Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

Okay, I've got six o'clock. Let's get this party started. I would like to welcome everyone to the February 10th, 2000. No, not 10th. Wrong date. Uh February 24th, 2026 planning and zoning meeting for the city of Nampa. Um, we really appreciate your attendance and being part of helping us shape the future of the city. Um, let's start with roll call, please. Here, Copeland. Kirkman. Morgan here. Kho here. Turner here. Daffer here. Miller here. Garner here.

All right. You have a quum.

Thank you. have a report Ashby. Good evening. Um, chairman and commissioners. Rodney Ashby, planning and zoning director. For the record, um, we had several projects go before a couple of projects go before the city council last week. The first one was the subdivision final plaque approval for Middle Mbury North number four and this was northwest of Orchard Avenue and Midway Road. Um you had recommended approval on the 10th of uh February. This was for 13 single family detached dwelling units and four common lots. And the city council did approve that. The next one was a public hearing for annexation and um zoning for the ride ofway along Cherry Lane um as part of the East Ranch subdivision. Really simple one. If you recall, we just we they just missed some right away that they needed to incorporate into the annexation and so that one was approved. You had recommended approval as well. And then um the next one was a variance of 102320 limiting permanent freestanding pole or monument signs in the BC zone. Uh this is near the um or excuse me northwest of Lake Lel Avenue and 12th Avenue Road. Uh right along um you know I'm trying to think of the name of the shopping center there where True Value.

Thank you. Hawaii Center. Um and uh that one was approved for a little bit larger sign and um height. Essentially, they're keeping the same sign height. It was just approved in the past when it was allowed at that height and now our current code would not allow it and they're just um putting in a new sign. Um and then last of all was annexation and zoning for Orchard Acres um to BC and Orchard Acres is one south of Greenhurst Road east of um Happy Valley Road. Um, you had recommended denial and there was five yeses and three nos on that one due to traffic uh concerns and uh the proximity of the train and congestion um impact to schools and multifamily were some of the concerns expressed at the hearing and uh city council as well denied that uh project. So that was a four to two vote and that's all I have for you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes. I make a motion that we remove from the consent agenda subdivision final plan approval for Mberry South number one at zero Midway Road uh for Kent Brown representing Endurance Holdings LLC. Original concept was for 50 single family detached lots and seven common lots and the applicant has requested to put this on hold. So I would make a motion that we remove from the consent agenda. Second. Been moved by Garner, seconded by Daffer to remove this item from the consent agenda. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay, we'll go ahead and remove that item.

And chairman, if I may, um maybe a clarification on the motion. Is this to remove it from consent to general agenda or to continue it to a later date? So some clarification for that. They're not ready to do anything with it at this point. They will resubmit and we will put them on a new agenda when they resubmit. Okay. Remove. Well, we might just for clarity sake, we'll maybe have another motion to remove it entirely from the entire agenda. Okay. Because usually when we lift something from consent, it will then go into the remainder agenda for further discussion. Okay? And so this will just be lifting it from the entire agenda. Okay?

Mr. Mr. Chairman, for clarification purposes, I recommend that we remove the subdivision final plat approval for M middleberry south number one at zero Midway Road parcel number as noted in the staff report for Kent Brown representing Endurance Holdings LLC. Original concept was for 50 single family detached lots and seven common lots and remove it from the agenda entirely. Second, that works. Thanks, sir. Again moved by Garner, seconded by Daffer to remove this item completely from the agenda. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay. This item will be removed. Mr. Chairman. Yes.

I recommend that we approve the amended consent agenda removing the item just removed. Second. Been moved and moved by Garner, second by Daffer to approve the consent agenda that is now amended. All those in favor I I. Any opposed? Okay. Consent agenda has been passed. Updated.

Updated. Um Okay. So, we'll go ahead and get started with our meeting. Um if you haven't been to our meeting before, we will allow the uh applicant to come up. They'll have time, five minutes to present what they would like to do with their item. Um then we'll turn the time over to staff. They will give us their report. They have unlimited time. Then we'll open it up for public hearing at which time you can come up and speak for, against, or undecided on each item. Um, you will have three minutes to tell us what you think about the project, whether you like it, you don't like it, and why. Um, we're all pretty good about taking notes. Uh, applicants are usually pretty good about taking notes. And then when the public is done speaking, we'll call the applicant back up and ask those questions of them at that point. so you guys can um hear what they have to say um and hopefully answer some of your questions. We'll also ask some questions of staff because those are always brought up as well. So, um, we'll go ahead and get started with item 3-1, conditional use permit for barber or beauty shop, day-pa nail salon, Grace Beauty Company in the CN zoning district in CH Form District at 12213th Avenue South for Desiree Vasquez. We're representing Ian Lawson.

Um, and thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Desire Vasquez and I'm the owner of Grace Beauty Co. Salon. I am here to today to respectfully request approval of our permit so we can continue to operate and serve our community. Grace Beauty Co. was founded with the vision of creating a family oriented salon environment that is welcoming, peaceful, and grounded in strong values. We strive to provide a space where clients of all ages feel comfortable. mothers and daughters, families, and individuals who want not just beauty service, but genuine care and connection. While there are other salons in our area, our business offers something intentionally different. We focus on a calm, serviced driven atmosphere that reflects our commitment to kindness, integrity, and treating every guest with respect. Our goal is not to compete with neighboring businesses, but to complement the local marketplace by serving clients who are specifically looking for this type of environment. As a small locallyowned business, we contribute to the community by supporting independent professionals, creating flexible employment opportunities and encouraging our team members to grow their careers while serving the people of Nampa. Our clients are local residents, families, and neighbors, and we are proud to be part of the fabric of the city. We are committed to operating responsibly, maintaining a professional and well-managed space, and being a positive presence in the area. Approving this permit allows us to continue building a business that reflects the values of family service and community care. Thank you for your time, your consideration, and your support of local small businesses.

