeah, exactly.

You know, I just, I'm thinking of up on South side, right North or right South of Greenhurst, there's a new development that went in and they put in a left turn lane. That's about three and a half feet long. It's four. When I saw that go in, I chuckled a little bit. I was like, my gosh, there's, this is the smallest turn lane I've ever seen. But the reason was is that there wasn't enough space to put a longer one or something like that in. And so that's kind of what I'm looking at is, did that require a traffic impact study? I don't know. Maybe it did. But now you've got a big truck. Let's just say it's one. Again, I know I'm beating this dead horse, but that. a truck heading south, turning right, turning left, turning left into that property right before that roundabout at particular times of the day. I mean, I'm not 100% sold on this project anyways, but that would sure help me move to a...

So this would basically just be, I guess, a DA... like you said in the skinny. Yeah.

It's very light, very skinny. You know, if it wasn't approving motion, um, you would modify that to add a da in there with that condition. It'd be pretty, pretty basic addition to it. And then council would, you'd be, that'd be packaged up and given to them to review and they can do whatever, keep it there, strike it, whatever. Yeah. But it needs to be noticed because it's, it's different than what was noticed coming into this meeting. It's an addition. and that'll keep us legally compliant and keep this thing moving forward.

Mr. Chair, any other thoughts or discussion before? I like that idea of putting it in the- I just say we throw it out there.

And let the city council

All right. Well, Mr. Chair, if there is no other further discussion, I will move to recommend approval of the project as stated on the screen with the additional of a simple DA development agreement that would add a truck turn lane into the property off of happy Valley. Southbound. I like one northbound too. No, just southbound.

So does the DA also lock them into this concept?

concept of the site plan. Yeah, and that would be what's already presented, so. I'll second that.

It's been moved by Kirkman, seconded by Turner to approve the item. Madam Clerk, can we have a roll call, please?

Garner, absent. Miller?

Aye.

Daffer, absent. Turner?

Aye.

Kehoe?

No.

Morgan?

No.

Kirkman?

Yes, even though I'm hesitating on my own motion. Yes.

Copeland, absent. Fein? Thank you, motion fails.

Thank you.

We're not done yet.

No, I know.

We got to either figure out how to approve this or deny it. One of the two. Or recommend, yeah.

Because I'm not opposed to the annexation and zoning to IL. I'd like them to reconfigure the site plan, but I don't know how to I don't think they can with what they're trying to do.

I don't think they... Well, I think it would be removal of the existing residential. I think there would have to be a lot of work done.

So, Mr. Chair, for Commissioner Morgan and others, is it a compatibility? Yes. That's what I struggled with also. So it's not the truck turning right now.

I feel like a good attempt, but no. I feel like if we were being asked to change the zoning, then it should hit overwhelmingly or pretty strong. And there seems to be a lot that's kind of in the middle here.

There seems to be more industrial land nearby. Pick up your pants and move down the street.

Well, I guess too, I look at it this way that has been stated. If this was a residential project, the airport would probably be against it depending on the size of the residential development.

And the discussion, you know, the airport, we want it to be viable. We want it to stay there. It's great for the city of Napa. And if they prefer to have industrial around it, so it does protect it from, the residential that's gonna cause problems, then I don't wanna see that airport go away. I don't wanna see the air shows go away. And yeah, if you were to turn this into even four houses back there, they're only gonna be 10 feet apart and you're gonna have roofs, like you say, They're not going to be 45 feet. I think you're 30 foot to the top sill plate and then you put Raptors above it. That's a three story building. They could, they could, but, but even, even if you go 20 foot and put a 12, 15 foot Raptors, you're going to be taller, 35 feet. You're going to be taller than 30 and you're only going to have 10 foot windows between, between structures. Granted, it's not going to be a big wall. I think it feels different than a big 200. It would, definitely. But you still are going to pretty much lose all your sight to that direction.

That's what I'm saying. I'd like to zone it to IL.

And there is a lot of IL coming down Happy Valley. So Happy Valley has definitely changed.

I'm not opposed to the IL. I think that's correct. method forward or the correct recommendation for it, but not that lot. I think it needs to be moved down the road.

Yeah, but this is the property they have.

I know.

We've heard that it's going to be that the proposed few five lane for that. We don't know when that's going to be. So in choosing to, in choosing to change zoning, but if we had more of a, okay, that's a five-year plan, maybe it makes sense, but with it being unknown in the future, as of right now, that prudent to change zoning at this time? That's one thing that we can always look at when we look at annexation. Is it appropriate at this time? That's part of the latitudes I understand that we have. Am I correct with that?

