Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

Boop.

I did, he texted me. Huh? What? No, he told me that Brett wasn't gonna be here. And I said, he texted me. Who? My daughter just had one, but not me. That would have been noteworthy. OK, we got 6 o'clock. We're going to go ahead and start our meeting. Can anybody hear me? Hello, hello, hello, good. How about now we get OK 6 o'clock? We're going to start our meeting. Welcome everybody. We're glad to have you here. Madam Clerk, why don't we start with roll call?

Thank you chair Miller. Absent. Vice chair Garner here. Commissioner Kehoe. Here. Commissioner Daffer. Here. Commissioner Morgan. Here. Commissioner Copeland. Here. Commissioner Kirkman. Here. Commissioner Turner. Here. Commissioner Feen.

Here.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right, how about Rodney, the report on council elections?

Thank you, Commissioners Rodney Ashby, Planning and Zoning Director for the record. So we had a couple of items heard by City Council last week for consent agenda. The first one was final plat for Crosswoods Estates phase one. You had recommended approval at the 28th, the July 28th meeting, and they did approve that. The next one was a subdivision short plat for Devlin number two, and they approved that as well. And the two public hearings, sorry, four public hearings that were considered was, the first one was annexation and zoning, and then subdivision preliminary plat for Lake Lowell Estates. And you had recommended approval on June 23rd, and they approved that. The next one was a variance for Burger King to, essentially, they're gonna clear the lot over on 2nd and Northside, and they're gonna rebuild a Burger King, and in order to get a couple of lanes in there, they needed to be a little bit closer than code allows for landscaping, but there is quite a bit of landscaping out in the right of way, and so, Essentially it's gonna look very similar, but at least the amount of landscaping that we have out there is very similar. So that one was approved, and then there was a small vacation of public utility easement off of Idaho Center Boulevard. for Kendall Hyundai and that was approved for their expansion of their facility there. And then an annexation and zoning and then subdivision preliminary plat for Issa Ridge Estates. And this is the one off of Ustick Road, 8230 and 8054 Ustick Road. And concept was two existing single family homes and seven additional single family detached dwelling units. and you had recommended approval on the 9th of June, and they did approve this. That's all I have. Okay. Thanks. Thanks.

I would entertain a motion for approval of the consent agenda. So moved. Second. Okay, so we got a motion to approve by Daffer and a second by Kirkman. All those in favor?

Aye.

Okay, so that passes. All right. So we're going to move into the public hearing portion of our meeting tonight. We have three public hearings tonight. And the way the meeting will go and commence is that we'll have the applicant come up and they'll have seven minutes to present their project or whatever it is that they're seeking approval for. Then we'll have a staff report and the staff has unlimited time to present their findings to us. After which we'll open the public hearing for public testimony. And anybody that wants to come up and comment, we'll have three minutes to comment. And at the conclusion of the public hearing portion, we will have an opportunity for the applicant to rebut any kind of testimony that was given or be able to provide answers for questions that were raised. And then at the conclusion of that, we will close the public hearing, and then we will deliberate before rendering a decision on the application. So just a reminder, we need to hold on and make sure that we have decorum in the chambers tonight. So the meetings are broadcast online, and so we have microphones positioned here. And so if there's chatter and talking amongst the the crowd, then they can't, it doesn't always pick up what's being said. And so we would ask you to kind of keep the chatter to a minimum if you can please. Um, so we'll go ahead and start with the first application. This is an action item annexation and zoning to RMH multifamily residential zoning district, potential development agreement on two parcels. Um, the parcel numbers given addressed as 17 to 45 and 17, one 87 North Canada road. for KM Engineering representing Crossbar 2 LLC. Original concept was for 12 multifamily and two and three story buildings with 312 residential dwelling units and a clubhouse. Is the applicant with us now? Okay, come on ahead and just remember to give your name and address for the record.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of commission. Stephanie Hopkins with KM Engineering. Our address is 5725 North Discovery Way in Boise. I'm thrilled to be here this evening to talk with you. I'm here on behalf of the property owner and the developer, Bonaventure, on our request to annex and zone into the city of Nampa to accommodate a future multifamily development. This is a conceptual site plan that we put together just to show how the buildings would be oriented along with landscaping and open space areas. We've met with the city on a couple of occasions to understand the requirements, go through the comprehensive plan and understand the future land use map designation for the area and have specifically designed this. In fact, the developers worked on a couple of different iterations to design this to be compatible with existing development and make sure it'll complement. everyone that's already in the area. Bonaventure is a family-owned company. They are based out of the Northwest, so they are a long-term developer and holder of properties. They're really excited to be in the city of Nampa, and they're here with me this evening. If you have specific questions on design or the project, I can bring them up and they can give you some additional information. So we're here this evening to ask for annexation or a positive recommendation on the annexation. Let me see if I can get this to go forward. I really appreciate Candace's help with everything, too. She's been wonderful to work with and super communicative, so thank you. This property is currently enclaved property within the county. As you can see, it's surrounded by city property. To the north is the Cannon Creek subdivision. It's zoned RS7 and the Breckenwood subdivision, which was recently approved. It's a mixed-use development, zoned RS6 in B.C. To the south is the Enclave Apartments. They're now called the Asher Apartments. They're currently under development. You considered these a couple years ago and provided a recommendation to city council. It's currently under development and I think close to getting certificate of occupancy. Also to the south is Cherry Lane. It's a principal arterial roadway in Baker Park, which is a multifamily development in the Gateway District. To the east is Canada Road, which is also a principal arterial roadway and more enclave property. So that's within the high density future land use map designation as well. And then to the west is the Lyonsdale Park Subdivision, which is zoned R6. It's a single family residential property that are also to the west. So this property is opportunely placed along Canada Road, which is obviously a large transportation corridor in the city of Nampa, super close to CWI, which has been expanding exponentially, and it's really close to the Idaho Center as well as other large employers in the area. It's an infill property which will provide, improvements here will provide extended transportation network, improvements along Canada Road, and then a connection for sidewalk between the existing subdivision to the north, the Asher Apartments to the south, and then eventually Breckenwood to the north as well. So annexation's appropriate because it's consistent with the comprehensive plan and the high density residential land use. Our proposed use and concept plan are compatible with the existing development that has, that exists in the area or has been recently approved. The developer has actually worked through several different iterations to decrease the stories that are present right up against existing development. So I'll show you a couple of those layouts in a minute. And then a rezone to the RMH district will provide additional residential opportunities to support large employers in the area, as I already said. This area's been programmed for high density residential, services are available. Police and fire both responded that this would be an acceptable area to serve and it's consistent with what's been approved recently. This is our concept layout. We're currently proposing 312 units There are 98 one-bedroom, 172-bedroom, and 44 three-bedroom units. As I mentioned, the developer has worked on a couple different iterations. They specifically put two-story buildings right up against the Lionswood subdivision and the subdivision to the north to try to mitigate the impact of the density, and then as you go further into the the site there are three story buildings. So the developer is trying to focus as well on two and three bedroom units, knowing that the Asher Apartments was focusing on studio and I think it was one bedroom apartments, to try to balance that and provide more of a, maybe more towards a family demographic. So trying to serve young families potentially going to CWI or being employed nearby. They are proposing a tot lot in the north part of the development. There will be a dog park, a clubhouse that will have several amenities, interior, as well as a pool and some sports courts on the exterior. And then most importantly, probably to a lot of the neighbors to the north, is that the access that's shown on the north side is actually just an emergency access that's supposed to be provided should emergency services need to access this site from a different location. Our primary entrance is via Canada on the south side. We're proposing 654 parking stalls currently. That exceeds what code requires. It's 629. We do have substantial landscaping that's planned along the Canada frontage. It'll be really attractive, and like I said, we'll, currently there's a void there, so there are developments to the south and to the north of us. This'll be a really nice bridge between the Asher Apartments and the subdivision to the north. So provide additional pedestrian connectivity, it'll create a safer pedestrian connection for folks along this road, as well as make it just look more consistent. We are proposing, I'll go back to this slide, some garage parking. So the darker gray kind of brown boxes, those are garages which will provide an additional buffer to the neighbors to the north. They'll be enclosed so folks won't hear as many potentially vehicles or folks coming and going. And then in our neighborhood meeting, we had some really good discussions with folks. There were a couple of neighbors that wanted to see specific types of landscaping along their properties. So on the north boundary, we're planning on including some kind of faster growing more vegetative buffer to make sure that their concerns are heard. And this is just a vicinity map to show you kind of how everything joins together. So the Baker Park Apartments, I'm not sure where they are in development, but they'll be coming online and then this whole area is just kind of developing out. These are concept elevations, so should you recommend approval and the city council approve the annexation, this project will go through design review. So these are not finalized by any means, just meant to give you kind of an idea of the type of architecture that's planned. So most of the buildings, aside from three of them, will be three-story, and then there will be two-story buildings, too. The architect put these together to try to make them compatible with what's in the area as well as incorporate some nice modulation and penetration and planning on using some lap siding, board and batten. All of these details will be provided for the designer view application to make sure staff has a chance to review that and make sure that they look good. And we'll also submit a detailed landscape plan and open space exhibit with that application. And this is the concept elevation for the clubhouse, which is a really attractive building, lots of glazing. The idea is to really make this a communal space for future residents. They have somewhere they can hang out and enjoy the pool, a central location. So we're really excited about this project. I think it's gonna be a perfect addition in this area of Nampa. As I mentioned, it's infill development. So the city does try to prioritize, or the comprehensive plan tries to prioritize infill development, especially with higher density housing, especially where services are currently programmed. There is about 500 feet of frontage along Canada here that will be improved. We're dedicating, we will be required to dedicate 50 feet of right of way along with widening the road and including a 10 foot sidewalk along the frontage and then it'll be landscaped in an attractive manner to provide a nice looking frontage. Cherry Lane and the Canada roundabout is functional and has, I would imagine, helped with traffic concerns. I know that there was a little bit of a water leak issue today, so folks maybe coming to the meeting today experienced more traffic than would maybe be typical at this time of day, but we did complete a traffic impact study that has been submitted to staff, and we're committed to working with the engineering department to make sure that the mitigations recommended by the traffic impact study are in concert with what the city would like to see. Let's see. Yeah, I think this is a really great project. I think it'll serve nearby employers, CWI, and it's close to I-84, so it'll be super accessible for folks. And with that, we're in agreement with the staff report and the conditions of approval, and I will stand for questions. Okay, thank you.

Yeah. Question, please. This is an apartment complex, and you have a dog park. Usually, I don't think we see many people have a dog park for apartments. They have them for homes. So do you?

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Kehoe, I've actually worked on a few projects, maybe not in Nampa specifically, where we have dog parks in multifamily developments, and they're usually in a central location because folks have a limited amount of space.

The dogs, do they create problems for the tenants in other buildings or units next door?

Commissioner Kehoe, I'm not sure.

Usually you have a place, you put the dog out in the backyard, but these people have no backyards.

Exactly, yeah, which is why a dog park is important, I think.