Thank you. Oh, could you give your address for the record, please? Name and you already gave your name and address. Uh 121 South Georgia Avenue, Cal, Idaho 83605. Thank you.

Okay, Damian, you're up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. Damian Snodgrass, associate planner. So, the requested action item today is for a conditional use permit for a barber or beauty shop, day spa or nail salon. This is more specifically a nail salon. Um, within the CN Central Nampa zoning district and the CH Form district. Um, going to go into some of that code since we just recently had a code change where we adopted formbbased code. So this will be our first application coming through that falls under those new zoning guidelines. So the property details, it's in the downtown comprehensive map designation and the current zoning is CN, but is specifically under that CH central historic form district. To the north, south, east, and west, we have all similar form districts and zones, and there are current utilities to the property. The applicable regulations here are the criteria for a conditional use permit which we can cover in the findings as well as some applicable regulations for formbased code. So form-based code is was implemented so that we can redefine and show the form and look and feel of the downtown area. And in doing so we have more building requirements and things like that that will go into these developments coming downtown. However, since this is a change of occupancy um and we'll have a tenant improvement to the existing building and the building itself isn't changing, we can apply all of the criteria for those downtown implementations with this kind of application. So, we took some of the code that we know that we can apply to this under the use table in 10153C. uh barber shop, beauty, salon, and spa falls under localized services, which is a conditional use permit for this

specific type of localized service within the CH form district. And over on the right here, we have a map of the form district. And just to go over that for everybody, the the form districts fall under that CM zoning district. So there are different looks and feels within each form district that falls under the same zoning. So each forum district will have different criteria that it has to adhere to and follow as well as land uses within those. So for this one, we did a downtown analysis of that. And looking at the pre-existing building, I attached a photo in your staff report of the pre-existing building. it mostly follows the row building type um within this zone on the requirements because the building itself doesn't conform with what we would want for a new row type. We just took the criteria that we can apply to the existing one which is on the ground floor a localized service would be a permitted use and the required occupied space which is a 30-ft minimum from all the facade and full doors. The required occupied space is the space within the front of the building that is usable and walkable and open. Basically, what this allows is stopping from storage or something blocking the windows essentially. So, you can't put all of your storage right on the front of the window and you look in, you can't see what it is. 30 ft from that window, you have to have usable space. Whether in this case it's nail salons and you see people when you walk by the look and feel of downtown is you can look in and see that it is a nail salon and it's not blocked off on the windows. And so with that looking at the existing building and the criteria that we can apply we found most of these to be not applicable. So I took a lot of that criteria out that we would apply to the row building type and just kept these ones be for this kind of

conditional use permit. And here are some pictures of a row building type as defined within that area of code. Again, this building does not conform with that code since it is only one story. Um, and within this zone, we would need them to be minimum of two stories. So, this is just the criteria that we felt we could attach to this conditional use permit. For correspondence, we received a comment from the building department and their criteria and conditions are that it follows all of the city ordinances and codes for title 4 building regulations. And with that, having a tenant improvement permit pulled for the change of occupancy and any remodeling or occu or alterations to the scope of the space. A licensed architect will have to provide a code analysis for any design change of the nail salon, any mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and structural permits as well as mechanical ventilation permits that are required for a nail salon. And uh all of that needs to come through a licensed architect or engineer as well as some accessibility requirements as far as ADA requirements will have to be addressed at the time of the building permit. For public comments, we did receive one late comment. Um, we received one comment from the neighboring business um, regarding the amount of barber shops and salons going along in the area along with health and safety concerns of neighboring tenants and most is most of this was in regards to the ventilation system which is addressed by the building tenant improvement which will be later on in the conditions. So here are those criteria that the proposed use is supported by the NRA comprehensive plan. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the property and project will not adversely impact the intended character and appearance of the general vicinity. That the proposed use is served adequately by essential public facilities and services. and that the proposed use will not involve any activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation

that will be detrimental to any persons, property or general welfare by reason of excess traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glares or odors. Here are those proposed findings. Um the biggest ones to bring into the relevant facts is that the proposed use must conform to that international building code and adhere to those HVAC ventilation standards to mitigate any kind of fumes or odors that may be emitted from this type of business. And as far as the other ones is that it will conform to the central Nampa historic form district design standards if there was anything to happen to the outside of the building. Um the proposed uses near other businesses of the same use, sewer, water, irrigation services already provided to the property and the NA comprehensive plan describes objectives of the downtown regarding business and development expansion which includes professional services as such. So weighing all of the facts and criteria under the conditional use permit, staff found that these criteria were to be met. Here are the proposed conditions. That the applicant owner shall comply with all city codes, policies, and standards at time of building permit, including those listed by the building department. And that the applicant maintains the requirements of the row building type during the duration of the cup. And listed is the ground floor use of keeping that use on the ground floor and that the required occupied space be used with having that 30 foot of walkable open space within the front of that building. And any others that the commission may add. Here are your pot here are your potential motions and I will stand for any questions.

Damian, in your opening statement, you mentioned a letter from another business next door to this u business they want to open and they were talking about they should have a ventilation system which you mentioned. Um, if you agreed and required the new business to have a ventilation system, could you go back or could we go back and say to the business that's asking them to have a ventilation system that they should have their own because they have tobacco products that have an odor in themselves. So when it comes to back requiring another business to update their systems, that would more fall under the building department. A tenant improvement or change of occupancy would need to happen to bring it up to different codes or standards. And um the building department would determine then what are those applicable criteria in accordance to the building code that would be required for their kind of business type. But as it sits right now, they would have to come back in for some type of construction to that building to back require them to get a new ventilation system. So they would have to come through and get a building permit. Let me rephrase the question because I'm not sure you answered what I was thinking of.