Yeah, timing is one of the big things.

this is a what you call a legislative decision what that means is it's uh pretty wide open on the playbook for reasonings for an annexation uh it's not like a conditional use permit where there's certain criteria that they meet it or they don't it's pretty and it's looked at more scrutiny scrutinized this is Timing is often an element, compatibility. Again, you can't go into this abuse of discretion, arbitrary world, that's not allowed. But short of that, the law does give commissions and city councils a lot of latitude. Timing being often cited among other things.

I move that we approve, recommend approval of the annexation and zoning to an IL zoning district as stated on the screen with the condition that the that the lobby reconfigured so that the impact to the neighbors is minimized and the city council can interpret that how they will.

I like that, but I don't know that it ever happened that way.

We can do that though.

And if that's the motion, again, you'll wanna package that up in that DA version.

Okay, I'll amend my motion to say.

Yeah, amend that.

That would be done through a DA.

That'll be good enough, yeah.

But with that. Yeah, make it a second.

It's been moved by Morgan, seconded by Kehoe to approve the item with the added DA. We need any clarification, Rodney.

Can we just make, repeat that motion again?

Yeah. Okay, move that we recommend approval of annexation and zoning to a light industrial zoning district with the condition that we add a development agreement to establish the site plan and a recommendation to city council that they. Consider rearranging the site plan to lessen the impact on the residential.

Due to the height of the building?

No. Due to the bulk of the building.

Yeah.

That work right? Is that legal? Is that a legal motion?

Yeah, and it may help to say what kind of impact, type of visual, type of traffic, noise.

The noise, I think he addressed well. I think it's the bulk of the building being at the back of the lot and the trucks being between the bulk of the building and the residential, which, yeah. I think if those concerns accompany the recommendation, then I'm here.

And I would second that. Okay, so it's been moved by Commissioner Morgan, seconded by Commissioner Kehoe. To approve the item, recommend approval for the item with the added development agreement. Madam Clerk, can we have a roll call?

Garner, absent. Miller?

Aye.

Daffer, absent. Turner?

No.

Kehoe?

Aye.

Morgan?

Yes.

Kirkman?

No.

Copeland, absent. Fein?

Yes.

Thank you. The ayes have it.

Thank you. Okay, we will move into item 3-3, conditional use permit for a non, Mr.

Chair, can I make a motion to take a five-minute recess?

Let's take a five-minute recess. Yes, absolutely, please. Yeah, I know. Okay, we're gonna come back to order, get started again. So we are looking at item 3-3, Conditioning Use Permit for a Non-Commercial Kennel License in the NRS Zoning District, addressed as 816 7th Avenue South. For Savannah Sloan is the applicant here.