But you can't stay there all day.

Agreed. Yeah, so there will be quite a few sidewalks internally to the site, and I think there will be opportunities for folks to walk their dogs within and then hopefully take them to the dog park to burn off some energy and relieve themselves or whatever else needs to happen. But I think typically those dog parks are owned and maintained by the HOA. They make sure that they're emptying receptacles and that it's all Operating well.

Will there be any amenities in the dog park or is it just an open area for them to go and run around?

Commissioner Kehoe, I don't think that we've contemplated that quite. Our rendering does show some play equipment for the dog park. We do typically include, you know, trash cans and then usually there's like a gate system. So they're usually fenced and there's like a gate system so that dogs can't just come and go as they please and the owners have to go in there with them.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Yeah, quick question. Maybe I missed it, but the northern buildings are two-story. Are all the others, the interior, all of the others are three-story?

That's correct, yep. So the building on the east side, kind of abutting.

I think there's three of them, right? Correct, yep. The ones to the south, or the south there, those two along the southern border, those are three-story also?

Commissioner Kirkman, yes, there are three.

Okay, thanks.

Thank you.

Okay, any other questions? I have one. Go ahead, Commissioner Captain.

Your emergency access, is that gonna have bollards and stuff, or is this just gonna look like a road?

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Daffer, they will likely, the fire department will want to see bollards or some kind of gate system with an ox box. I don't know that we've gone through those in detail yet, but we'll coordinate with the fire department to make sure that we're doing, using a method that they approve of. But our intention, and the developer's intention, is that folks won't be able to freely come and go, so we'll need to make sure it's secured.

And then was there anything on your TIS that surprised you or did you kind of see everything coming?

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Daffer, no, it was actually, we have very minimal improvements that they recommended. They want to see a left turn lane coming out of the site and then a right turn lane coming into the site for our property, so. Okay, thank you. Yep.

Any other questions? All right, well, thank you, Stephanie. Thank you very much. We'll call you back up. Okay, Candace.

Good evening Mister chairman and commissioners, my name is Candace fry associate planner for the city in Napa the request before you this evening is an annexation and zoning to our image multifamily residential zoning district and potential development agreement on the following 2 parcels the original concept is 12 multifamily 2 in 3 story buildings with 312 residential dwelling units and the clubhouse. Property details, both parcels are currently under Canyon County jurisdiction. The surrounding zoning to the north is RS7, single family residential, Canyon Creek subdivision. To the south is RMH, high density residential, the Asher Apartments or Enclave. To the west is RS6, single family residential, the Lyonsdale Park subdivision. And then to the east is all Canyon County for the most part. The comprehensive plan designates this area as high density residential and the adjacent parcels are currently designated as residential mixed use and high density residential. Applicable regulations, 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 outlining these four things listed here on the screen and in your staff report. more applicable regulations, 10.2.3c is the conclusions of law pertinent to proposed zoning map amendments, and then Title 10, Chapter 12, the RMH zoning district, multifamily residential, that is listed here as well. for correspondence. We did receive one late public comment. It has been provided tonight here for you for reference. Nampa Fire District does not oppose the application subject to compliance with code requirements and conditions of approval. As noted in the attached memo, Nampa Engineering provided general water and sewer comments and provided standard comments regarding access and traffic and then their attached memo has the full details listed in your staff report. Nampa Police Department, based on the overall population and future service, predicts that there will be 748.8 new residents to the city of Nampa's current population. Therefore, Nampa PD is recommending a commitment to fund 0.94 additional officers and 0.49 additional support staff if this project is approved to maintain current police service levels. So into the staff analysis, 1012-4.a talks about the bulk requirements for principal structures and accessory structures. So I have a lot of math listed in the next couple slides. I won't bore you with the math, but it's all listed there and in your staff report. So the proposed number of units is 312. So they, based on the proposed number of units, it will only be required to have 3.7 acres of land to be constructed per Nampa city code. The total amount of acreage they are providing for this development is 15 acres. And then a little more into the parking so this again a lot of math a lot of numbers for the parking analysis this development requires 629 parking spaces according to code and they are providing 654 88 parking requirements will be in addition to this number and then parking will be reviewed at time of building permit. So more into the staff analysis open space requirements so 1034 10 dot a dot 7, C dot I talks about multifamily recreation space requirements so at least 5% of the total net acreage of all residential both will area shall be retained as recreation space. The open space calculation will be provided with the final design for the design review application. And then the applicant has provided the following amenities. A clubhouse, a pool, a tot lot, a dog park, and then pedestrian pathways throughout the development. And then as far as landscaping requirements, 1033-4C.3.A, a 25-foot landscape buffer will be required along Canada Road. A landscape plan will be reviewed to meet code requirements with the building permit submittal.

Hey, Candice, real quick.

Yes.

On that list of amenities.

Yes.

I think, did Stephanie mention that there was also sport courts there as well?

Yes.

Yeah. and I wasn't on the list, and so I was just gonna point that out, that there are those for the court as well.

Yes, that is also included. So findings for annexation, just a few facts. Let me get back to it, there we go. The Nampa 2040 Comprehensive Plan outlines future development for the area. It identified this location as high density residential. The proposed RMH zoning district is a permitted zone under the Comprehensive Plan future land use map. designation of high density residential. Some findings for the zoning to RMH. The three criteria to determine the zoning are here listed out for you. And then a lot of relevant facts for this. And this is all listed in your staff report as well in addition to these slides. The proposed zoning map amendment for the following parcels is in harmony with the comprehensive plan because it proposes a zone of RMH that is allowed in the designation of high density residential and it 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 residential as is the proposed use and it is in the public's interest and reasonably necessary because it will extend city utilities and will install frontage improvements. It is compatible with surrounding zoning and complies with adopted city codes. Here are the recommended conditions of approval and any others that the commission wishes to add. Here are your potential motions, and I will stand for any questions.

Questions for Candace.

Yeah, Candace, clarification. The outdoor or the recreation area, I know we've mentioned outdoor a couple of times, but does that also include indoor recreation area, the square footage, or the percentage of space required? know in the letter that they submitted that's part of the packet they included that in in the same paragraph indoor and outdoor recreation so i wasn't sure i think the answer was on one of her slides a few slides ago correct well yeah that's what i was looking at yeah three percent or something like that

There you go. Nope. One more. One more. There you go. Okay.

So thank you, commissioners. One of our code sections for multifamily is that you have to have 5% open space. 3% of that open space can be inside of a building. So I don't know if the math has been done on this, but it will be when we do our design review because that's where that code comes from.

Okay. Thank you. I SAW THIS SLIDE, I SAW INDOOR RECREATION, IT WENT BY TOO QUICK FOR ME TO READ THAT. THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR CANDICE? THANK YOU, CANDICE. Okay, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing now. Just remember, as we do the public hearing, you will have the opportunity to come up. You'll get three minutes to testify. And as you come up to the microphone, please state your name and your address for the meeting record, if you would please. Madam Clerk, do we have a sign-up sheet for this one?

Thank you. We do. Calling Stephen Brandt.

Hi, my name is Steven Brandt. I live at 17252 North Holbrook Avenue. That is a house that's just to the north of this subdivision or whatever they're building here. And there's a couple things that I wanted to bring up here. There's a lot of traffic already on that roundabout, especially when you have the Ashers Apartments, which have 299 units. across nine buildings. Now they're going to add another 312 apartments in the same area. Ken Ada Southbound is always backed up in the morning, and even coming down here, it was really backed up because there was something going on at the Idaho Center. So another 312 units would be, you know, just out, I don't know how it's going to handle to that, you know, single lane roundabout. I don't know if they're going to have to update that or put in a four-way, I mean, you know, a stoplight or something there. Because it's not going to be able to get people through. The other thing I worry about is I live at that address right next to it, which is in the Fairhaven subdivision. I'm worried about the impact on home values there. also the loss of privacy along the property line there. I mean, they do seem to have some buffer there, but it's up to them to change at any time, and that's what I worry about, that all of a sudden, there's gonna be somebody looking in my backyard, or looking in my house. And the other thing I have a big concern about is that emergency access. That goes right in front of my door. Now, we have kids, we have grandkids, and we worry about the amount of traffic. I don't worry about fire trucks or emergency vehicles, but I want to make sure that there is something there so that it's not becoming part of their access point. Okay, and that's all I had.

Thank you. We appreciate it.

Thank you.

Bob Nash.

My name is Bob Nash. I'm at 6259 East Path, right to the north of the proposed development. We would best be seen as the ones that would be the width of a fence post from the dog park, right behind our house. I don't know why it needs to be there. If they put that in the very middle of their development, I don't know that the residents of that development would be very happy. So they've put it off to the edge and that impacts the people in the single family homes. So I would sure love to see that relocated more into the middle of their area or maybe between them and the other apartment complex or right up against our backyard. If only 10% of 312 units had dogs, that's 30 dogs going into that park multiple times a day right behind our fences. So it doesn't seem like a good idea. I did not see where the sport courts were. Whoever mentioned that panicked me a little bit. The biggest complaint that you read about with pickleball, and I'm assuming that's what the sport court is, is the noise that it creates. And all that's doing is bringing additional noise to our neighborhood. And then the last thing that I would ask, I know that this ship has sailed, that this is moving forward. Just hope that it moves forward with the neighbors a little bit more in mind. And one of those things I think they could do, I couldn't see for sure on the map, but that whole stretch along the northern part of their property, I think should be lined with evergreen trees, a lot of them. to give us the opportunity to keep our privacy, as Mr. Brandt just said, and look out to something that's attractive, at least, rather than these monsters that are in our backyard now. Just so you know, the apartment complex that's already in there, that's hundreds of feet away from us, shows up like a beacon in our windows right now. So I can't even imagine 12 more multi-story units. So anything that could be done to add buffer to that area would certainly be helpful and appreciated.

That's all. Okay. That's all we had signed up. Is there anybody else here or online that would like to speak for, against or undecided on this project? Okay, seeing none. Stephanie, you want to come back up and respond?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Stephanie Hopkins, 5725 North Discovery Way in Boise. I'll talk about traffic a bit because that's always a concern and I also mirror those concerns as I'm driving around too. The roundabout, I believe, has been designed to allow for expansion should that be merited in the future and maybe Daniel could provide a little additional information on that. And I know that Canada has planned to expand to five lanes at some point too in the next five years. to seven years. So I think as the city reviews our traffic impact study and other traffic impact studies from other developments in the area and recognizes how much background traffic is already approved for and is being mitigated for in addition to our development and other developments, they'll probably start to require or start to look at expanding those facilities. So I know, too, the property owner just mentioned to me that Star Road is actually closed until the 19th of August, so that's probably impacting traffic a bit. And then the water line that I think was damaged also impacted traffic today. specifically, which made it seem probably like the Idaho Center had something going on. As far as loss of privacy that Stephen, Mr. Brant had mentioned, the developers committed, I believe, to providing additional landscaping. We did speak with a gentleman that came to the neighborhood meeting about his concerns with his young family. and he'd asked specifically for, I think it was a type of cypress or a fast-growing evergreen tree, so I would imagine that he'd be amenable to including some additional evergreen and some more lush landscaping along our northern boundary, recognizing that this is going to be an impact to the existing development. The emergency access will be gated or bulleted. There is no intention or desire to have that be open, not only for the Canada multifamily development, but we don't wanna impact them with additional traffic. So we'll coordinate with the fire marshal on that to make sure that it's per their standards and what they want there. Let's see, what else? The dog park in the northwest corner, I think maybe I'll let you address what you plan to do there. And then the sports courts are in the center area next to the clubhouse, which has been programmed to include some amenities within. We will exceed the 5% and the 3% likely that code requires, so.