Can an existing business require a new business to do something that they are not required to do themselves like the ventilation system? In other words, can the new guy say to the old guy, "Well, you don't have one, so why do I have to have one or whatever?" Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Kho, um, so they can make that comment to you, but the building department has the requirement on the tenant improvement. So, whenever someone comes in to move into a new space, the building department can require it. The neighbor can't come and say, "You shall do these things." It's it's up to building code to make that determination.

But but if building code people said, "Yeah, it's a good idea. You should do it." Can the new Can they go back to the other guy and say, "Well, your your product smells just as bad, if not worse, than ours does." Not if they've already been approved to be in that space. If they have certificate of occupancy for that space and they've met the codes for their type of a business, then no. Okay. So, it's do as I say, not do as I do. Thank you very much. You're welcome. I think it'd be helpful to state that it's not the opinion of the code official either. It's what's required by the building code. But does that apply to the new one and the old one or do you It applies to all of them.

But it depends when the code was adopted because maybe when the business that's next door went in, that specific item wasn't a code. They didn't have to wasn't in the code. But the it's the code says if you have this type of product, you have to have this type of ventilation. It's not the building official takes a sniff and says, "I don't like it and I'm going to require it." Right. Same thing. I just wanted a level playing field. I can't They didn't want one guy beating up the other guy. Right. They should be under whatever code was in effect at the time. Yeah. Same thing with the business. You can't They can say literally anything they want. It's just whatever's in the code at the time you apply. So, just because they said it doesn't mean it's going to happen. Right. Thank you all.

Mr. Mr. Chair, can I ask a please

question? The other concern that was raised was saturation of the market in that area. My tendency is to let the market determine what businesses would be profitable. Is there a planning reason to be worried about a saturation of a certain type of business in an area? Like is what's your thoughts on that? when it comes to um other in this instance a conditional use is coming before you in a public hearing but in the instance that other areas where this business would be permitted um we don't have any plans in place that go over the specific occupancy of each individual building

um and in the findings that this business type is permitted in a lot of other commercial type business zones and if every single one of them became a a barber shop. There's nothing in planning code that would dictate that we limit the amount of each business type in each different zone. So, there's not a a planning principle that you learn in school that teaches you to avoid clustering certain types of businesses. I didn't go to planning school. I don't know. Now, you're just being No, these guys are planning professionals. They learn these there's principles behind this stuff, right? So, I'm not trying to be facitious. like I like a diversity of businesses seems healthy too.

Yeah, Mr. Chairman. Um, so that's why I was wondering and and maybe would you like to speak to maybe you don't want to speak to why this particular business requires a CUP versus other types? It is within the adopted code that right now under the central NPA that this business type is conditional um as adopted within this code um the code would need to come back forth and be changed in front of city council if council decided otherwise.

Thanks Mr. Chairman Kman. As to the proliferation of the same type of business, that's actually a healthy thing because it tends to weed out the poor businesses, the ones that don't do a good job. Um because the competition will drive them out of business. So that's a healthy thing to have, not not a detriment. Anybody else? Okay, we'll go ahead and open the public testimony portion of our meeting up. Madam clerk, is there anybody signed up?

Okay. Is there anyone that would like to speak for, against, or undecided on this specific item? Okay, Vasquez, would you like to come back up? Any questions we have for any other comments you'd like to make? She I Mr. Mr. Chairman, did you get and are you in agreement with the conditions as they've been stated in the staff report? Are you aware of them? Yes. So, we have our own laws too within like the Idaho, you know, so the ventilation system. I already knew that was going to be Yeah. So, Okay, perfect. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Okay, I guess we're good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yep. I'll make a motion that we close the public hearing. Second. It's been moved by Garner, second by Kho to pl the close the public hearing. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay. Public hearing is closed. Thoughts, ideas? I say more than market, let it work itself. Y Yeah,

I agree. I think the people she brought with them seemed to be fairly passionate about what they do. And I could tell by the looks on their faces as she was giving her proposal that they are and they're they're they want to do this for the right reason. So I I think anything to do with the gun on any of the address? No. Oh, okay. I think I think I think uh I think they'll do well. Yeah, I think so, too. That's on the record, Steve. Mr. Chair. Yeah. I move to approve the project as stated on screen with recommended conditions and proposed findings. I'll second it. Okay. It's been moved by Daffer, second by Garner to approve this item. All those in favor? I

I. Any opposed? Okay. 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 the planning and zoning staff that there have been no appeals. Okay. Thank you. You don't have to you don't have to hang out for the rest of night if you don't want to. You're good to go. Thank you so much.

Okay. Item 3-2, conditional use permit for automobile or truck repair for budget tires at 102 11th Avenue North and 106 11th Avenue North for Javier Gonzalez. Oh, how you doing? Okay, just name and address for the record and tell us what you want to do. Uh, Javier Gonzalez Jr. My address is 408 2nd Avenue North here in Nampa. Uh the address is 1021 11th Avenue North right in front of Commercial Tire. Okay. Tell us about what you want to hear.

Um so I'm the owner of Budget Tires on Third Street North and 11th Avenue North of one block away. Uh we just acquired this building. We will be performing the same thing just one block away and that is uh selling new and used tires and performing just auto repair light auto repair uh auto maintenance and just providing more affordable tire service instead of going to like bles and commercial. So it's kind of like a little bit cheaper option for people that are in a a good spot. So sometimes they just can afford a used tire and they can't get new tires at the time. So this is just affordable option for the area. And it's been pretty successful. We've done about 20,000 vehicles since we've been open since a year and a half. And our projections are somewhere around 10,000 to 15,000 vehicles per year that we'll be servicing. And most of them are residents of Nampa. And yeah, that's that's about it. Any questions?