of any roofing, so. My name's Savannah, I live at 816 Seventh Avenue South, Nampa. Yes, sorry. Okay, there we go. Okay. I made a PowerPoint. I'm here because I'm trying to keep my seven dogs, three of which are little chihuahuas. They're smaller than cats. One is a Labradooski. One is a Husky mix and a Pitbull. And then I have a Lab Pointer mix that I've had for several years, and I love them very much. So this just kind of shows what I'm trying to do here. Everybody's spayed and neutered. I don't breed. I don't house sit for people in my home. I'm just trying to keep my own dogs. I work really hard to take care of them. I keep them as safe as I can. And I try to keep them from being in anybody's way as much as I can as well. So I'm a veterinary technician. I have been for over 10 years now. Part of that is how I've ended up with all these babies. Most of them are rescues. They get advanced medical care. They get everything that they need. They get regular routine care. They're already fully licensed with the city. They're up to date on vaccines as well. They get laboratory care. They're also really good citizens where we use them for practice when we're needing to practice blood draws or teach people. When we were shopping for a new ultrasound machine, it was my dogs that I would bring in that we could practice on, same with my cats. And then Jimothy is actually large enough to be a blood donor dog if that's ever needed as well. So they have mostly been rescued. That little baby, Almost, and Jimothy next to her, those were the first photos that I saw of them. And that's kind of what pushed me to save them. They're both off euthanasia lists. Almost was never gonna make it to the adoption floor because she was just so ill. They just weren't gonna be able, there's so many healthy dogs. They were both pulled out of Texas. And then Jimmy was actually in a kennel and at the shelter for six months. I pulled him from being euthanized about two hours prior to the procedure. And then Pink, you can't see her in this photo, but she's my Labradooski. She was going to be shot by a farmer down in Emmett who didn't believe in taking dogs to shelters because he didn't want to pay the relinquish fee, but he had too many dogs due to accidental litters, and so he was just going to shoot her and put him down himself. And then the little chihuahuas, those are the only ones that didn't come to me as direct rescues except one of them. I had the, there was an accidental litter and I had that person reach out to me directly asking if I would take her so that she wouldn't end up in a bad situation, so I did. And I take them everywhere with me. So I work really hard to keep them clean. Unfortunately, my yard is all dirt. It turns out it's actually really expensive to put in a lawn and also kind of hard when you have the dogs. But they get baths. I'm constantly cleaning up after them. They're a little naughty and they like to counter surf and tear things up, but they're living their best lives and mind over matter, so I love them more than I love things. I have a six foot fence all around my yard so they can't escape. They still try and they have, but I stand outside with them anytime they're outside now to prevent that from happening. And then this is a little bit of a look into our lives. I'm really outdoorsy. I'm constantly hiking, camping. I do back country. So even though we're on trails, they're not running up and harassing other people. Where I go is way out in the boondocks so that they can kind of run around, play wolf. But they're really obviously really well behaved and they stay with me. And when we're not out hiking, I call it the pile. And we're all cuddled in the pile in bed. And that's my very favorite place to be. This was a link to a video. I don't know if it'll actually work, but it's just a little video of kind of what it looks like into our life. For time's sake, I'll just skip it. But there's just another photo of us kind of out in the snow. We do stuff all year round. The wawas typically stay home when the snow is really deep or really cold, but they all have jackets and they all have sweaters, including the big dogs, so that they're taken care of and warm and happy. I actually am high functioning autism and ADHD. I routinely take medication every single day to make life easier for me. I don't need to take as much medication when I'm with my animals. They help regulate me the way that the medication does when I'm not around them. I also have really bad PTSD. I've had a lot of struggles in my life. I'm a rape survivor. I'm a domestic abuse survivor. I am a child abuse survivor. And these dogs really helped me to get through it. I also grew up military. And when you grow up in that kind of environment, you aren't living somewhere long enough to build super lasting relationships. And so as a child, my lasting relationships that I could always count on were with my animals. And that's part of the reason I place so much value in them. This just goes on a little bit more about what they give me, the dopamine regulation. And then they help me so I don't have to take every medication every day or as much medication every day. And then this is just a comparison of care standards of kind of what they get in the shelter and what they get in typical households versus what they can get with me. And then this just goes over the euthanasia statistics. 5.8 million animal shelter intakes happen and I don't want to contribute to the homeless animal situation. I can't save all of them, but I can keep these seven safe and loved for the rest of their life. Out of those 5.8 million, 600,000 are euthanized. And that's typically younger dogs, there's puppies, there's dogs that are perfectly fine to be adopted that don't get to find homes. And then this just goes over, if you can take some of that and you can say some of it's for euthanasia or behavioral problems. But as you can see, the euthanasia rate is still, it's only 390K to 210K that are euthanized due to behavior and medical problems. And then there's just extra vulnerability for certain breeds like pit bulls and huskies. I actually think almost is mixed with a pit bull as well. And then there's part of a look into the pile. That just goes over cats a little bit. My long-term goal is to move. I'm actually in the process of doing that now. I've already spoken to my boss for the company that I work for. We have locations in Kentucky, which is actually pretty far, but I can't afford to move out of city here. I can't afford to move to Kentucky and be able to afford a property that we can all exist happily and peacefully on. I'm not just asking for permission from you guys to keep my dogs. I'm asking for your help to help me keep them so that I can move to a better place for us. Thank you. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, quick question. Yep. You have seven dogs?

I have seven.

How many cats?

There's no regulation on how many cats, so I'd rather not discuss that.

Okay.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, Christy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Christy Watkins, Principal Planner for the City of Nampa. The request before you tonight is for conditional use permit for a non-commercial kennel in an RS-6 zoning district to keep seven dogs. The property is located in the RS-6 zone and it is completely surrounded by RS-6 zoned properties. So according to our animal code, pot belly pigs and dogs equate to each other. So you are allowed to have two dogs or two pigs or one dog and one pig in combination. Anything over that requires a conditional use permit for a non-commercial kennel.