For the record, my name is John L. 3425 Southwest Boone Road, Salem, Oregon, with the developer. So to address the dog park and also to your commissioner's comment earlier about the dogs. So the dog park isn't meant to just let people drop their dogs off and leave for the day. Anytime you're in a dog park, you're going to be keeping with, you're going to be with your dog. And we are going to have staff on site to make sure that anybody is adhering to any noise violations. So if you have a super loud dog, you're going to get warnings. And if it continues, then you may end up getting evicted if it just constantly barks. And one of the big differences between this and, say, a neighbor, a neighbor can bark. in a subdivision, they can stick their dog in their backyard, they can leave for work for the day, and that dog could yap on and on and on and on and on. So while there may be some noise with the dog park, it shouldn't be a constant. We will look back at the site plan and see what other options that we may have. We're open to doing that. But like Stephanie said, we are long-term holders, and so being a good neighbor is important to us. I know that isn't the case with all of the developments here in the valley, but we just got approval on our first development over in Caldwell, and we're really excited about the opportunity to bring one here to Napa as well. Thank you.

I don't have anything to add, but thank you for your consideration this evening, and we're happy to answer any other questions you may have.

Any other questions? Is the sports court going to be a pickleball court? It looks like a bad, it looks like a half basketball court.

Uh, we've done both and we've, we've done some where it's a half court and then you have the ability to play pickleball on it too. Um, it's not final design yet, but, um, it, it may have a combination of the two.

Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thanks guys.

Just to clarify, along that north side, those are going to be two-story? Correct. Correct. Kind of equivalent to a typical two-story residence?

Yes, that was our intent. The other thing, if you look at our buildings, just comparative to the Asher. The Asher's buildings are much, they have a lot more units per building than we do. So that's the other thing that not only are we stepping down to two story buildings adjacent to the property lines and the single family homes, but we have fewer buildings, fewer units per building. And so the overall mass of each building is a little bit smaller than some of the ones in the adjacent development. we are trying to keep those massing down a little bit, especially near the neighbors. Okay. Thank you.

I would also add that a significant portion of that Northern boundary is garages as well, where there is no residents. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Questions for staff.

Daniel, do you want to address that roundabout? That was a concern.

Mr. Chair, commissioners, the roundabout was designed to be able to be expanded to a dual lane roundabout. And as that. is either triggered by development growth or just by background growth. The city would either, if it's development triggered at that point, that would be funded by the development community. If not, it would be funded through impact fees and streets monies at the time that it triggers that improvement. Thank you.

Any other questions for Stan? I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

I move. We close public hearing. Second.

It's been moved to close the public hearing by commissioner Kirkman seconded by commissioner Kehoe. All those in favor. Aye. Okay. Public hearings closed thoughts.

They answered my questions. I was going to ask about possibly moving the dog park and they're going to look at seeing if there's another viable location for that. I think it's a legitimate concern or an issue. I like the step down, the two-story buildings along the northern end. And like she said, it was just, you know, it's like having a backdoor neighbor that's got a two-story house looking at you.

They build them in every subdivision, one single-story and two-story.

So I'm not too concerned about that. I do appreciate the sports court and the recreation center more in the centrally located where it's away from neighbors. And I also appreciate them bollarding that emergency. So I think this is a good location for a project like this. It's close to the freeway access. It's close to the school. I'm in favor of it.

Sure. I'm in favor of it for the same reasons that commissioner Jeff is tonight. It's infill project. We want to provide housing and infill projects. And this is a nice step down from the apartments to the, single family subdivision. I think a couple of things that got brought up. I want to make sure that in public testimony that they know we are thinking about and addressing one is the traffic. I don't want to seem like we're ignoring traffic, but they did do the study and they will be required to make the improvements required in that study. Right. So, um, so we acknowledge that traffic is a problem and there are things in there. The other thing that was brought up is like for now they say they're two story, who knows what they actually will build. The narrative did say they were amenable to a development agreement that would hold them to this. So that limits their ability to do a bait and switch. So wanted to know that concern was heard and covered. So otherwise I'm in favor of it.

Make that a trifecta because I'm also green. I think it's a good project. I HOPE THEY MAKE RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE THE DOG PARK TO HART BECAUSE I THINK IT'S REALLY IN THE POOR LOCATION NOW.

I ADD TO THAT. SO THERE'S A COUPLE THINGS BROUGHT UP, THE DOG PARK AND THE LANDSCAPING. IS THERE A LEGAL WAY TO PUT THAT IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT CAN BE ENFORCEABLE?

Thank you, Commissioner Morgan. Absolutely, we will make a note that those were issues that were brought up, and we will make a recommendation to City Council that a development agreement be entertained, and that there will be certain conditions addressing those exact things. I've had Candace make some notes here about what you guys have talked about tonight, and I think that we would propose a development agreement with that information.

Would that include, are we talking about the trees?

I don't know if I want to specify what species of tree. Thank you, commissioners.

We do have landscape architects on staff, and so if we say enhanced landscaping with fast-growing, tall evergreens, they will make sure that that's what happens.

Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. I was just saying the same thing over and over again. I move to approve the rec. I move to recommend approval for the project as stated on the screen with the recommended condition to enhance the landscaping to shield the vision to the north. Second. I don't know if I want to make moving the dog park a condition of approval.

So it's like my second thing.

All right. The last keeping is the dog park is not in my, my, I take it back.

If he doesn't, there's no take backs. Okay.

Sorry.

I spoke too soon then.

Okay.

So we have a motion to approve. Waiting for second. I'll second it.

Well, hold on just a quick second. If I just procedurally wise, he did second that motion. So there's a motion and a second on the table. Do we have to vote on that?

We can discuss it.

Go ahead.

We do need to take a vote because it's been seconded. And so we can always make another motion following that.

So one of the questions I guess is, is that Commissioner Daffer motioned. Mr. Kehoe seconded, but then when he's found out the dog park, he, he said he wanted to rescind it. Can he do that? Or do we just need to vote on it because he seconded it.

So, um, vice chair Garner, what I would recommend, it seems to me as if the record is clear that commissioner Kehoe is withdrawing his second. because of the miscommunication in the original motion, understanding the dog park is, is removed from that first motion. What I would recommend is making sure that that second is clear on the record and then hold a vote on that first original motion based on that second.

Okay. So, so yeah.

Turner's second. Can we not? Sorry.

Miss attorney, can we not have a discussion on it before we do our vote? Yeah. I think the motion's been made, so I think we'll vote on it for clarity. Other boards I'm on, we make a motion in a second, then we discuss it before we vote.

I think that's fine, because typically after that second, we would want to just hold a vote, okay? But I understand that there might be a little bit of some discussion about whether to include that second condition or not. Okay.

Go ahead. My concern with holding them to move in that dog park is, hopefully they'll do the, like the drawing shows and they'll put a lot of shrubs and stuff around it. Cause when you look at it, what else are they going to do with that corner? It's a odd corner to do anything else with. So that they can't put a building there. They can't move a building from somewhere else and put it back there. They're restricted on what they can use that corner for. So I think if they just enhance it all the way around with some nice shrubbery to block it, the dogs from the neighbors, I think they've got a good spot for it myself because otherwise you've got this corner that just goes to a point and can be nothing.

To add to that, like they seem like they've been good neighbors with a lot of their other concepts and making them move that dog park could kill the project potentially. Whereas adding landscaping condition would not kill the project.

Would you be amenable to just having it say, mitigate the effects of the dog park whether it could be moving it or providing the landscaping and shielding required I Think that could be part of my original like adding landscaping.

I don't think I need to add that to it I think I think Candace has taken notes and when they take it to the city and

Council for approval with the development agreement.

They can have that in there that they'll mitigate, mitigate that if they, and the applicant already mentioned that as it, we'll take a look, see if it's possible. So I'm, I'm good with that. I just want to know what motion we're going to be voting chairman.

Can I ask, can I just ask a question? So are we putting in the individual things like that, like the landscaping and the dog park, or were we going to say, were we going to suggest a development agreement? Because when Kristen came up, that's kind of what she's, I thought she said, but then it went a different way. So I'm a little confused on that.

Correct. So Christie responded to the development agreement question said that Candace will be taking notes about some of the stuff that we've discussed about mitigating things that the developer can choose to do. Um, and then when it comes to city council, which we're doing a recommendation, when it goes to city council, everyone is welcome to go again, testify. But at that point, staff will recommend a development agreement. be a recommendation from city council and the things that Candace has taken note about, which are all of our feedback will be included in that development agreement. Now, commissioner Daffner, when he made his, his motion, he did mention the landscaping on the Northern boundary. Correct. And so I, which I think is fine because they've already said that they're amenable to it. So I think that going ahead and voting on this motion, because I think it's clear, And what we see in the development agreement will come down the road when it comes to city council based upon Candace's notes.

Okay.

Is that clear? Is that good?

Yes. Yes.

Go ahead. Kind of.

Yeah. But he, in his, in Cody's or in commissioner Dapper's motion, he added the enhanced landscaping on the Northern side. Is that going to be it because it's in the motion? Does that need to be in the development agreement? It will be, or does it have to be if it's in the motion?

Commissioner Kirkman. What I will do is have her make a slide that says the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends a development agreement that contains X, Y, and Z. And then they will make that decision after they hear testimony and everything else. They will say at the end with a development agreement that contains these things.

So the motion that was seconded by Kehoe is that second is withdrawn.

That second is withdrawn.

Are we very clear on that on the record? I just want, I guess I'm a stickler from procedure. Commissioner Turner seconded it.

Commissioner Turner seconded after. So Mr. Kehoe withdrew his. Commissioner Turner came right in with a second. And it's been clear on the record that he rescinded his second. And so I think we're good to vote.

That's my understanding as well. I think from hearing the discussion, I think the record is clear on who made the original motion, who seconded the motion. I think as long as we hold a vote based on that original first motion by Commissioner Dapper, I think we're in good shape. If we want to make any changes to that, then we need to withdraw both of those motions and redo it clear for the record. That's what I'd ask.

We're good? Okay. Let's go ahead and make a motion. Madam Clerk, why don't you give us a roll call vote?

Thank you. Miller, absent.

I'll clarify. The motion has been made by Commissioner Daffner and seconded by Commissioner Turner. Excuse me. Go ahead and put the vote.