Um, no, I don't think so. Right now, no pet cremation services. No, not not at this time. Okay. Okay. Appreciate it. We'll call you back up. Thank you. Okay, Damian.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioner. Damian Snodgrass, associate planner. The requested action item tonight is a conditional use permit for automobile or truck repair for budget tires at 1021 11th Avenue North and 106 11th Avenue North. And uh the concept is to sell tires, fix flats, and occasionally break pads. So, some of the property details currently this is under the BC community business zone and to the kind of northeast we have the BC zoning which is the Eagles Bar. Southeast um couldn't find the actual use of the building but it is a cinder block building that is also commercial. To the southwest we have the zoning for the Union Pacific Railard and to the northwest we have zoning which is the commercial tire. Um and as far as public utilities and services, there's already services to the property. Here are those applicable regulations for a conditional use permit. We'll cover those in the findings. And here are some more applicable regulations. So, a conditional use permit is required when located within the BC Community Business Zoning District, as well as some of the off- streetet parking spaces required uh for this type of business use. Um due to the change of use on the property and the adjoining property, which right now is a vacant lot, um there will have to be some site improvements that are done to the property, including adding striping for parking and things of that nature to improve the property up to current city standards. Here is a part of the the building plans. uh before the conditional use permit came forward, a building permit was submitted and that's what started this process of just kind of the proposed use of wanting to store some tires with a fence, adding a landscape

buffer and then conversion of the existing building into a tire shop. So for correspondence from Nampa Development Engineering, um we received some comments uh about the existing utilities in the area as well as some notation around the construction of the parking lot for that 106 11th Avenue North to be reviewed by Idaho Transportation Department. So the conditions are that the applicant owner shall comply with all city codes, policies, and standards at the time of the building permit. From the Nampa Fire District, we received some general fire access and water supply comments. In addition, we received some comments regarding the the specific type of fire mitigation that is necessary for the storage of tires outside. So with under planning and zoning requirements, we would require a design reviewed fence to shield any of that exterior storage of merchandise on the side of the building, which is allowed. However, the storage of tires up to a certain margin will kick in some fire requirements, and the Nampa Fire District provided those um within their comments of what that'll specifically be. The M Nampa building department reviewed the proposed conditional use permit and had some other specifications regarding the tenant improvement that will be required for the change of classification of the building. U which include things like fire separation within the building that has to be done by a licensed architect and that the change of occupancy has to go with the international existing building code and bring the building up to compliance for the proposed use. Here are those propo find proposed findings that the proposed use is supported by the Nampa comprehensive plan and this is designated as commercial and this falls

under one of those commercial uses. Um so staff found this to be met but the design construction operation maintenance of the property and project will not adversely impact the intended character and appearance of the general vicinity. Um, it fits in with neighboring land uses, having another tire shop directly across the street, um, and fits in with that general area, and it will utilize an existing building and have improvements to the facade. So, staff found this to be met. there is currently utilities available to the property and that the proposed use will not involve any activities, processes, material, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or general welfare by reason of excess traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glares or odors. Um and under this that the proposed use uh will have mitigations put in place by the building code and the fire code that will mitigate any of those noise smoke fumes glares or odors that may come from a business of this type. And when it comes to traffic, businesses are meant to generate traffic to a certain margin. Um and so they it will not propose a use that would generate any type of excess traffic from the others in the surrounding use. So staff found this to be met. Here are those proposed conditions of approval that the applicant owner shall comply with all city codes, policies and standards at time of property development or redevelopment and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. So this includes the conditional use permit which will have any sub permits associated with that. floor plans, landscaping and irrigation plans, fencing plans, parking improvement plan plans with striping and ADA compliance, and any sign permits that will need to be done on the property to add any signage. That the conditional use permit is granted only to the current owner of the property and location for the duration of the use and

shall not be transferable to any other owner or location. that they comply with all city codes policies and standards and that any proposed construction on the lot for 106 is subject to ITD review or comment and any others that the commission may impose. Here are your potential motions and I will stand for any questions. Mr. Chair, yes. Um, regarding the ITD comments, I don't know if this is Daniel question. They're saying the only way to get in is through the alleyway and then the and then exit only onto 11th.

There are currently approaches onto 11th. With the change of use, ITD will um want to review that and may require changes to the access on 11th. Um ultimately that is ITD's jurisdiction and their decision. Um so the condition is just there so that um the applicant is aware that with in that building permit process ITD they will have to contact ITD and determine what their requirements will be for um the accesses on 11th. My anticipation is there currently two accesses there. My anticipation is one of them will be required to be closed.

But can one of them be an entry? Did I see somewhere on there that it might be an exit only? Um, I didn't do the specific review on that and it looks like the applicant may be able to speak to that. Um, they may have already contacted ITD and had discussions. Okay. I don't know if I should opine now, but that would be a little bit concerning to me because as you know, First Street one way there. So, if you're not if you're coming from the eastern side of town, kind of a weird way to get in there if if it's only a if you can't get on there on 11th and you can't get on there on first if you're going the wrong way.

Well, and the reality is I mean, you'd be able to go up to second to come around the block and and access it that way or the alley. Come long way down the alley or or come down the alley. Yes. Or what was the other way you said? Go down Second Street to 12th around the block and and up first. Oh, all the way to 12th. Sure. Okay. Wait, what? Yeah. Second. Well, you couldn't turn into there from 11, though, right? Well, I think you're coming from west to east. What if you're coming from east to west?

You'd have to go all the way around the city block back out. Unless you turned early and went down like fourth and then went over and through the back way down the alley. There's ways. Make maps for your customers. There's ways. No, that's that's not I guess I'm just a little concerned that makes it more of a hardship on them because ultimately the access on 11th Avenue is ITD's jurisdiction, not the cities. Okay. So there's nothing for us to do here. There is we have no jurisdiction over those access. So there's there would be no reason for us to remove that condition. You wouldn't recommend?