I'm sorry. Can you go back to that, Mr. Chair? Just a clarification because right there in that first sentence it says in which more than two dogs and or cats of at least six months. That's why I asked the question, how many cats? If she's got seven dogs, wouldn't however many cats come into play also? Because it could be more than seven.

So that's the definition for a non-commercial kennel. We don't regulate the maximum number in Chapter 21 for cats. And in chapter, I guess chapter three, where it says you need a conditional use permit for anything over that amount, that's what they would be asking for. There's a number of other animals that are on the property as well that don't fall into the need for a conditional use permit either. It's either allowed or it isn't. So I'm not quite sure how to defend that definition with a cat, because cats are, Cats are cats.

And it's very specific. And or cats. That's the reason I asked the question. That is very specific. Includes dogs and cats or cats. So if the applicant says seven dogs, I mean, however many cats, does it bump it up even more beyond that?

Not according to the definition in 1021. Next, 1021 says...

It would certainly be more than two. Okay, thank you.

As you know, there are four criteria for conditional use permit that need to be met. However, in this case, two of those criteria don't really apply to this application, so we're going to be focusing on just two of them. The only correspondence that we received was from the police department. They oppose the issuance of the conditional use permit. They have responded to her residence in several occasions. The most recent was June of this year. On this occasion, she was found to be in possession of the following list of animals. 12 plus cats is what they listed in their letter. While at the residence, officers found the condition of the home and yard to be unsatisfactory for the keeping and maintenance of animals. Ms. Sloan was charged with animal cruelty, and this case is currently working its way through the court process. Over the last couple of years, Nampa Animal Control officers have had several conversations with her regarding the number of animals that she keeps and the various conditions of her property. So the surrounding land uses are primary single-family residential. The lot is an average-sized lot in the RS-6 zone district. They are kept in the backyard, in a fenced backyard. That is a fact. According to Chapter 21, The left chapter or the left column is what is allowed by code to be kept. That can all be kept together in one place. You can see where in some cases those numbers are exceeded. This is just a snippet of the information that came from animal control with the number of visits that they made to the property. These are the names of the seven dogs that she's asking for today. In July of 2022, she was approved for two dogs and two pot-bellied pigs. In April of 2024, that conditional use permit was revoked due to the numerous calls by law enforcement to that property. So while that conditional use permit was revoked due to multiple citations, this is a new request for seven dogs and no pigs. The conditional use permit criteria that applies is the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the property and project will not adversely impact the intended character and appearance of the general vicinity. It's a residential neighborhood. She stated that she keeps everything clean. There's minimal noise impact, secure containment, and then We've got the other side of that coin from animal control that says, due to the number and types of animals, there's evidence that the state of this property is not aligned with the intended character of the residential neighborhood. And then the other one is the proposed use will not involve activities that will be determined to be detrimental to persons' general welfare, causing traffic, noise, and odors, that kind of thing. Again, she had some... quotes in her narrative where she talks through some of the general welfare and the noise and the odors and all of those things. And I just go back to the numerous visits by law enforcement. These are the conditions of approval. They are the same conditions that were approved with the last conditional use permit and then also coming into compliance with the number of the other animals so that that meets code. These are your potential motions. I would ask that when you make your motion, you give a reason for whatever you decide. I need you to come to the conclusion on this one. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Got a quick question for him, if I could, sir. So if we were to deny this, would she have a certain amount of time to remove all the animals that are over the limit? Or is it we're just going to keep having to keep some animal control over there?

Commissioner Turner, I imagine that animal control would do an initial visit and would set up a plan to be rid of them in a certain period of time, and then they would continue to monitor it. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Morgan that That definition in Chapter 21 is the one that causes the conditional use permit to be required, and that's where it talks about the two pigs or the two dogs. And then the chart itself lays out how many in total of the other types of animals they can have without a conditional use permit.

So... What we're talking about today is...

Seven dogs. And now... Our... Yes.

Madam Clerk, do we have a sign-up sheet?

Yes. Calling Giuliano Sferl. If Mr. Sferl is not present, then we have no other speakers signed up for public testimony.

Okay. Is there anyone that would like to speak for, against, or undecided on this specific item? Go ahead and come on up. Remember, give us your name and address for the record, please.

Hi, my name is Jonathan Dobkins. I live at 2770 West Tango Creek Drive in Meridian, Idaho. But I am a friend and a coworker of Savannah. have known her for about four or five years and um i've gotten to know her with and her animals and her dogs and i have not once um thought that they were mistreated in any way and um I have been to her house, and they have been taken care of. They're well fed. They're in healthy condition. And so I asked that she would be able to keep her dogs. And this permit is only for the dogs, so I don't think the other animals would be put into the equation.