Thank you. Miller, absent. Garner?

Aye.

Kehoe?

Aye.

Daffer? Yes. Morgan? Yes. Copeland?

Aye.

Kirkman?

Yes.

Turner?

Aye.

Feen?

Yes. Okay, motion carries.

Thank you.

Well, that's the good part. We did clear it up, so I think we're clear.

It's those things that will get you in trouble. Procedural things will get you in trouble. What about cats?

What about cats? Long staff as a clear. We're good.

Yes. Okay. Let's go ahead and move on to second public hearing for this evening. This is an action item. We're hearing a conditional use permit for a non-commercial kennel license in a RS six single family residential zoning district addressed at two Oh four South Canyon street on one parcel for Christina and Mark McMullen. The original concept is to obtain a commercial kennel license for eight conservation working dogs. Is the applicant here? Okay, go ahead and come on up. And again, I'd remind you, just go ahead and give your name and address for the record, if you would, please.

Vice Chair Garner.

Yes.

If I can just borrow the commission for just a moment on some of this information. It's my understanding that there's been some documentation that was provided right at the beginning of the meeting. I can appreciate that the applicant maybe isn't familiar with the best way to kind of get these materials in front of you all before the hearing. But however, we are opening a public hearing this is an action item today, and it is a public hearing is my understanding as well, correct? So if we want to consider these materials for this hearing, My recommendation, because the commission has not had adequate time to review these items, either we, we either continue this item, which I know is probably not ideal for the commission nor the applicant, or I would recommend during your time you kind of address the materials that are here because the commission has not had time to review them adequately. It's not gonna be a part of the record or a part of the considerations by the commission tonight. I wanted to make that clear before you use your time for your presentation.

We were not aware of the timing of when the letters were sent out over the weekend when the residents have gotten the notice of the public hearing. It was about a week in time. Many of the residents who did receive it did not submit online. So when we got back from being on the mountain, we were aware that the letter came. So we went and spoke with Terry's friend at the city planning and zoning. and address the situation. And she had made us aware that nobody had submitted anything. So we're kind of, you know, what can we do to get our community together to be aware of the situation? Because when things come in the mail, they just, yeah, they really don't care. Sure.

I can appreciate that. I just didn't want to get and have you be using your time for a presentation when maybe we need some more information. So I'll defer to staff if there's more feedback on that.

Thank you. I was just going to say I've had an opportunity to read the letters, and I've highlighted some things that I think would be valuable to share, and I've added them to my presentation.

Okay.

So long as the applicant is okay with that, we're good to proceed.

Okay. Go ahead and proceed, and you guys have seven minutes.

My name is Christina McMullen. I reside at 204 South Canyon, Napa, Idaho, 83686.

My name is Mark McMullen. I reside also at the same place as she does. We're seeking approval for the kennel license. My wife and I have used these hounds for conservation and hunting activities since we moved to Idaho seven years ago. These hounds are our life. We spend Friday through Sunday every week training them in the mountains. They're extremely well behaved, highly trained, have amazing manners, and they listen very well and respond to commands and come when they're called. They're not aggressive animals. They do not pose a danger to my neighbors or my community. Keeping them at our resident allows my wife, my son, and I to take full responsibility. We know their individual behaviors and what each dog needs. They're healthy. They're properly exercised. They're kenneled indoors inside of a soundproof garage converted to a kennel. If there was ever an issue, we'd be able to handle it immediately. We know keeping these dogs housed at our home comes with a bigger responsibility to our neighbors. We've had six written letters for approval, which she has, from our immediate neighbors due to them not being able to make it. My wife and I have addressed any issues regarding fencing by properly keeping our property fence in the newest shape possible. For sanitation, we pick up dog waste multiple times a day and store it inside an airtight container and we remove it every Thursday on trash day. Their kennels are cleaned weekly. and also exposed on Thursday. For noise control, we have bark callers with him. Unless we're playing with them, obviously they're gonna bark, they're dogs. We also have 24 seven surveillance around our entire property to show that if there is a complaint, we can prove it wrong because they're not what people say they are. What I'm asking for is the opportunity to continue to demonstrate these dogs can be kept responsibly at our residence without any issues. I know that number eight sounds like a lot of these dogs, but they're highly trained and very well mannered in our hardworking pack. My wife and I take full responsibility in keeping these dogs safely, humanely, and in a manner that will continue to respect our neighbors, our community, and we just appreciate you guys allowing us to speak tonight.

I would like to chime in a little bit. Please. You know, we have resided at this residence for about seven years. When we moved here, we moved from a state where it did not require any kennel permits, so we were not familiar. You know, we were in a situation where we're desperate to find a home, and we found a home. If we had known that we needed a kennel permit, we would have done so. We've been very compliant and given everything that we've needed to provide that we are responsible animal owners. You know, we communicate with our neighbors. We keep a strong connection with them. How I was raised, which was by my great-grandmother who was born in 1920, you have neighborly interactions with your neighbors. If there is a complaint or a problem, you address it and you find a solution. In this case, that was not handled in this way. It was out of vindiction. um due to certain circumstances what we had cut ties to if that this issue was presented to us if there was any concern we would have addressed it and we would have found a solution that worked for everybody um and if we were aware at the time when we bought our residence that we needed a kennel license we would have done so as we're doing now um i am very highly I'm concerned about how my neighbors feel, you know, and I want to respect them in any manner. So in the situation I would have appreciated as me being a neighborly person, if it would have been brought to my attention and what we could have done as a community, you know, community seems to be lost nowadays and it's, a very sad situation when you don't have community. So I hold that to a very high standard in my upbringing and I'm trying to do for my community and respect them and do my part and also hear their concerns and address their concerns and show them that this is not a problem. We have multiple houses in the area that do own dogs that are a nuisance and may be constricted as our dogs may be barking. Like my husband had presented, we have surveillance around our house. We can provide video feed for every timestamp that is provided for any concern or issue that may be presented at this meeting. And I would like to be able to present that information to show you on our part of our defense that we do handle our animals very well you know like my husband said they are they are trained in a manner that most other animal owners do not train their animals you know they are supposed to bark at game they do bark when people come by if they're in the midday you know and somebody's walking by that's normal dog behavior but as a nuisance uncontrollably for hours at a time they do not do that I DO WANT TO CLARIFY CERTAIN CONCERNS THAT THE COMMUNITY MAY HAVE SO WE CAN GO AHEAD AND FIND A SOLUTION TO THE KENTLE PERMIT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? GO AHEAD.

THANK YOU. What do your dogs do? Eight dogs, that's a lot of dogs.

Yes. So, you know, being a part of wildlife management, there are only so many wildlife management officers, right? They cannot control nuisance game. So as a hound hunter, you have a pack of dogs. Some people have 47. Some people have eight. Some people have three. We have eight. We have a lot of friends who hound hunt that have like 47 to 52 dogs, okay? They live in Indian Valley, though. And what these dogs do is when you have a problem game, for instance, like how we had a bear in Nampa just a few months ago, okay? Hounds would have came in perfect in that situation. And also what last year we had one in Middleton, roaming the streets of the HOA community in Middleton. Well, what these hounds do is they redirect these animals so they do not get comfortable with humans, with human environments, campgrounds, pets. Because at that point, they're going to be curious. They're going to be curious. They're going to cause a nuisance. They're going to dig in trash. They're going to go in campgrounds. And they could be harmful. So what the dogs do is it detours them from these situations, from these areas. If they hear a dog, they're like, oh, I'm going the other direction. And it detours them from certain areas. Also, when you have a nuisance animal that is very aggressive, it helps put a fear in them, because they're a predator. A predator wants to kill. They want to be dominant. And these dogs redirect their mentality to say, hey, you're not the only dominant thing in the woods. You're not the only predator animal out there. And that's what these dogs do, is it helps maintain our wildlife to get them to kind of think that they're not the only ones out there. Hey, we need to be cautious of humans, we need to be cautious of animals, and we're gonna stay in our area, right? Because we've got a lot of campgrounds in our state parks and in the mountains. People are always up there. We're Idaho, we're a wildlife state, okay? When we have a bunch of people up in the mountains in the place where these animals live, they're going to be curious. They're going to smell food. They can smell food from over five miles away. And that's a bear. A mountain lion, on the other hand, they've got a really strong nose. Wolves, on top of that, don't even get me started on how far they can smell. So by having these dogs, it helps our wildlife. It helps our forest. It helps our fishing game. And I just think it's a great benefit for our state. And that's why we take part in this is we are giving our free services to help our mountains, to help our wildlife, to help our fish in game when we only have a certain amount of officers who can go to these calls when we've got so much poaching going on on top of it. They're being spread out very thin. So by being a hound hunter, we're contributing to our state and our wildlife.

Okay. I have just two more quick questions. One, if they don't bark, what do you need bark callers for?

So they do bark. I'm not saying they don't bark. I'm saying they don't bark as a nuisance uncontrollably, like standing at the gate for hours. They, like I said, they're normal dogs, they're pets. They're our family. They're not just working animals. That's what they do as their passion. But, um, during the day when we let them out of the kennel or if they're with us, we play with them. They have to be. stretch their legs and have fun. They're dogs, you know, just like children. They're no different than human children. And when we're playing with them, of course, they're going to use their voice. But as a nuisance, as uncontrollable, they're not. They wear bark collars. So if they do bark, if somebody's walking by, they get a tone. Hey, don't do that. And that's what the bark collar is for.

And then the kennels, when they're kenneled, are they kenneled for Like do you guys work all day long and they're kenneled all day or?

No, I'm a homemaker. My husband works in Texas. He's gone for two weeks out of the month. So I am with my dogs 24 seven. And the kennels are just for them to sleep in. If I need to go to the store, they go in their kennel and then they get let out. So that's, yeah, that's what the kennel is for. I have a kennel dog, so I know what you're talking about.

They spend most of their time on the couch during the day.

Yeah, we've got plenty of video and pictures to show that they're just big babies.

So they are just like kids then. Teenagers.

They eat, sleep, and go to the bathroom.

Especially on the weekend after they chase a bear, you know, 30, 40 miles. They'll literally sleep for three days nonstop. You can, like, poke them to make sure he's still alive because they just don't want to get up. They're so spent.

Mr. Vice Chair, I have a quick question. Do you have to be certified in some way to train these dogs in this particular way as conservation dogs?

No, in no way. No. These animals in their bloodline, it's what they were bred to do. Their bloodline chases game. So there is no license. I mean, you have a hound hunting license in order to run game, but There is no certification in dog training for them. As long as you know how to train an animal and you teach them right from wrong, like, again, your children, to know and make better decisions, that's how you're training them.

And do the state agencies reach out to you to say, hey, we've got this issue with some wildlife. Can you bring your dogs in?

Not us directly, but if you are signed up on a list for them, if they do have a problem animal, you can.

Okay, so that's how you find out when and where to take your dogs if there's a – I mean, you probably take them out in the mountains on the weekends anyway. Every weekend. Just to get them acclimated and trained. But if there's an issue that they need to go out there for, there's a list that comes up that says, hey, we've got this area problem.

