Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

Let's do a roll call. Garner here. Miller here. Dapper here. Turner here. Kho here. Morgan here. Kirkman Sman here. Copeland here. All right. Eight present.

You were hiding behind the TV.

Um, commissioners, Mr. Chair and commissioners, the um couple of things to report on just the comp plan. Um, I'll just do a quick update on that one. Uh, staff is wrapping up the final public involvement uh for the first phase. Uh Monday is the the uh we're closing the the survey online. So, if you have anybody you know that hasn't taken the survey, we'd encourage them to get online and take that survey for the comp plan. There was some confusion over the the summer because of the city survey, just the regular city survey um that they do annually, but this one is for the comp plan. So, uh we'd really encourage anybody to to participate in that. And then um we staff has also been going to a lot of leadership classes in a bunch of schools um and and asking all of those people in those classes to participate. Um and so get a little bit different perspective than than just an adult u you know older generation. Sometimes we're getting the younger generation now. And um as of October 29th, we had over 800 uh direct comments and and responses to the questionnaire. Um so pretty significant outreach that's been done. I don't know that we've ever had that many. I I'm pretty certain we've never had that many. Um, and as you've probably seen throughout the community, my staff has been attending all kinds of events through throughout the summer and throughout the fall. So, um, we're going to be wrapping that up. We're we've done a um some coordination with the communication director in the mayor's

office to get a last push out on social media for the survey. And um we'll be starting the [snorts] next phase and that will include um some detailed some specific um committees that will work on different topics of the comprehensive um based on the public outreach we receive some of the feedback we receive. We're going to come up with certain themes and then create those committees to work on that. So, we anticipate your involvement in this next phase. Uh maybe even a little more heavy than in the past. So, I'll be coming back to you probably watch for emails and u we'll get you involved in that process. And then just an update on city council. We had the two final plats that you had recommended approval were both approved. Um the next one was a public hearing uh preliminary plat and annexation and zoning. uh for the Lake View neighborhood subdivision. You had recommended approval. This is the one right out right out near the lake. Um and that was the one where they uh had they clustered the homes closer to the roadway and then had a really significant size of open space on on the western side nearest the lake. And that one was approved um by city council. The next one was a variance um to allow um the school on 12th Avenue, I can't remember the name of the school now, the Zion Lutheran School, that's what it is, to um put their their fence and their wall a little bit closer to the roadway than we would typically allow because we require that landscaping. And that one was approved by city council.

And then um finally the last one was annexation and zoning to RS 8.5. This is the one off of 122 it's 1224 East Iowa Avenue uh for single family home to connect to the city's sewer services um kind of a rural area enclaved area and you had recommended approval and city council approved that one too. Thank you. Sure. [clears throat]

Make a motion to approve the consent agenda. Second. Then motion by Garner, second by Selman to approve the consent agenda. Is there any discussion? All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. [clears throat]

Okay, we'll go ahead and move into our public hearing. Um, few things just so everybody understands. You been to a meeting before. Uh, this meeting is being recorded, so try to keep the noise in the audience to a minimum. Um, don't speak from your seat. Basically, we want to respect the people who are up up here speaking and they will respect you in the same turn. Um, to get started, uh, the applicant will get seven minutes to propose their project. Then the we'll get the staff report from city staff. They have unlimited time. and we'll open it up for public testimony. Each person that signed up, if you haven't signed up, don't worry about it. We'll give time at the end of each item for those who haven't. Those people will get three minutes to speak. There's a timer up here and then we have one up here, too. So, um, keep your comments pointed um, specific and after the public is done speaking, we'll give some time back to the applicant to rebut and answer questions. We'll close public hearing then we will deliberate, discuss and vote on each item. Let's just get into it. First item [clears throat] is a Comprehensive plan text amendment, zoning text amendment, and zoning map amendment to redefine downtown core. Change various chapters and sections of title 10 where downtown is referenced or needs to be added for districts. Zoning designations from DHC