Thank you.

Anybody else that would like to speak?

My name is and I live at 51 East Blue Heron Lane in Moravian, Idaho. I've known Savannah for the past three years and she's not only become like my best friend but a sister that I didn't have and the dogs in her are I can't imagine her without her dogs. That is her family. That is her life. And they're the things that keep her stable. When she calls me and she's having a bad day, I know that she's in a pile with the animals. To say that they're not being taken care of, to say that they're abused, I think it's a grievous misstatement. I think that it really hurts my soul to see the people, to know that she has people in her quarter that support her. We've got lists of over 15 plus letters of recommendation. I don't want to lose my best friend because we are planning to leave here. We don't want to be a pain to anybody. But if you want to know what real animal abuse looks like, I work in the same profession. I have seen things that I don't want to speak about. And this is not abuse. And this is, they're well cared for. And she would not be, she would not take these animals on if she could not care for them. You can take that into consideration.

Thank you.

Anybody else? Amos Sloan, do you have anything to add? Yep, go ahead and come back up. Yep, go ahead, please.

Time before, but all of these binders are medical records. It's all their blood work. And then it's letters of character from people. And then it's not a secret to the four of us that we know who's reporting me and it's It's not from the neighborhood. It's coworkers, which is another reason that we're leaving. I've also had footprints that I've seen outside my house and my yard that aren't mine in the snow. I don't feel safe at home. I don't feel safe at work. My animals make me feel safe. It's another reason I'm trying to move. I just want to move. I just want to keep my animals and move. That's all I want to do. I just want to leave. I bought my house when I was 24. It was a fixer upper. It's still a fixer upper. When I was 24, I was sleeping on my friend's couch. I didn't have a home. And I went from that to having a home that I thought I could live happily with and just have my animals, have my old lady dreams, my Disney princess life. I don't have internet. I don't watch TV. I don't have TV at my house. It's my animals. I go home and I'll just play with them and stare at them and hiking and camping. Like that's my life. That's what we do. I know it's different from other people's hobbies, but I'm different. And I'm really tired of having to take medication every day to fit in better. And I have to do that to feel safe at my own home. It's not right. And here I am, you know, six, seven years later, and my house is still a fixer upper because I don't have the funds to do all that. I don't, especially now with how prices have gone up. I wouldn't have been able to afford my house as a 24 year old if I didn't buy it right in 2019 before the prices went out above and beyond. And that's why I can't afford to move out of the city here. That's why I have to move out of state. When I was 24, I didn't know to look at city ordinances. I knew not to live in an HOA. but I didn't think about city ordinances. And I wish that I knew what I know now because I would never have bought that house. I resent it. I don't wanna be there anymore. I just want permission to exist there until I can leave, which is what I'm trying to do. It's probably gonna be at least within the next year. And I did look at the ordinances in Kentucky and it doesn't matter if you live in city or outside of city, you can have as many cats and dogs as you want. I learned, I've learned. So if you guys wanna review medical records and review letters, you're welcome to. It's an open book. I've had trouble with law enforcement. I know it doesn't look good, and I'm really tired of being painted as this horrible picture through animal control. My house wasn't nice when I bought it. It's not because of my animals. It smelled bad when I bought it. It looked bad when I bought it. It was what a 24-year-old could afford all on her own. And I worked really hard, and I was really proud of my house. until now.

Okay.

Do you have questions for her? I guess that's all. Thank you.

I do have a question, I'm sorry. Yeah. Ms. Sloan, if you don't mind. Would you mind speaking to what the current charges and situation in the court is so we have a better idea?