Not that comes up. So with Fish and Game, they have certain people that they swore in as – their officers to help with problem game, right? We are not on that. We do this as a form of passion for our mountains and for our wildlife. Our state is warmed with hound hunters because Washington State, California State no longer allows it. Oregon does not.

So just to clarify then, you're not associated with fishing game or state parks or rec or anything like that. No, not at all. There's no connection there. This is just, basically it's like a hobby for you is what I'm kind of seeing.

A hobby and a commitment to my wildlife, yeah.

But there's no formal relationship with the East AD?

We do have good relations with Fishing Game, though, because we trap and everything else. So if we were to push it further, we probably could get on a list for problem animals.

That's just something that we do not seek at the time. That's not something that we're interested in. It's more so... for the dogs to do what they love, for us to do what we love, for us to keep a bond and passion between our hounds and our family, keep a tradition alive, and also contribute to our wildlife without having to be sworn in or an officer. I'm just giving to my wildlife manager.

Okay, no, I understand now, and I appreciate the explanation. Thank you. Okay, additional questions? I have one.

Yeah, go ahead. Will you please describe What kind of fencing you have in the current state of repair?

Yeah, so we don't have any current state of repair. Everything is done by dog-ear fence panels, concreted into the ground, and it's surrounding our entire property. We did double-side the one side of the fence because that was the neighbor who was complaining, and we... felt very uncomfortable by them peeping into our yarn. So we kind of extended it up a little bit and closed the holes that were accessible, the little holes between the slits there. They are secured by metal poles on that side and around the other side, but the front side, it's a wood four by four post. And whenever we see that a panel needs to be repaired, we just repair it immediately and then restain it.

I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. YOU KEEP SAYING ON THE WEEKENDS AND THAT'S GREAT ACTIVITY FOR THE WEEKEND. During the winter months, do you still do it then too?

Yes. Mountain lion is during winter season. Bobcat is during winter season. But during the spring, summer, and fall is mainly bear. During the summertime, it's considered training season. So if you have any young dogs that need to be more active on games so they can stay with the pack and stay in line, You use that training season to pursue, but not to kill. So springtime and fall is for kill, which we do not harvest. We only harvest aggressive animals that are a nuisance, which we have not done. We have not harvested an animal since we've been doing this.

Can you transport all these animals?

We have two trucks and each truck has a dog box in the back for all eight hounds. And how we put them in the vehicle is we have a sliding gate that is adjacent to the alley, which we back the truck up and we load them in there. Or if we have the trailer in the yard, we will one by one leash them to the dog box and then we'll leave that way.

Any other questions? Okay. Thanks guys. Appreciate it.

Thank you very much.

Good evening. My name's Terry Friend, Associate Planner for the City of Nampa's Planning and Zoning Department. So as we've been discussing so far, we are talking about a non-commercial kennel license for eight dogs in a residential zoning district. This area is in a medium density residential area on the comprehensive plan. It is zoned RS6. As you can see on the map there, all directions, it's single family residential in an RS6 zone. There is water, sewer, and irrigation services already provided to the property as use as a single family house. All right. So the next few slides are going to detail some information from the applicant's statement and provide you some photographs of the dogs. They maintain eight hound dogs as an essential part of conservation and wildlife management activities. The purpose it directly supports responsible conservation efforts and maintaining a properly sized pack is necessary to safety and effectively carrying out that task. All right, maintaining a pack of eight hounds allows for selective deployment. And that flexibility improves effectiveness while minimizing unnecessary impact on wildlife and habitat. The McMullen's hounds are highly trained, disciplined, and carefully managed. They are well socialized, responsive to commands, and consistently demonstrate reliable obedience. And each dog has been trained to return immediately when called and to work under a handler's control at all times. These hounds represent a significant investment in time, training, and care. And they are maintained responsibly with strong commitment to conservation, animal welfare, and community safety. Their presence is purposeful and controlled. And with all the time and love that they pour into training these animals and teaching the hounds, they do become family. Right there is your teenager. I did want to provide just a little bit of additional information from the applicant because I had questions too. I think we've gone over number one, which is what exactly is conservation, right? So they gave a good explanation of that tonight. I did confirm with them that this is not a business, it's a passion, right? So we don't need to worry about it being a home occupation. They did confirm that all eight animals do belong to them and they gave me a list of ages and breeds just because. I asked for it but I prefer the pictures. And then some additional information, they're not breeders. So there isn't puppies that we're talking about. The youngest two you saw on the list were one year old, but they are not breeding them to sell. When they purchased their home, they created a kennel, an indoor kennel location for them. and they maintain that properly. The dogs only bark when instigated by someone they don't know, and the dogs wear bark collars when needed. They're not allowed to excessively bark. And I wasn't sure what selective deployment was, so they went ahead and helped me with that. It means that not all the dogs are out working the game at the same time. They use some in the morning, maybe later in the day they swap them out. Or if they're having a hard time, they can swap out who's out there or get them all out there. So that's selective deployment. But nobody gets left but at home. So there isn't one or two dogs who's left at home and sad about the whole thing and barking the whole time. So if they're at home, they're supervised. If they run a quick errand, they're kenneled. And then they do have them out every weekend. All right, so now we're here to the fun stuff that you guys have memorized, but since we do have people in the audience, I just want to touch on everything here. Planning and zoning does have regulations about dogs and pot-bellied pigs. You can have... one of each, you can have two of one, you can only have two dogs. If you toss in a pot belly pig, we're gonna have to re-discuss, but we're just talking about hound dogs today. And then in our zoning chart, a non-commercial kennel license in an RS district does require a conditional use permit, that's why we're here today. And so you guys have this memorized, but we do conditional use permits because certain types of uses require consideration prior to them being permitted so that we can effectively make sure that the uses it's mitigated their impact on adjoining land uses and the purpose of the review tonight is to be determined the characteristics that the use would have and how we can make that reasonably compatible with the surrounding area. So there are criteria that are required. There's four criteria to be able to approve this permit. That the proposed primary land use is supported by the comprehensive plan. That the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the property and the project will not adversely impact the intended character and appearance of the general vicinity. that the proposed primary land use will be served adequately by essential public facilities, and that the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment, and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any person's property, general welfare, by reasons of excessive traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. And we don't always talk about this, but a conditional use permit can be revoked. So there is a, sorry, a path. If a citizen has a complaint, they can report that to planning and zoning. And it's something that will be investigated by city staff. And if the complaint is found to be credible material and not remedied, a CUP can be revoked. So, just important to make that clear in case there are additional concerns. And in addition to the planning and zoning regulations, there is also an abundance of police regulations related to dogs specifically. This slide shows the regulations related to licensing. Every dog's supposed to be licensed. The licensing process requires you to divulge if they are vaccinated and spayed or neutered. and that a kennel license is required if you have more than 2 dogs. In addition, this animal code under police regulations also has a substantial portion related to noise regulations. Excessive noise nuisance, an animal that barks, spays, cries, howls, or emits any excessive animal noise which disturbs the peace, quiet, and comfort of any reasonable person of normal sensitivities residing in the area. And so there is a standard that talks about the distance as a distance of 100 feet or more from the source of such a sound. So that's the basis for it. And then the code goes on to describe a complaint procedure and how those would be addressed. All right. The SNAP analysis is in your packet, so I don't want to spend a ton of time on it. But I did want to talk about how we meet those criteria that we talked about for the CUP. So the property is already served by existing public facilities and services. There have been recent reports to animal control. There's a concern that these may be retaliatory in nature, but while there's no way to definitively determine that motivation behind any complaint, the existence of the reports to the Animal Control Department does demonstrate that there's been concerns in the neighborhood. Those actual police reports came in to me just yesterday afternoon. They are sitting on your desk. The presence of eight adult hounds has the potential to generate noise and other impacts that are materially different from those that are typically associated with a residential neighborhood use. But the applicant has represented that the property provides secure housing, appropriate sanitation practices, and adequate containment of the dogs. Correspondence. We got a two-line statement from the animal control officer who was out on August 3rd. She says that it was a barking dog complaint. Mark and Christy were able to provide video evidence of the time of the call incident to provide evidence that their son was in the backyard playing with the dogs at that time, and she considered that normal dog behavior. And again, the reports from the additional incidents are on your table. Code compliance said that there was no code violations at the time. Up until this evening, I had only received one public comment. It was a concern about dog noise. And this particular neighbor said that the sounds of hunting dogs, baying, not just barking, is heard at times. He says, at times, it sounds as if their dogs may have treated an animal. Let me just skip here to the ones that are on your desk so that I can do some highlights from those. Sherry C., who lives at 308 West Lincoln. I did confirm the addresses on all six of these, and they are within the immediate block. Sherry C says she has dogs the entire time she's been living there. She likes to walk the dogs. She's noticed that the McMullins have gorgeous hound dogs that I consider to be very helpful in deterring crime in their neighborhood. They had a series of break-ins is what she was describing. You may think that they will bark at you, they actually don't unless they are hunting, they're quiet unless they're hunting with Mark. She's never heard uncontrolled barking and even walking by with her dogs, they are not reactive to them. So she enjoys the dogs. Jamie Keller lives across the street. She says she's never witnessed excessive barking. I am outside a lot taking care of her garden and have only heard the dogs barking when someone is going by the fence, which any dog would. Colette Taylor, 244 South Canyon Street, says she didn't even realize that they had eight dogs because Mark and Christina are such diligent dog owners. These dogs are very well trained and well behaved. They do bark at times, like all dogs do, but they do not cause continuous loud noises or disturb the peace in our neighborhood. And that the McMullins keep their yard neat and secure. Mike Parker of 108 South Canyon Street says they are willing to implement engineering prevention for barking and have notified everyone that if there is noise issue to please bring it to their attention. Nicole Lager of 328 West Washington points out that they've consistently demonstrated care and responsibility in the way they look after their dogs. Based on her experience with them I'm confident that they understand the importance of responsible animal care, proper sanitation and being respectful of the surrounding neighborhood and She's never had any issues with them as neighbors or any issues with any of the dogs in their care. And finally, Jason and Jacqueline Townsend of 219 South Canyon Street bring several points to our attention. As a nearby residence, I've consistently found the dogs and the kennel to be positive presence in our neighborhood. Their presence increases security and makes neighbors feel more aware of activities around our home. Their presence help deter suspicious activity and supports a safer, more connected neighborhood. The dogs have not created excessive or disruptive noise. Barking is controlled and occurs only when appropriate. Instead, they actually serve as a helpful alert. The dogs are kept under control. The property is well cared for and the facility operates respectfully within the neighborhood. The proposed findings have been listed in your staff report. Just gonna show those on the screen. So a conditional use permit is required for a non-commercial kennel license in an RS zoning district to ensure that any negative impacts to neighboring properties and general residential vicinity will be reasonably mitigated. Though eight dogs exceeds what is typically allowed, a CUP is the means to approve excuse me, a means for approval after neighbors have been given the opportunity to express any negative impacts. This says no public comments were received, but we know that that wasn't true at this point, just be prior to the staff report deadline. Code compliance found no code violations. The applicant has provided a detailed information about the housing of the animals, handling of pet waste, and mitigation of barking, though dogs as pets may impact neighboring properties. In this case, it appears that those impacts are being and will continue to be mitigated by the property owner. If necessary, city codes and policies and staff are charged with enforcing property maintenance and animal control standards. I came up with a pretty long list of proposed conditions of approval. Some things are really just pointing to regulations that are already in effect. These are listed in your staff report. I can go over them if you'd like. But there are 13 and you can propose any additional that you felt was necessary. And there are your potential motions.