I would not recommend removing that condition regardless. ITD has control of that road and the change of use will provide them the opportunity to require things to be meaningless if I remove that condition. Yes, pretty much. Thank you. That's what I needed to hear. Okay. Any other questions? I I need to be done. So I'm not following that up. Okay. Um, okay. So, we'll go ahead and open this up to the public testimony portion. Madame clerk, anybody signed up? There are no signups. Okay. Anybody in the audience that would like to speak for, against, or undecided on this proposal, please clarify some things for us. Address for the record.

Uh, my name is Christy Butler. When you said the cremation thing, that made me think. Um, we're actually working with a historical society and one of the methods of getting rid of that horrible paint job is like a chemical burn. So, I kind of thought that's like a cremation to the building. Well, that's so you don't know that was beautiful. But what how long ago was that proposed? LA last year somebody came in suggesting this building be turned into a pet crematorium. Oh, no. I wasn't suggesting that's what you were doing. Oh, no.

Burning your tires to cremate. No, no, but it'll be like a chemical burn to get rid of that nasty paint or whatever. And I wanted to mention on the traffic thing, the location that he's at right now has the same issue. There's medians in that road and they have to go all the way around the block, but it'll be good. Okay. I've never tried to go into that business. I guess I just Oh, well, once we get it established, come on in, Drew. That's all I wanted to say. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. Motion to close public hearing. Moved. Second. Been moved by Kho, second by Daffer to close a public hearing. All those in favor? I. Any opposed?

Okay. They grow their business. I'd love to see that building say it's cool building. I'd love to get rid of the red paint job on it, but Well, apparently they're going to. So, not what is the building. I like building and to see to to see a business in Nampa that's that's willing to grow themselves is is exciting. Move to a bigger better location that they can do more business and that's that's cool. I like to see that. We're all for that. Well, I've given him a hard enough time hold up.

I move to approve the project as stated on the screen with the recommended conditions and proposed findings. Second. It's been moved by Morgan, second by Kho to approve this item. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries.

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 the cup until the appeal period has concluded. The applicant must confirm with the planning and zoning staff that there have been no appeals. Thank you. Thank you and good luck. Thanks.

Look forward to it. Okay. Item 3-3, annexation and zoning to RS7, potential development agreement and subdivision preliminary plat for Hudson Yards at 03319 East Sheet Mountain Lane. Bonnie Leighton representing Endur's Holdings and Thomas Murray Leighton.

Good evening, chairman and members of the commission. My name is Bonnie Leightton. I'm at 5561 East Hoot Lowl Drive in Boisee, Idaho, 83716. And I'm here tonight on behalf of uh the development team to represent Hudson Yards uh subdivision. This is our request for annexation, zoning, and preliminary plat of 21.51 acres to RS7 uh including 59 residential lots. Um, quickly, uh, the NPA future land use map, you can see in the red outline with the star, that is the location of our property. Um, it butts up to, um, an existing um, development. And so, we're just tying into um, what we're currently uh, developing. So, um, as I mentioned, um, the future land use map uh, designation for this area is medium density residential. uh and RS7 is part of that uh one of the zones that is allowed in that uh future land use map designation. The description requires a gross density of um 2.51 to 8 dwelling units per acre. Uh on the zoning map, you can see that we have RS 8.5 next to us. Um there's some BC uh to the northwest and um kind of surrounded by development uh in this location. Um again our vicinity map. So you can see we've got Locust Lane to the north, Southside Boulevard um on our kind of to our west and Alma Lane uh to the south. Um, so our site plan, um, so I've

rotated it. Uh, north is to the left. Uh, basically we're developing 59, uh, lots in this with, um, some pretty significant open spaces, uh, basketball court, uh, shade structure. Um, you can kind of see in the center park area. Um, there's also an existing house on the site which will remain. Um so and then there's um also the canal along along the boundary that will uh fence off. Uh there's walking trails throughout as along with sidewalks to provide connectivity um and recreation for our residents. Stub streets that you can see at the top of uh this plan as I mentioned stub into um existing plats uh in the area. And then uh to look a little bit more detail of of this plaid, as I mentioned, it's 21.51 acres. We've got 59 residential lots that we are proposing with a overall density of 2.74 dwelling units per acre. So, we're really on the low end of um density for this project. Um we have an overall open space of 34.22% 22% and or common area and um actual uh open space of 18.18%. So that's usable uh open space. Let's see next slide. We will be developing this project into two phase in two phases. Uh phase one is in green and then phase two is uh the remaining lots um there that'll be on the north end of our site. As I mentioned, you can see um in the phase 2 area there's a already an outline of a building. That's the home

that will remain. And um we will just continue to build uh single family detached homes uh just like the ones in the um subdivision to our east. Uh these are uh character photos of what we build and what we intend to build in this project. Um, here are some more images. And with that, I will stand for any questions.

Questions? No. Okay, we'll call you back up. Thank you very much,

Christie. Right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. Christy Watkins, principal planner for the city of Nampa. As stated, the action before you this evening is for annexation and zoning to RS7 with a preliminary plat for the Hudson Yard subdivision at 3319 East Sheep Mountain Lane for the development of the Hudson Yard subdivision. This property is located in the medium density residential designation on the comp plan and it is currently enclaved and under Canyon County jurisdiction. Adjacent parcels contain single family residential homes that are in the city limits and some commercially zoned property to the north that is not developed yet. So there is no traffic study required because there's only 59 lots in this particular subdivision. The proposed access points meet the spacing requirements for the city's access management policy. Water, sewer, and pressurized irrigation shall be supplied to the site through the existing and proposed lines installed or being installed in the New York Landing subdivision to the east. These lines have adequate capacity to serve this project. Sewer will be provided through the New York Landing subdivision and be serviced by the New York Landing lift station. The city is in negotiations to take over the New York landing lift station with a latecomers agreement to reimburse the development that installed that station. The developer shall provide documentation that the existing pumps in the New York landing lift station are adequate to serve the property without upgrade. So as far as the analysis of the plat, she covered it pretty well. Um the density is 2.74 which fits within the range for the medium density residential. The lot sizes in the RS7 zone can range from 7,000 ft to 14,000 square ft. The plat shows a range of