Yeah, absolutely. And I actually, I didn't bring my phone, but I also was just texting with my lawyer yesterday to see if there was an update to that I'd be happy to share. So when they came to my house, it was for a welfare check on my dogs, again, and they had found, and they found that I had 24 chickens. However, I had, they were all less than six months old, except like five, because people get chickens. You grow them out, you see what's a rooster, you see what's not, you keep what you want, and you don't keep the others. Other people are allowed to do that. Other people in my neighborhood do have roosters, but they took all my chickens that day. I also had two mini ponies in my backyard, which I've had there for several years, and they told me that I just had to move them. So I moved them. They're out boarding with my large horse now. So I moved them. That's fine. They confiscated the chickens, which Adele went and picked up the very next day because we were told that that if they were picked up and just relocated by somebody who wasn't me, then there wouldn't be any charges. But then the shelter hadn't finished processing them. And so Adele had to pick them up the next day in which they charged her $700 to bail them out of chicken jail. And we were not told of those fees. But they basically, when I asked why I was being charged with cruelty, because I'm not cruel to the animals, I'm not cruel to them. I even have medical records on my chickens of when I took them to surgery. But I asked why I was being charged with cruelty, and they said it was just the category that it falls under. And they're trying to charge me each for cruelty for each individual chicken. So like 24 counts of cruelty towards each chicken and two counts of cruelty towards my ponies. And it's very contradicting because if the animal safety and I was cruel to them was really what they were worried about, then why were we allowed to get them to get them back so I could still have access to them. Why were my dogs left at my house if I was being cruel to animals? Why were the cats left at my house? It's very contradicting. And the update that my lawyer gave me yesterday was, let me scroll down and find it here. Because I did ask him for advice about coming here, too, because I don't know if I could afford a lawyer. He'd be up here with me right now. But he said, where zoning is a civil issue, it is outside the scope of my appointment, and I'm afraid I have a full calendar of cases tomorrow, so he wasn't able to make it tonight. He says, I don't have any updates on your case currently. The prosecutor handling the matter has been away dealing with family stuff. I currently have nine other cases set for jury trial on the same day or prior to your case. I'm hoping the logjam of cases work in your favor to encourage the prosecutor to dismiss your case or maybe at least reduce it from a misdemeanor to an infraction. You know, because he has actual crimes to be concerned with. That was his exact quote. Mm-hmm.

Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Second.

Then moved by Turner, seconded by Kehoe to close the public hearing. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Closed.

Thoughts?

I have some real concerns that we... We granted her one in July of 2022, and within two years, she'd gone way over what was allowed with the two pot-bellied pigs and the two dogs at the time where she had, what, horses and goats, and it wasn't even two years, and it was revoked. Countless calls, even three calls from her that she had reported a lost dog. So I have serious concerns with extending this and giving her another chance to have seven dogs. Because if history repeats itself, which it usually does, the seven dogs are going to turn into who knows what else. And I mean, at the one time she had 46, I know farms that don't have 46 animals. So I am not forgiving CUP for this.

I have to agree. I don't know how many chances you can get in life, but she's had a lot more chances to get her act together than I've ever had in my life. Can't get together now. Hasn't been able to in the past. I can't see that you can in the future either. Followed disregards. Claims that she doesn't know what they are, which that's not excusable to me. Think about the police department and the dollars that they spend trying to address just her issue. It's the defense of the city that we don't need to have.

All right. Chairman, if I may, while we're in deliberation stage, as deliberations are happening, there's a box here on the right that has the two, there's technically four criteria, but these are the two that are germane to this. The other two really don't apply. As you make your comments, can you speak, commissioners, to those points of where it fits into it? Where this is a quasi-judicial decision, you gotta fit it squarely and tightly within those. So as you continue the deliberation, do that.

Yeah, Mr. Chair, in fact, that's exactly what I was just looking at here is the, I do not believe that the number of dogs and the request at the CUP fits the nature of where this location is, where the house is in the neighborhood. It's not, you know, I think it's detrimental to the neighbors, the general welfare, not to mention the traffic. We mention traffic all the time. That's why I said it. not to mention the noise and the odor from seven dogs and whatever else might be there in the home. I just don't think that there's, I'm not convinced that the property is equipped well enough to handle seven dogs. And it's evident from encounters with law enforcement that that has been the case. So that's why I am inclined to, uh, deny this.

I haven't lived as long as Steve has, but I've been given more second chances than that. Um, A lot of times on these CUPs, it's almost better to have them than not because then we have some leverage, and there's motivation for her to follow the rules when we have the conditional use permit. I don't know if I have many thoughts beyond that.

I've got a question. So if we were to issue a CUP in this situation, and let's just say somebody from Boise called and made a complaint, they know her, they don't like her for whatever reason, they're not a direct neighbor, is that a valid complaint?

I'm hoping we can look up that language in code. I'll do that in just a second here. I think it relates to a neighbor within a certain distance, if I remember right. So let me take a look at that code. If there were two complaints from neighbors... if you issue the CUP and the CUP is to be revoked, I think it has to be two neighbors within a certain distance that complain. So if you got that.