Thanks, Terry. Questions for Terry?

So other than the recent few complaints, they've been there for almost seven years. Has the animal control been out there prior to these recent ones?

I asked, when I put in the public records request, because they hadn't responded just to our general department and agency comment request, I asked for all of the animal calls and it was only the ones since June.

Thank you. Any other questions?

I guess is the reason this is non-commercial just because it's not actually a business and it's a hobby?

Yes, commercial kennel licenses, we consider like being able to go buy a puppy at a commercial retail location. If you're doing it in your home, we consider that a non-commercial kennel license.

Buying and selling, okay, thank you. But on that note, if they were to contract with Fishing game at that point it becomes commercial and this is that the case if they're getting I Mean that that's one of the conditions listed in here.

Oh, um Christie's point was they're still not buying and selling dogs.

Oh, so it's the actual service

Go back to your first slide about the police conditions or the police requirements. It's a blue slide. What didn't you say on the slide that the dogs needed to be spayed and neutered? Or what did I imagine that?

The licensing goes on to ask if your animal is spayed or neutered. So this code actually says no canine will be licensed as spayed or neutered without proof of that surgery. So the license application actually has you choose which direction it goes.

Oh, it's not a requirement. They just need to report it, right?

No, they have to report it correctly. And then that's part of their license registration.

We'll go ahead and open up the public hearing now. Again, if you want to speak for, against, or undecided, when you come up to give your testimony, please give your name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes to speak. Madam Clerk, do we have a sign-up sheet?

We do, thank you. Calling Kelly Coste.

My name is Kelly Cost. I live at 1093, I just moved in, West Bay Street in Middleton. So the Jamie who is making the complaints, I used to own that home. I live next door to the McMullins, or Millins, sorry, for three years, and not once Did those dogs ever try to come through the fence? Did they bark uncontrollably? If they barked, it was with the kids because they had their daughter at the house too. The kids would run with the dogs from one end of the yard to the other and they would play and it wouldn't be for very long. The kids would come inside, the dogs would be either put in the house or kenneled. Never are they allowed to sit and bark uncontrollably. Now us, we have a five pound toy poodle who barked way more than these dogs did just plain. And never once has anyone ever complained about my dog or their dogs. You can go back and look, there's never been a complaint until the disagreement with Jamie, who now owns the home, and Mark and Christina, who decided to cut ties with this neighbor. At that point, that's when it all started. Now I can go through here in her complaint. She said the dogs came through the fence twice. I put that fence up. I put up the metal posts to keep that fence strong. If you go and walk that fence, you will not see a change in the wood. There has not been a new board put into that fence. So that is not truthful. my personal belief, it's out of vindiction that they no longer want to be friends with them. And I know that Christina has the cameras up. She's recording every time the dogs bark, why they are barking. She can provide all of that to you. And when somebody's being not truthful, calling in, trying to get, the police or whoever to come over because a dog barks one time. It's just wrong because it's affecting their lives. They love these dogs. They treat these dogs very well. They're very well cared for. The yard is clean. You won't find poop around the yard. It's constantly cleaned up. They're just very, very good people, and that's why they're still in my life to this day. We consider them family. I've played with the dogs. They're very well behaved. They do have the little collar in case if they get excited over something and start to bark, it will buzz. They don't get shocked, it'll just buzz. And they stop instantly. And I've seen them all over the couches, just hanging out. They're very good. Anyone can come in there and pet them. They're not gonna attack people. They're very sweet. And I think also what they do with these dogs is great. It's keeping the community safe. It's keeping the animals away from our cities. But yeah, I would highly consider HOPEFULLY YOU WILL CONSIDER GRANTING THEM THIS PERMIT. SO, ALSO, I ALSO OVERHEARD THE PERSON HERE TO COMPLAIN THAT THEY THOUGHT THAT THESE PEOPLE WERE SOMEBODY ELSE. SO, JUST WHAT I OVERHEARD. SO.

THANK YOU.

JANET TRIN,

Good evening.

I'm Janet Turn, and I'm going to read my address, 2101 North Branding, Iron Avenue in Middleton. I just moved there today, so I had to read that to you. I'm Kelly Coff's daughter. I'm a daughter. She's my daughter, I'm her mother. And through the years when she lived next door to the McMullins, I watched her animals and never did I have a problem with the dogs next door. They're well taken care of. They never bothered me. I slept through the night. And it would be an injustice if these people did not get a certificate to take care of these dogs. So whoever's complaining is doing it very nasty. So I hope you will take that into consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Jacqueline Townsend.

Hello, my name is Jacqueline Townsend and I live at 219 South Canyon Street here in Nampa. I'm here to speak in support of the working dogs at my neighbor's residence and also responsible dog owners who live directly between, I'm sorry, I am also a responsible dog owner that lives between them and several neighbors. I observe the working dogs daily. They're well-managed, not excessively noisy, and have never been a nuisance. Their alerting behavior has actually helped our neighborhood, especially considering past thefts. They contribute to safety, not disruption. I also want to speak more broadly about what it means to have pets in the neighborhood. Pets are family. They live with us, protect us, comfort us, and are part of our daily lives. When a neighbor makes a complaint, it should not automatically mean that someone's animals are a problem or that they should be removed. If children are outside playing and another neighbor doesn't like the noise, we don't remove the children. We work together as neighbors. The same principle applies to pets. I say this because I personally have experienced a situation where a neighbor made a complaint about my property early on into moving into my home, and I resolved it immediately. Since then, I have continued to be responsible with my dogs. They are licensed, well-behaved, properly contained, and have not been part of any legitimate nuisance issue. And I want to highlight something important. My neighbors, whose residence includes these working dogs, handles concerns the same way I do. When issues are brought to us directly, we resolve them directly. We don't require a city official to intervene. We communicate, we fix the problem, and we move forward. This is what responsible pet ownership and responsible neighbor behavior looks like. That's why I'm concerned when assumptions or misunderstandings lead to complaints that don't reflect actual conditions. Responsible owners and responsible residences with working dogs should not be judged based on confusion or personal disagreements. We should be looking at actual behavior, actual impact, and actual facts. And the facts are that the working dogs are well managed and my dogs are well managed. Neither are causing problems in this neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, next.

Kyle Thompson.

Hello, my name is Kyle Thompson. I reside at 10 South Honey Drive in Nampa, Idaho. I have known McMullins for about two years now, a little bit longer. They have always had their dogs. They're always well-mannered, well-maintained. They take care of them. Their house is always picked up. Their yard is very secure. I don't think I've ever seen anything broken on it. If it gets broken by somebody else, they immediately repair it. The dogs are very friendly. If you get close to them and just go up to them and say hi, they're going to jump on you and love on you, but they're not. barking in your face, they're not trying to attack you, they're not trying to take you down, anything like that, because you're not wildlife. I've introduced them to my two daughters, who are 15 and 12, and same thing. They're up there, they're loving on them, they're playing with them, the dogs are gonna bark because that's what dogs do. Speaking to the complaints, If the McMullins have lived there for seven years and they've never had a complaint, and even if this lady moved out three years ago, that's three years of no complaints until just recently, which speaks to the volume that they take care of their dogs, they're always taking care of their dogs, and it's just recently after a disagreement with a neighbor that this has arisen. All right. Thank you. Thank you.

Blaine Leffler.

Hello. My name's Blaine Leffler. I live at 404 West Lincoln Avenue. I'm retired. My wife and I spend a lot of time at our place, in the house. And I must admit the dogs have been quieter lately, but it used to be that they would howl and bark, and this might go on for four hours through the day. And we can sit in our living room watching the TV and hear the dogs over it. So why somebody wants to move into town next to a bunch of people and have hound dogs is beyond me. I don't know what kind of dogs they are. Sounds like they're nice dogs, but I really hate listening to them. They was barking and howling last weekend. He come out, said shut up, and they did. Well, that hasn't been the case for a long time. And we've never called on them, because usually they'll bark or howl for 30 minutes or so, then they quit. If you call the cops, well, they're gonna be done by the time the cops get out there. So, you know, I don't know what to do as far as, They're wanting to have these hound dogs in town with a bunch of houses around. I don't know where these people live that are testifying because we've got a bunch of people right behind us, two people that raise dogs, and you never hear them. They're right over our fence. Never hear a sound out of them. But I'll guarantee you, every day you're going to hear their dogs down there. Maybe not for a long time. Not for four hours most of the time, but they will howl and bark. And it's not that I don't like dogs. I don't have one, but I don't want to listen to theirs. Thank you.

Judy Leffler.

Okay, against then? Okay, thank you.

Steve Cresswell.

Good evening. My name is Steve Cresswell. I live at 59 South Canyon street. I've known the McMullins for six years. Our boys used to play together and everything. And the one comment that I have to say is I don't know how he heard him last week and because they, uh, honk at me every weekend they lived. They came by and honked at me and I watched them go out of town from Friday till they come home on Sunday. That place is immaculate. You go in and look in the kennels and it is foamed. It's quiet. That fence, when we had the big windstorm, came down. Mark was out at 4 a.m. repairing the fence with the dogs kenneled. I've never seen any dog poop Anything, laying around anywhere. And it's very interesting because my wife didn't even know that they had a dog until they saw the first one. And the answer to the barking, I have a mini dachshund, you tell me. I just, I don't understand why, I understand the permit, but I just don't understand that these people take care of these dogs like you wouldn't believe. To watch them load these dogs, there are three there and they load one at a time. make sure they don't go here, don't go there. I've gone to their house many a time, and that picture that you saw of the dog on the couch, yeah, that's where they are. They're all in there. She brings them in during the day, I don't even know, maybe go out to go to the bathroom or something, but I've just kind of flabbergasted when he called me and said that this was going on. And I think that they're well into having an unconditional permit or whatever it's called, because you can't tell. You don't even know they're there. Thank you. Thank you.

Mr. Vice Chair, there are no further speakers.

Is there anybody else here that would like to speak for, against, or indecided, or online?

Okay.

Christina or Mark, you guys want to come back up and say anything?