7,04 square ft to 11,395 ft. All of the lots meet the lot width and depth required by city code. um they have the appropriate amount of open space on 3.91 acres which is 18.18%. A sports court and walking paths are shown on the landscape rendering. Um the landscape plan was reviewed by the city forester and some requests were made seeking alternative species of some of the trees that were listed um due to some diseases that have been rampant lately. Um as far as correspondence is concerned um the engineering division had their comments regarding traffic access, utilities, drainage and irrigation. The NA building department had their typical um comments about um adhering to building code. The forester talked about the trees um that had some disease u that need to be replaced on the landscape plan. The police department um is recommending a commitment to fund 0.02 additional officers and 0.1 additional support staff. The closest police department is 4.8 miles away. The call volume in this area is 103 service calls annually. The fire department does not oppose this application. This development is located approximately 3.3 miles away from fire station 2 with an approximate response time of 8 minutes. Um, the impact fees from this will be $1,267 per unit for an approximate total of 7 74,753 for the development for the fire department. This subdivision will add approximately 167 residents to that 59 lots and will increase a personnel demand of.17 firefighter positions.

So as far as annexation is concerned, there are four criteria to be used in determining the appropriateness of annexation. All land owners have consented to this annexation. The property is contiguous to the city limits. The comprehensive plan includes this area within its area of annexation and the property is subject to the city's agreement with the current highway district. And as for um the zoning, the RS4 zone is an allowed zone within the medium or sorry RS7 that's incorrect. RS7 is an allowed zone within the medium density residential designation. There are three criteria for determining the appropriateness of the zoning. Staff has found that the request is in harmony with the comprehensive plan. The proposal would provide for uses that are deemed to be compatible with the adjoining properties that are also residential. The proposed zoning is in the interest of the public and reasonably necessary. Um it as it matches the comp plan to define compatibility um and it will bring um improvements to the property. These are the recommended conditions of approval based on the engineering comments and these are your potential motions. So, I'll stand for any questions.

Questions? Anyone? Okay, we'll open it up for public testimony. Madam Clerk, is there anybody signed up? Is there anyone here that would like to speak for, against, or undecided on this item? Anyone online? These guys don't care. They're like, "No." Okay, seeing none, I would take a minute. Bonnie, well, yeah. Leon, do you have anything you'd like to add? Do we have any questions for Miss Leon? No, I don't.

Um, I'll just say quickly again, Bonnie Leon, for the record. Um, we reviewed the staff report. We're in agreement with the conditions of approval that staff have recommended for um this project should you uh choose to approve us this evening. So, thank you very much for your time and if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. Nobody. I think so. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Motion to close the public hearing. Second. It's been moved by Kho, second by Garner to close the public hearing. All those in favor? I.

Any opposed? Okay. Public hearing is closed. What are we thinking? Seems like a no-brainer. It's just filling in more of what's already there. So, I don't Yeah. And I like all the exter filling into the canal. So, looks good to me. I meant to ask this question. Nope. I guess I'm not. Maybe not. Question. So, this is Hudson Yards. The other one's New York Landing. There's stuff. What's going on over here? Use Steves. He likes to talk away from his mic, so when he leans forward, it gets real loud.

I'll stay back here. So there's there's all these New York names and then you got Red Sox way right in the middle of this subdivision. Somebody's a prankster. You're not an There's not a Yankees in here. There's a Mets. Maybe Cory was a Yankee. Who knows? Maybe it's an anti Yankees thing cuz there's a Mets in here. Anyway, I agree. I think it's a perfect infill project. Um, it doesn't it doesn't add any new connections to the streets. It's got green space. It's compatible. So, I'd support it. We put a condition in that they need to rename one of them. Fenway Road.

There there's already a Fenway subdivision coming to the south of that. So, no. Nope. No. Okay. There's a there's a theme in this area that is not compatible. And I don't know if that's is that compatibility that we can consider or street naming is all under GIS and there's a giant list they have to be unique on. So street naming gets challenging anymore. Bonnie, can we get rid of the basketball court and put in a baseball field? Sorry. Okay. Daff.

Uh I move to recommend approval of the project as stated on the screen. Second. It's been moved by Daffer, second by Kho to recommend approval for this item. All those in favor? I I. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. You're welcome. Take back what I said. There is a Yankees way. Yankees way. Okay. Item 3-4, zoning map amendment for RS6 toBC zoning district at 1111 11th Avenue North for Raquel Padrazza.

Good evening everyone. Thanks for letting me speak. Um, my name is Lennin and I'm here to represent Noah Leuga and Raquel Pedraza because they say that my English is better than theirs. That's a lie. Okay, they speak really good English. Mine is not that good. Uh if you have if you guys have any question just get back to me. Um I am requesting a resoning of my property point of order. Can we please get first last and Lenny Cavalero L E N I N Cavalero. C A B as boy. L E R O. Your address. What was that? Sorry. Address. Address. My address or the address on the property?

Yours? Uh it is 11:25 Powell Avenue. Nampa, Idaho 83687. Perfect. All right. Thank you.