Commissioner or chairman, I believe the language is in 102512 on revocation. It says any citizen complaint or city citation related to noncompliance with the conditions of the CUP shall be investigated by city staff. Again, I don't see any other, as I'm scanning through it, it appears that it's gonna be just for citizen complaints or city citation. And our understanding is a lot of these are complaint driven. And so they kind of come case by case analysis. And so, but somebody who's totally remotely from the situation, that's gonna be a case by case analysis, so.

The planning department has to substantiate it, act on it, right?

I believe so, yes. It's here investigated by city staff and it's in Title 10 of your code.

Rodney has to do it himself. But I would imagine that the intent of the word citizen in there is a citizen of this jurisdiction.

Yeah, that's the only reasonable interpretation I read into it, yeah.

Yeah, the only last thing I would add to that is just that we were just looking at the code. It also says found to be credible. So, yeah, I would have to go out, visit it, visit the site, see if it's credible, what the complaint is about. And it's. a little bit of notch, as you stated here, a notch up for those who can make that complaint against a CUP versus just an average code compliance issue, anybody could call in. They could be in Boise and call that in. But for a CUP to be revoked, it has to come from citizens.

Along that same line, the police department, they're citizens of Nampa. Would that count as a citizen? Would that count as their official duty or what? There's a citation.

Mr. Chair and commissioners, there's also discretion given to us if there is an agency complaint or concern from the animal control or whatever, we can go out and visit and make that determination. I typically don't do that unless I get a notice from somebody. I wouldn't just go out and visit a CUP-issued location. unless we had the two complaints from neighbors or I had a staff member of the city notifying me there's a problem and then I would go out and visit.

Is it possible to put limitation time restrictions on a CUP?

Mr. Chair and Commissioners, yes, we have done that in the past, and we've said you can have this for a certain amount of time, and by this date you have to do these things. We've done that, put conditions, but again, it's the Nolan-Dolan nexus and proportionality rule. It has to relate directly to what's being requested.

But you can't, excuse me, you can't make a condition. I don't know what I'm trying to say, but I can't say it. One of the conditions that you say, your time limit, like he's talking about, you can't say, well, by January 25th, you have to have no compliance issues. Every time you have a compliance issue, that's another citation.

I think she's trying to move. And so if we put a time condition on that and say, okay, your conditional use permit.

How long are you going to give her to move? Well, I think that's the whole point of the conversation is, is it six months? Is it a year? And then if that time runs out, then she would have to come back before us and ask.

What's the key for me? for a year and have five complaints and then come back next day and do four complaints and come back five more complaints? I'm making assumptions.

Yeah, and if there are complaints, that gives grounds for revocation of the permit, correct?

Yeah, it'd be subject to investigation. I care for our neighbors and I care for the city itself. We have laws, we have regulations, we should comply with them. the police department goes out there as many times as it has, that's sufficient for me.

I guess if that's still out there, police will investigate for kind of code compliance, maybe criminal liability. Whereas here, this is a land use investigation. So Rodney and his team would conduct their own investigation on that. And so there would be a different investigation when it comes to the CUP. Think of that as its own little box of rules that's governed and administered and enforced by a planning and zoning department PD. They still can do as they need per calls. There's nothing that stops them from that. And the conditions you put on here, I mean, it's implied in the name, it's a conditional use permit. Put the conditions on that would meet the, criteria of our code that's up on your screen in the box. And it can be a time and it doesn't have to be to the property, right? It can be for time and limited to the occupant owner as long as they're there for a certain period of time.

I understand concerns about

I've also had many second chances in my life too, so.

I don't know, I think, like I've said before, it's you, you have more control. I don't know, to a point.

You're doing just a good job.

You've been on point.

Well, if there's no more discussions or anything, I'll make a motion to approve the permit as stated on the screen with the conditions for my reasons being on the permit. With a time limit of one year. To the occupant only, not to the property.

So what I'm hearing you say is to the earlier of occupant no longer owning the property or one year, whatever comes earlier. Correct.

Mr.. Chair I believe we still need some Reasoning too because how does it meet the criteria?

I think we just need a little more clarity there If you want to add some analysis or reasons based off those two in the box that'd be needed here I

I know there's a motion on the table. Can we discuss?

No, we can absolutely discuss.

I'll hold it. I don't know if the applicant would even be amenable to this, but I, I wonder if we could include, you know, she's already gotten rid of the chickens and the ponies. And I think that's a good thing. If we could just enshrine that in the conditions too, that would make a little better. Is that, that's kosher, right?