So as previously stated by one of the opposing neighbors, they stated that last weekend our dogs were barking for four hours. We were gone the whole weekend from Thursday evening until Sunday. So I'm a little confused as to what dog this gentleman may have been hearing because it definitely was not our dogs. And if that is going on, then we need to find the route to that and address it, besides coming to the people who have the multiple dogs that are applying for the use permit. I guess that's about it. I just wanted to bring that forth. And also, we have video footage from about a month ago when the first complaint was made back in June. We had a yard sale. We had probably about 150 to 200 people come to our home. Our dogs were fenced on the other shorter side of the fence, so our whole backyard was open. And every dog was standing on the other side while I had items from my haunted house that I had done every year for my community, free, no donations, nothing, for the kids in my community. I had to sell my entire haunted house. So it scattered through the whole entire yard, and I had people walking. And not one dog barked at these people that they did not know. So if you would like to see that footage, I'm sure Terry has that, just to show what kind of a house that we keep, how our animals maintain themselves, how they have etiquette. And I feel like a lot of these complaints that have been made is because maybe they don't like dogs or maybe because somebody else's dog is barking and they're confusing it to ours. And also a vindictive act because of a decision we made for our family that just did not work with us. Yeah, so I just wanted to address those few issues. If you are wanting to see that video, Terry Friend has those video and you can help yourself to that.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Vice Chair, before you sit down, can I ask you a quick question? Yeah, go ahead. So there are a couple of, documented police response to your house because of complaint? Did anything ever come of those? Did you get cited for them? No. What was the outcome of those?

Everything has come inconclusive. The complaint, the first complaint that started this all, and that was the second complaint as well, we didn't have a third complaint until they got the paper in the mail.

Sorry, I didn't know, but they didn't even know who we were. They said it multiple times. They thought it was somebody else. They thought it was somebody else.

They didn't even know who we were. No ticket. You didn't get anything like that. There wasn't a follow-up unless another complaint was made, and that was the only time.

They say it was normal behavior. We have personal contact with Officer Avila, and every time she gets anything, we'll send it to her, and she's like,

we get a timestamp, we send the video feed, we show her everything and it's become inconclusive because it's normal dog behavior. There's nothing that has been excessive or as a nuisance.

All right. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Yeah. I have a question on that June 6th incident.

The third, June 3rd.

Sorry. Yeah. June 3rd. I don't know why I was thinking, um, I read through it and the officer mentioned that you were combative and that you lied to them.

So I did, you're right, and I can be honest to that. I was very combative because that officer had went about the situation incorrectly. I was not home that morning, I was at lunch, and the officer showed up with a Nampa PD officer and decided that they were going to interrogate my 14-year-old son in the front yard without me being there. My son made them aware, please call my mom. They still continued to fish for information. And then this officer tried to make his way into my home without me there and knowing that I was not home. As a mother, that was very upsetting because I am a standup citizen to my community. Whenever I see something that is wrong that needs to be reported, I do my due diligence. And I would expect that my PD would give me the same You know, what is the word I'm looking for? The same consideration to not treat me as if I'm a criminal off of a dog bark complaint. Instead, they tried to force their way into my home by intimidating my 14-year-old child to let them into the house to see the dogs with them knowing that I was not home. So, yes, I was very upset. At first, I was... I was... going along with it, answering his questions. And when he had asked about how many dogs, I didn't want to tell him because I was fearful that they were going to take my animals away. So yes, I did lie about the number that I had. But everything that I've stated, everything that I have given to animal control, Nampa PD, the commissioner's office, City of Nampa building and so me I have no reason to lie I have every reason to be honest because I'm going to defend myself my animals need the world to me I'm not gonna let one person who is trying to tear our life apart right now because we are no longer free of service to them and I'm not gonna allow that to happen. So I'm going to defend my home, my family, my animals, my character. I've been upstanding to my community since we have moved here to Nampa and it's just really upsetting the whole situation. So to answer your question, yes, I did lie at first about the quantity of animals that I had because I was fearful they were going to take my animals away. And yes, I was very upset and hostile towards the end when I had asked the officer, why were you interrogating my son without me there when you had my phone number and you could have called me? And then I was also made aware of him trying to make his way into my home knowing I was not there.

I appreciate you. He no longer works for Napa PD.

Yeah, he no longer is employed with Napa PD with animal control.

Thank you. Let's go ahead. Anything else? Okay. Thank you guys. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Any questions for staff or I would entertain a motion to public hearing. I'm sorry. Oh, sorry.

I heard someone say something. I said, I sold. Oh, then I'll second it.

Okay. So we have a motion to close the public hearing by commissioner Kehoe and a second by commissioner Kirkman. All those in favor. All right.

okay what do you think well i've i've raised and trained a couple of labs and centers over my life for bird dogs and it takes a lot of dedication a lot of love and so it and it's not something you just do once and especially hounds i've been around hounds i've never trained them never worked with them but i know the extent they have to spend with them and those dogs probably are better taken care of than some of our neighbor's kids. So it, it takes a lot of energy and a lot of work to train even a bird dog. So I, I commend them for, and for not having any complaints on damn near seven years. I have no problem with them getting this conditional use permit.

I feel like that's too with the complaints are just very new. There's over seven years you didn't have any complaints and then they became very new and I don't know what the situation is, but also. There were way more people in attendance saying they did a good job and people saying that one was against right only one was against. And they live quite a ways away. They weren't the next door neighbors because they they lived like six houses down, they said, or four. Oh, right behind them, okay. I misunderstood that then.

It's okay. It doesn't matter where they live. Thank you.

Public hearing's closed, so we're just going to deliberate now, so I appreciate it. Thank you.

I think that people need to do better due diligence when they buy a house, because this would have been something that would have come up had they done some more homework on buying that house. But I also... get annoyed with people who move in somewhere and demand things. It just comes up a lot with what we do.

It's not a godel, but I had neighbors right behind me. They had seven hound dogs. They hunted bear. They hunted lions, bulls with them. So it's a pretty fresh story. Those guys were gone a lot, two brothers. roofers work all during the day don't hear the dogs all day my wife's home all day rarely hear the dogs if you do the only time you hear them they have loud trucks they're driving home the dogs know they're home they bark until they pull in the driveway and then they're quiet And of course they had a neighbor right behind them who would call the police because the dogs were barking. By the time the police got there, they're quiet because they're home for work. So they're home even more so with the dogs. Yeah, they're hounds. They probably, there's probably a bay or something like that, but they're dogs too. So yeah, it's anecdotal, but it's also a very similar situation using the animals in a very similar way. And yes, they were gone every weekend, every season using them. So I don't have a problem with it.

Mr. Vice chair, every question I had was answered. My biggest concerns in this situation is the nuisance, and that's not just the sound and the barking, but it's the mess, it's the smell, it's all that kind of stuff. But all my questions and all my concerns are answered. I really appreciate the applicants. A lot of... detail in how you take care of the dogs and how the situation looks and how the, you know, they're kenneled and, and treated. And I really do appreciate all that. And I appreciate the testimony also, frankly, I could care less and I don't really want to know what the whole kerfuffle was between neighbors that brought this to forbear, but it's unfortunate. Um, the only request I have is I have cats in my backyard. I don't know if they're wild or not, but if they are, bring those dogs over because I would sure like to get rid of them.

But I really do.

I mean, in all seriousness, in all seriousness, I want to go right on the record.

I bring this up every time because I want to make sure that they're gone by the time. Anyways. Uh, but in all seriousness, I do really appreciate, um, the consideration that the applicant has for the neighbors and, and their neighbors, the consideration they have for the dogs and what's being done. So I am okay with this eight dogs seems a lot. And I was going to ask that there was a, the word typically exceeds the number.

What's the typical number.

I was going to ask Terry when she was up there too. Okay. All right.

So I'm good with it. I'm good with it, too. I mean, I'm an animal person. I have dogs and cats. And what you're doing on the weekends, when I was younger, not anymore, when I was a lot younger, I spent a lot of time in the woods. And I was confronted by animals more than once. So what you did to make those animals go away was the proper training. And it would have been there 20, 30 years ago when I was out there, I wish. So I'm certainly for you getting that permit.

Okay. Vice Sheriff, if there's no other comment or anything, I will move to approve the project as stated on the screen. Okay.

Okay, we got a motion by Kirkman and a second by Dapper. Correct?

Yes.

to approve the conditional use permit. Madam Clerk, you wanna give us a roll call?

Mayor? Absent. Garner?

Yes.

Kehoe?

Aye.

Daffer?

Yes.

Morgan? Yes. Copeland? Yes. Kirkman?

Yes.

Turner?

Aye.

Fein?

Yes. Okay, motion carries. Before everybody starts moving, let me read this. Make it legal. That's right, make it legal. This CUP will become effective 15 calendar days from the date the written decision and reason statement is provided to the applicant. Unless an appeal has been filed with the Planning and Zoning Department with the appropriate fee, no action should be taken on this CUP until the appeal period has concluded. The applicant must confirm with Planning and Zoning staff that there have been no appeals. Okay, our final public hearing tonight. This is an action item. Napa City Code Ordinance Text Amendments for Title 10, Chapter 1. Edit definitions for accessory dwelling units, dwelling, single family, tiny houses, and recreational vehicles. Title 10, Chapter 3. Remove reference to Chapter 29. Title 10, Chapter 29. Repeal manufactured home standards and replace with accessory dwelling unit standards per Idaho State Code 67-6541 and Title 10. Chapter 27, Section 4. TO ADD STANDARDS FOR A STARTER HOME SUBVISION PER IDO STATE CODE 676541 FOR THE CITY OF NAMPA. CHRISTIE WATKINS.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. VICE CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS CHRISTIE WATKINS I'M PRINCIPAL PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF NAMPA. I WANT TO MAKE A COUPLE OF POINTS ON THIS AND I CAN WALK YOU THROUGH IT IF YOU WANT ME TO OR IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT IT WE CAN JUST GO STRAIGHT TO QUESTIONS YOUR CALL. In recent legislation from the last state session, they had some items that came out of that that were specifically addressing housing. Two of those things were accessory dwelling units and starter home subdivisions. They adopted that state code on July 1st, and they gave us until February to get codes adopted that were in line with state code, and so that's what this is. We've had a lot of people coming in and asking about ADUs and those kinds of things, so we kind of wanted to get this done sooner rather than later. We didn't want to wait until February. So that's why we're coming before you with just this code change tonight. And then I wanted to also point out that the removal of the existing Chapter 29, which is specific to manufactured homes on just single parcels, does not remove any code that isn't already addressed by other sections of Title 10 or by Title IV building code. So we're not losing anything by removing that code. So the definitions, we scaled back the accessory dwelling unit definition. This definition that used to be in chapter one was really the only way that we regulated ADUs. Now ADUs have their own entire chapter based on state code. So this just fixes that a little bit. We tweaked the definition of tiny house a little bit so that all of our chapters now are consistent. And then the recreational vehicle is really just a grammatical change. In chapter three, under manufactured home, note number 13 states that when not in an approved mobile home park, a manufactured home structure shall be placed on a foundation and meet current IRC building codes. That literally was everything that chapter 29 said. So it was covered very nicely in chapter 23, or chapter three as a footnote, we took out all the references to chapter 29. Chapter 27, we kind of rearranged some of the things that we have for special subdivisions, put them in a little bit different order, referenced some other code sections. We took out townhouses in general because the zoning code for each individual zone covers how a townhouse is handled. So we didn't feel like we really needed to have that in the special subdivision section. And then we went into the whole starter home subdivision, which reflects state code. At this time, we are really just staying with the letter of state code. We tried to have some images for you, but the way state code's written is really confusing, and we actually couldn't make it work. We're going to come back after the state has had a chance to clarify some things for us. We're going to come back with some tweaks so that it actually works. But anyway, right now this says exactly what state code says.