I am requesting a resoning on my property in order to operate a mobile auto repair business with limited low impact use on the site. The proposed use is specifically for storage of tools, equipment, and automotive automotive parts as well as preparation and dispatch to offsite service locations. The business will operate strictly as a mobile service. No customers will visit the property and no on-site customer services will be provided. All vehicle repairs and customer interactions will take place at the customer's locations wherever their vehicle is situated. Uh the property will not function as a traditional auto repair shop open to the public. The only individuals involved in the business operations will be Raquel Pedrasa and Noel Chuga. There will be no additional employees, no ship changes and no increase in traffic beyond normal residential use. Business related travel will consist so subtly of deporting the property to service to service customers and returning upon completation of service calls. A shop located on the property will be used only for storage of tools, equipment and parts as well as of maintenance and preparation related to the mobile repair services. Uh the existing residents on the property will not be used for customer activity or retail purposes and will be util utiliz utilized solely for a storage of office files, records and administrative materials related to the business. This proposed use is attendant to be quiet, low impact and compatible with the surround surrounding properties um with no anticipated noise, parking or traffic issues beyond what is typical for a residential property. Uh the reszoning request would allow the business to operate in comp in

compliance with local regulations while maintaining the the character and integrity to the area. Sorry, I'm I get really nervous about talking in person. That's what I'm kind of like. You're doing good. You're doing really good. You're doing good. You're doing really good. And that's it. Okay. So, we have the address of the property. It's 1111 11th Avenue North there in AA 83687. We have questions yet? Nope. No. No. Okay. Good. Okay. I I want to I want to call Rodney cuz he's not ready. Call him. He can do it. But I'll let you do it, Christie.

Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Christy Watkins, principal planner for the city of Nampa. As stated, the request before you this evening is to reszone from RS6 to BC at 1111 111th Avenue North to allow for the operation of a mobile auto mechanic business. The property is currently located in a medium density residential designation on the comprehensive plan, but it is adjacent to a commercial designation which can be stretched onto this property. To the north of this property is a um Iel zoned property and um the Mason Creek um industrial park there as well as the um the Shortline Railroad. To the east is an RS6 property. Um that is actually a uh storage yard as far as we can tell. Um we don't have any permits for that loca for that property to be used in that way at this point. Um and to the south west is a residence and to the souththeast is also residential. So these are the uses that are allowed in 1032. So a dwelling combined with a business is a permitted use in the BC zone. Um, automobile parts and accessories that will be stored in the the out building is a permitted use in the BC zone. Automobile and truck repair, if it's on site, requires a conditional use permit. Um, as stated, they're not requesting a conditional use permit tonight because that service will not happen there. Um, I just wanted to bring that to your attention that they would need an extra application if they were to do that at that location. So, should they choose to turn this into

a full-fledged business and be approved to do auto repair, they would be required to bring the property up to code, which would require a 20ft landscape buffer in the front and a number of parking spaces that would be required based on the usable area of the buildings once they choose to convert it. Again, just for your information, they're not required to do that at this time because they're not converting it. But if they do convert it to a full-on auto repair business, these are the requirements that they will be held to. So, the correspondence that we received um the building department says that this will require the property to be utilized solely for the storage of tools and equipment as well as for business filing purposes with the exception of vehicles owned by the property owner. No automotive repair work shall take place on the premises. Should automotive repair services be desired on site, among other requirements, an occupancy change will be necessary and shall comply with the relevant commercial building codes outlined in all of the code books that we refer to. Um, code compliance has noted that there are some code violations on this property. Um, they are maintaining they need to maintain whatever nuisance was outlined by code compliance. They didn't outline it in their memo. They just noticed nuisance. Um, prevention of vehicular nuisances. So, I'm thinking they want to get ahead of any kind of storage of vehicles. Um, and then it's unlawful to leave inoperative vehicles on private property. So, again, I feel like this is kind of an an effort to get ahead of some things that might take place on the property. The Nampa Fire District does not oppose this application subject to compliance with all of the code requirements listed by the building department. The engineering department does not oppose

this application with the following conditions. Um the roads adjacent to the site are managed by the city of Nampa and um the public roadway that provides access to the site is 11th Avenue which is a collector public rideway along 11th Avenue at the required width has already been dedicated. So, no further dedication is required at this time. Frontage improvements, including sidewalk, curb, and gutter are already there, so they don't have to install that. And the city maintains all of the utilities um in 11th Avenue. They're available to the site. So, as stated, these are the proposed conditions um and any others that you may choose to recommend at this time. So, the facts for resoning there again are the three criteria. It is in harmony with the comprehensive plan. It does propose a use that is compatible with is in the interest of the public because um it will be providing a service to our community that is much needed. These are your potential motions and I'll stand for any questions.

Christie, um it's a big piece of property and they're going to be in the auto repair business and I'm concerned about the buildings that they're going to put their spare parts in. What happens if those buildings get to be too small and they got more parts that will fit in there or like an engine block is not something that you can just stick in a building and uh put on your back and then haul it back out again. So, it takes a lot of mechanical stuff to lift the heavy equipment. Is anything prevent them from over filling the lot with parts, car parts?

Um, Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Kho, at this point, if you were to stand directly in front of the property and look at it head-on, there's a house there and there's a and there's a fence that almost completely screens the whole backside of this property from the right of way. Um, so any storage that they might have on site around their building, um, you're not likely going to see it. Um, if they did outgrow this location, then I would assume that they would either build another out building to store some of their stuff or find a better location and grow their business.

Hey, me. Hey, here. Yep. You let me ask more questions, please. Had a rough night. Um, I know we can't change this stuff on the fly. Is this the best way to get this compliant? Like there's no path through conditional use for it seems weird to have this chunk of BC this residential zone like I assume a home occupation wouldn't work for this use. Yeah.