Yeah, if you want to have them amend the motion to include that, yeah. And yes, that would be permitted. It's not uncommon. We'll see, hey, by a certain time, you have to be in compliance and have certain changes happen, whether removed or added to your situation. If you fail to do that, then the whole thing crumbles, right? Then it's revoked. It's almost like an automatic revocation.

I might do two years. But those are only suggestions you do if you want.

I'm looking at the top one. And it says that the design, construction, operation, maintenance of the property and project will not adversely impact the intended character and appearance in the general vicinity. They're not necessarily new animals. This has been like this. I don't see anybody here from the neighborhood complaining about it changing the neighborhood. And if it did adversely affect the neighborhood, I would expect someone from the neighborhood to be here saying so. So I don't live in that neighborhood, so I can't, I'm not gonna speak whether it does or not.

to have these conditions that would.

I'm going to discuss this. I'm okay with adding some conditions if those are very specific, very specific timeframe, very specific number of dogs and no other animals, and it would be an automatic violation or revocation. That's what I would be amenable to. I want her to have her dogs, but I don't want her to have 17, 27 chickens and 14 cows and all that other kind of stuff that are property either, because that definitely isn't the nature of where this location is. SO IF THERE ARE VERY SPECIFIC CONDITIONS IN THE MOTION.

THIS MIGHT BE A LENGTHY MOTION THEN. SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON BEN 25482, THE LACK OF neighborhood opposition. I will put the conditions on there of one year, either occupant or sells property with the condition of just the dogs given the prior seven dogs with as of the the past amount of other animals and other issues that have been with that.

Does that work, Preston? I think so. Maybe one cleanup and clarification on the ownership piece. It could be if you're, again, it'll be you to propose the amendment, not me. you know, if ownership changes or occupant no longer, uh, or ceases to, you know, reside there that way they move, sell whatever abandoned it, it's gone. Right. Or, and then the, and the fall, the fallback over this is a hard one year backstop.

Can I ask a clarification? We said seven dogs, specifically seven dogs. But what if, what about cats? There's certainly some additional, probably some cats there too. I don't know how many. Is that included in this motion? Just seven dogs?

Just to reiterate on the motion, it's for seven dogs. Because that's what we're talking about. And these seven dogs? And these particular seven dogs that have been listed and named IN THE STAFF REPORT.

I THINK YOU'VE NAILED IT. THE REQUEST TODAY IS NOT FOR ANYTHING BUT THE DOCS. SO WE HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT.

YES. SO THE MOTION'S GOOD?

I THINK SO.

WE DON'T NEED TO REDO IT? MOTION'S GOOD. THE RECORD'S CAUGHT IT. WE HAVE A SECOND.

I would second. I'm a little nervous about the one-year timeline. It seems optimistic. And do we want her to have to come back every year, pay the fee every year, come back and do this per minute? Sounds like you've already mentioned two years. I've mentioned two years. You stuck with one year. If you want to stick with one year, that's fine, but that would be my suggestion. then we'll go 18 months. It gives her a great, I mean, she's, she wants to be out in a year. Correct. I just don't want to burden her or the planning staff with having to come back more than it's necessary.

Mr. Chair.

So the motion is amended and for the second, and I'll just go with, COMMISSIONER MORGAN FOR TWO YEARS. DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.

IT HAS BEEN MOVED BY COMMISSIONER FEEN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN TO APPROVE THIS ITEM.

CAN YOU RESTATE THE MOTION? JUST SO THAT I'M CLEAR, I THINK THINGS HAVE CHANGED A LITTLE BIT. Mr. Chair, could you read it? Yeah. What do you got over there?

Clerk can read it.

I'm pretty sure that I have it, but. I think I've got it. Okay.

I'm looking at the clerk.

I have been.

Christy's got it right there in her notes.

Writing fiercely. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. For approval. Because of 4A2. The property has been in this condition for some time. There are no neighbors in attendance to testify that it adversely impacts the character and appearance of the general vicinity. With the conditions of approval that there is a time limit of two years for the occupant only or as long as the occupant or until the occupant no longer resides at the property for just these seven dogs and not the other animals due to the previous citations that were listed by animal control.

So it's two years or before she moves, whichever comes first.

Yeah, two years or she no longer resides at the property, whichever comes first.

That is my motion.

Okay, Madam Clerk, may I have a roll call?

Garner, absent. Miller?

Aye.

Daffer, absent. Turner?

Nay.

Kehoe?

No.

Morgan?

Yes.

Kirkman?