Christy, would the starter home subdivision have to be all of those homes would have to comply to the 1500 square foot or under?

So there are exceptions. Um, not for every single lot, right? The majority of the lots in there would have to be 1,500 square feet. But there are exceptions to available infrastructure, so utilities, environmental constraints, lot configuration, so there might be maybe a drainage ditch or something running through it that makes the lot sizes to be kind of wonky. So maybe they can't meet exactly 1,500 square feet. And so there are some exceptions for a few of the lots that might be proposed. And that's the same with the setbacks as well. There's exceptions in there for, if an abutting development has a larger setback requirement, the perimeter lots can be conditioned to meet the same setback as the abutting properties in that zoning district. Our rear setback for almost every zoning district right now is 15 feet anyway, so I don't know that it would have a bigger one. but that's an option for a condition of approval. And then lot widths and depths, so those same exceptions, if the overall lot shape makes it difficult to meet that lot with their depth, the topography makes it difficult, or there's environmental constraints. So that's the starter home subdivision. Are there any other questions about any of that? In chapter 29, then we made a whole new chapter specifically for accessory dwelling units. And I've actually been wanting to do this for a long time. And so this was just kind of a really nice way to force me to do it. And so anyway, we just completely rewrote it and it reflects exactly what state code says as well. And what's allowed and what's not allowed as far as stick built versus manufactured home versus an RV versus a tiny house. And then there's also size limitations for the size. They can be 75% of the primary dwelling, total square footage, or 1,000 square feet. So we don't really want them to go over 1,000 square feet. As an accessory dwelling unit, they don't need to be that big. And so we really.

Don't, yeah.

So basically, if you have a 3,000 square foot house, we really didn't want to encourage them to be able to have another 2,000 square foot house. on that lot because that ultimately then becomes two full-size houses, right? So we've kept it at 1,000 square feet. Before it was 500, now it's 1,000. So we have increased that ability a little bit. Is permitted in all residential zones. Must be accessory and subordinate to the single-family dwelling. It may be internal to, attached to, or detached from a standalone structure. Only one ADU is allowed, so if they already have one in a shed or in a garage, they can't have another one. they'd have to demolish one to get a bigger one, or whatever the case may be. Owner occupancy of the lot is not required. That was something that was kind of being tossed around there for a while, saying that the owner has to live on the parcel, and the state's saying no, that's not the case. And then there's bulk standards for each zone that they're in. They're allowing us to use our own bulk standards for that. And then stating that mobile homes, RVs, tiny homes on wheels and similar are not to be used for accessory dwelling use. They have to be a stick built unit. There is some parking required. So an ADU shall have one off street parking space. There are some exceptions, proximity to transit, proximity to working areas and commercial services. But I think for the most part, we're gonna follow our parking code and make them have an extra parking space for that unit.

As far as like plumbing and utilities and all that, would they just hook up to the existing home utilities?

Yeah, so typically what happens is they run the service from the home. Building code, I believe, wants them to have their own services. They can do it either way. They could have their own meter. according to the state code now, they could have their own meter. Our previous code didn't allow that.

And whatever fees that are incurred, I mean, hookup fees, all that kind of stuff is still there.

They have to pay all of that, yes, that's correct. So through this, they still have to follow building codes, fire safety standards, floodplain standards, connections to utilities, as you stated, storm drainage, roadway access, right-of-way easements, environmental hazards or critical habitat protections, that's all state code language, and then aquifer recharge zones, steep slopes, those kinds of things. Nampa doesn't really have a lot of those last three, but we kept it in there just to keep it intact. And then there are fees that will still be applied. that follows the conclusions of law for changing any pieces of code by going through this public hearing process. The proposed ordinance has been directed by the state legislature to follow 676541. It was adopted on July 1st. And these are the potential motions. I'll stand for any questions.

Any further questions? Yes.

You're reliable. It's just procedural, though. When does the attorney start reviewing these? Is it after the public hearing, or is it before it comes to the public hearing?

Commissioner Kirkman, her coworker, Doug Waterman, has reviewed these at length already, and he made sure that they said what they needed to say and that they followed state code and that we weren't being too restrictive according to what state code is requiring us to do.

Even though there might be some... Not so clear direction in the state code because where I work we're running into some of those issues and so we've we don't know we're just kind of waiting until the legislature figures that out. Is there any of that issue in here or do we just press forward or do we wait for that clarification?

We've already been in talks with some of the people who introduced this bill to begin with, and they've heard from a lot of the communities that it's unclear. And so we think that they're going to be working on some clarification here fairly quickly. Even our attorney, Doug Waterman, he was like, this is really confusing. And he's like, do we want to get something that meets code? Or do we want to get something that is a little, because we have a little bit of flexibility. We can be less restrictive. Typically with state code, you can be more restrictive. But in this case, because of what it's dictating that we do, we can actually be less restrictive. And so he said, you can do that if you want to, or we can just wait for the clarity to come back.

Well, and that was really where the question was coming from is that if we move this through this public hearing and on to city council, And then the state clarifies and we have to come back and change some of this stuff. I guess it's not really that big of a deal, but it's just extra work for you.

I think it's going to be anyway. We're going to do our six month code changes. We'll just plop them in there.

Not having to be, uh, uh, owner occupied that's from the state isn't it yeah i'm not a fan of that portion because all that's going to do is these people that have a rental property they're just going to build a second rental property on it i i was against that going through the realtors i said that should be primary residence should be owner occupied to keep that from being a total s show but we didn't get our way

Any other questions? Mr. Chair? Yeah, go ahead. So to clarify, the starter home provisions that we, and we don't have a choice, this is state code, so I don't know where this question is going to go anyway, so it's just for clarification. In any residential zone, if they make it dense enough, we have to allow it?

Thank you, Commissioner Morgan. That's an interesting question. We actually have the flexibility to follow our comp plan as far as density is concerned. So even though they're 1,500 square foot lots, we can still limit them to eight units per acre in an MDR designation. And so that leaves quite a lot of square footage for open space for a subdivision. So that's one of the things that we kind of want to get some clarification on. They had talked, I guess, at one point about keeping that in there, saying you shouldn't be following the densities in your comp plan. This is what it is. Allow as many as possible. But that was actually taken out And so we can use the densities in our comp plan. So it is very limiting to the number of units you can actually build.

So nothing, in reality it's not gonna change anything because nobody's gonna build a subdivision.

Well, it might. We don't typically get subdivisions that are eight dwelling units per acre. but we also don't get them at 1,500 square feet lots either. So there's. That would be an interesting subdivision. It would be an interesting subdivision. It would be.

It's got its own park. Yeah.

Yeah, and it has to be, and it's limited to a four acre or more parcel. So it's not really, for me, it felt like it should have been intended more for less than four acres, like the infill pieces that we really were struggling to get some density on. But it actually went the other direction. And so we were trying to get some clarification on that as well. And that's one of the things that Doug said that we could do is that we could actually go down to like one acre, but we couldn't cap it at four. because they were allowing it to go bigger than four. Lots of information that you guys are probably like, well, that's crazy.

Well, they'll clarify it all this next session. Yeah. All the questions will be answered.

That's right. The purpose of this was to incentivize denser housing, more affordable development.

In-field development, yeah.

but they haven't, they didn't quite write the code correctly to do that is what I'm hearing.

Yeah.

Good. Okay.

We feel like there was probably better ways to go. Felt a little bit rushed.

I believe you. A tangential question. What code do we have in the city for short-term rentals?

Oh, Commissioner Morgan, that's an interesting question as well. We don't.

Okay.

They're allowed.

For some reason, reading all this stuff about ADUs made me think of that.

Yeah, I think you're right on track. We don't have anything that regulates Airbnb, Vrbo, none of that.

Could we?

I don't think so.

It's really, it's hard to enforce, right? I mean, I'm personally, and I don't have enough staff, but I personally am not going to go knock on somebody's door and say, should you be here? Like, I just.

I personally don't know if we should have restrictions or not. I'm just thinking, you know, like.

State code has got some restrictions. got some restriction on that, because McCall and some of those have really tried to limit it, and the state has been, it's like every year for the last four or five years, they've been coming out and trying to stop them. I mean, they've come out with some crazy stuff. They're stopping the cities from enforcing. Not allowing it, because cities like McCall and stuff are really trying to crack down on it.

I think it would be pretty easy to enforce, because they have a website that literally tells you all the addresses. WHERE IT'S HAPPENING.

ACTUALLY GO OUT AND LIKE, YOU CAN'T DO THIS.

A LITTLE BIT OF AI, WE CAN TAKE CARE OF THAT. OR JUST GO ON TO AIRBNB.COM.

WELL, I'M GOING TO NEED SOME MORE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IF THAT'S THE CASE. WE HAVE A LONG LIST.

OKAY, CONVERSATION FOR ANOTHER DAY. YES. HOW ABOUT THAT? OKAY. LET'S MOVE THIS ALONG. OKAY.

STAY ON TASK. MR. CHAIR, I'LL MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CODE. WHOA, WHOA, WHOA, WHOA.

OH. NO, DANIEL IS GOING TO, HE'S GOING TO COME UP, NO. Okay, fine. We're going to go ahead and open the public hearing. Madam Chair, is there a sign-up sheet?

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. This is to confirm that no requests to speak under public testimony have been received.

Okay. Daniel? I said Madam Chair, and I'm sorry, you're Madam Clerk. That was my fault. So is there anybody else here online that would like to speak for or against rent cited on this proposal?

No. Therefore, I'll move to close public hearing.

Thank you. Okay, we have a motion to close the public hearing by Kirkman, the second by Daffer. All those in favor? Aye. Now, can I go ahead, Mr. Chair? Yes, you may. Thank you.

I move to recommend approval of the code changes as stated on the screen with the proposed findings.

Second. We have a motion to approve or recommend approval. by Commissioner Turner and a second by Daffer. All those in favor? Aye. No, roll call. Roll call.

Thank you. Miller, absent. Garner? Aye. Kehoe? Aye. Daffer? Yes. Morgan? Yes. Copeland? Yes. Kirkman? Yes. Turner? Aye. Feen?

Aye.

Thank you.

Okay. All right, Chairman, I move to adjourn the meeting. Second.

Okay, we have a motion to adjourn by Commissioner Copeland and a second by Daffer. All those in favor? Aye.

Meeting adjourned.

That's your fault. Absolutely.