Um thank you Mr. Chairman and um Commissioner Morgan. Our home occupation is an interesting um device. Um we used to allow automotive repair, quote unquote. Um in a home occupation situation, um we had a lot of problems with that. We've had a lot of complaints about that and that was removed from code. Um, as far as storing automotive parts and operating technically in business out of the location, um, we don't have anything in our home occupation code that would address that particular use. So, by reszoning it then, um, like I showed you on the chart, those are the things that would be allowed in that zone, which is what they're asking to do. So we we kind of went around this in our office as well like what would be the best way to address this problem. Um because um the only automotive repair situation that we had for our home occupations was no longer allowed. So this is the only way we could figure to get it compliant.

And I guess I'm already tipping my hand. I'm a little concerned about like I don't have a concern with him doing this. I'm concerned about when they outgrow it and move. Now we've got this chunk of BC on this skinny lot in the middle of a bunch of RS6. Unless you think the that's the way the rest of this neighborhood's going to go as it develops. But if you look down the road, I think there's one little road of maybe duplexes. Yeah. And then it turns into industrial the rest of the way. So like it's right on the edge. Yeah. And the one and the one right next to it, that's what it is now anyway. It's just not zoned for it. Correct.

That's what the future land use map wants it to be. Wants it to be commercial or industrial or um I did I don't see the code or the colors, but what's the future land use map there? So the future land use map on the property currently is medium density residential but it is touching commercial. So it can be stretched. Did you say somewhere in there that it was adjoining some county property? No, it's adjoining the railroad property. What was the

Oh, yeah. I wonder if that got copy pasted from a different I think it probably did. Okay, cuz they have to access it off of Happy Valley down here in the bottom right. Oh. Oh my god. That's a That's a That's a long access. Wow. That's crazy. Oh, it just shows that I was reading, not listening. Okay. Um

Okay. So, you don't think there's And I guess we couldn't do another path today without readvertising and everything, but there's no way like because it's not automotive repair like if people aren't bringing it to that site. I'm trying to see what the difference between that is and having gun parts for sale at your or something else, any other product for sale that you take somewhere else. But you you didn't feel like that would be justified in the home occupation code. Well, because we specifically took that out of our home occupation requirements for automotive u I don't know uses. Yeah, deliberately.

We felt Yeah, we deliberately took that out of our code. We kind of felt like we needed to take this a step further than just a conditional use permit. Rodney stood up. I don't know if he may want to say something. Name and address for the record, please.

And that was a a specific direction from our elected officials to do that. So, we had it, we had the concerns, and then we just we were directed to make that change in code. And so I just don't think that the home occupation is the tool that the our elected officials want to use for and you asked earlier about like conditional use permits and and you know that they are used to address impacts to neighboring properties like noise and fumes and that kind of thing. But um in this situation, they they just were not comfortable with those land uses at all because they were claiming at the time a lot of people were claiming, hey, we're not going to impact noise. We're not going to impact traffic. And then and then it was happening. So they wanted to eliminate that isn't even an option that we would have to go back and mitigate later. And I I think I agree with that that um reasoning. I just don't know that that's what this is. But that's my opinion. And as stated earlier, I'm not a planning professional. So that's all. Brett, I'll be quiet.

All done. I'm all done. Thank you. Hey, any other questions for I got one. This is for my education, but what is the difference between a reszone and a zoning map amendment? Or are they the same thing? Um, Commissioner Daffer, they are the same thing. Okay, that's it. Reszone's just easier to say. Anybody else? Okay, we will open up public testimony for this item. Madam clerk, do we have signup sheet? We do not. Is there anyone here that would like to speak for, against, or undecided on this proposal?

Seeing none, I would close public hearing. Want to invite him back up or Oh, wow. Would you like to come back up and tell us anything else or no? Okay, there we go. Okay, it's been moved by Kho, second by Morgan to close the public hearing. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Public hearing is closed.

I'll finish my thought, then I'll be quiet. I think I I want this to go through. I want them to be able to do this business here. There's no there's no compatibility issues for me right now. it it I don't love the idea of having this little spot zone of a BC in this residential area. I'll get your guys' thoughts on it. I don't know if it's enough for me to reject it, but that's my concern.

I do. I mean, it's it's touching the residential on the one side. I mean, it's close to the residential, but again, it's like right in between pretty heavy industrial stuff and some residential, right? And so because of the uses that are just, you know, a couple hundred feet away, I it's not as big an issue for me as it might be otherwise. And like you said, the people right next to them, they're doing the same thing. That should be a BC zone as well.

They just haven't done it. So, and a lot of those are pretty old houses on some goodiz lots. So maybe as they get redeveloped, it'll just continue to I don't have a problem with it. Yeah, I don't. Just like you said, because it's so close and if we were right smack in the middle of residential, I might feel a little bit different about it. But as Chris just said, you can't even see what's going on from the outside of the property. You can't. Yeah,

but theoretically somebody could come down, tear down the house, put in a business there. I don't think it would ever happen. Like I'm not going to oppose it on those grounds. But that's kind of what we're letting happen though. Yeah. But like I say, a lot most of those are pretty old on on goodsiz lot. So if it did start to get redeveloped, it going to be a more intense use anyway. Yeah. some of those other requirements.

True. I'll support it. I think it's a good idea, Mr. Chair. Yep. Um I move to recommend approval of the reszone as stated on screen with all recommended conditions of approval and proposed findings. Second. It's been moved by Daffer, second by Turner to approve this item or recommend approval for this item. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Okay. U now we would like to invite Rodney up so he could practice his budget presentation.

Well, can we journ this meeting first so the rest of us can go home? But we don't have somebody to adjurnn the first. He's not here. I guess I guess we're stuck here all night. Uh oh, he's on his way. We I invited him and now we got to listen. Thank you guys. Thank you. Good luck. We need more money. Second, Mr. Chairman. Yes. Make a motion that we adjourn. Okay. Who Who second it? Who wants it? All right. Give it to them. Okay. Okay, it's been motioned by Garner, second by Daffer to adjourn the meeting. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Meeting is adjourned.