GB2 GB1 zoning district for the city of

All right. Uh good evening, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. My name is Brienne House, senior planner with the planning and zoning department. Tonight, myself um and Christie will be presenting um this project to you. Um we're bringing forward a comprehensive plan text and zoning text amendment along with a zoning map amendment to adopt a form-based code for downtown Nampa and to redefine the downtown Nampa core, changing various references and code sections uh to reflect the new form districts and new downtown zoning designations. We're asking for your recommendation tonight to city council. So why uh formbbased code for downtown Nampa? Forbased code was a top recommendation that came out of the downtown implementation plan um that came before you several months ago. Uh it it is more explicit in what the city desires for the standards of development in downtown. Um, it keeps the fabric and character of downtown while alleviating the disconnect that has existed between the city and developers and property owners. So, how um does this impact downtown um and the process for reviewing development? So, currently our code is relatively strict yet somehow unclear on its intentions. um form-based code will allow more flexibility in the building form and create clear expectations of what the city would like to see. We've had instances where a new building um went before the arts and historic preservation commission and the design review committee and the codes the code states currently that any new building shall reflect adjacent buildings. um the boards and commissions have struggled with coming to a consensus on what that means um exactly and so the adoption of form-based code um is really intended to remove that confusion um and staff strongly feels that it will

um encourage new development in downtown Nampa. So here on the left side we have our current process. So, right now, any new development um or projects where exterior materials are being replaced in the downtown historic zoning district um first go before the arts and historic preservation commission for a recommendation and then they go before the design review committee um for a decision. Any appeals would then go before this commission, planning zoning commission, and then on to city council if appealed. Again, with the new formbbased code, um projects will only be reviewed by staff. Um and any appeals of staff decisions or exceptions to the code will then go before the design review committee. Um this follows the same exact process that we've implemented for industrial design review and that's been going very well. Um the design review committee will still retain their authority over other zoning districts in the city. Um, and then projects that are being completed on buildings that are on the National Register of Historic Places, um, or are eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places will then be reviewed by the Arts and Historic Preservation Commission. So, our consultant on this project um, and staff created a review worksheet to ensure a smooth process for applicants. Um, each section necessary to review an application is for compliance with the formbbased code is found on the worksheet and will be filled out by the applicant. Staff will be able to quickly review each project for compliance um and move it forward. So, quickly we're going to go over the form districts here. So, the formbbased code will only cover um what was previously identified as the DH um the downtown historic zoning district. Uh

this zone will be reszoned if recommended tonight and on for approval to city council will be re the zone will now be called um CN central Nampa zoning district. Um so within the CN zone there will be a five total form districts. The CH central historic um zoning form district excuse me um is the orange in the center there um will be the most restrictive. Um it's in that um CH area that NPA's um National Reg Register of Historic Places District is within. Um those 10 buildings along um First Street that are already on the National Register. Um so certain architectural styles um will be required in the CH form district whereas the other form districts will just have recommend recommended architectural styles. So I'm going to briefly go over the development standards. Um the commission has been a part of several workshops um on this. So some of these next slides you've seen before um just to discuss briefly. Um we also have our consultant here if more specific questions come up um about the code. So formbbased code is regulated by four major parameters. branch type, building type, form district signage and then use. So the form is really what is regulated. So the step back and setbacks and the pedestrian space in front of the building um form based code is more focused on how the building interacts with the pedestrian space rather than what the use is in the building. So here's um an example of that. So then based on the frontage type and street type the standards change to reflect um for that building.

Uh these are the permitted architectural styles. These are required in the CH that central historic form district and like I said earlier just recommended in the other form districts. There are also specific architectural features um such as roof style, storefront materials um that are either required or recommended based on the form district. So we will also be updating the text for the uh NPA 240 comprehensive plan to address the changes to the downtown core. Um in chapter 5, we added a section for the downtown land use designation. Um, so the table of contents was updated there. Um, in chapter 4, a small change was made to a known downtown event reference. Um, all the references to the DH or DB zones have been updated throughout uh, in chapter 5. And then um, this new section um, we've added and have defined central NA and the downtown gateway area. Um, and Christy will discuss the the gateway area in her section of the presentation. And then the exhibit in chapter 5 was also updated to include the downtown designation there at the bottom. Um, chapter 5 objectives were also updated um to now refer to the central Nampa uh district. Uh Idaho state law requires that the planning and zoning commission develop a comprehensive plan and that the plan include all relevant uh conditions and trends. Um unlike zoning codes, uh the comp plan can be flexible and subject to change as desired by the planning commission and city council. So these are proposed findings uh for the comprehensive plan text amendments and staff um concludes that the proposed

changes um to the table of contents chapter 4, five and eight of the 2040 comprehensive plan provide current and accurate information that can be utilized for future planning in downtown Nampa. These changes are necessary as the community continues to adapt to changes occurring in downtown and maintains consistency in use and design while meeting the desirable goals and objectives of the 2040 comprehensive plan and I'm going to return the main uh turn the rest over to Christie.

All right. Thank you Mr. Chairman and commissioners. I'm Christy Watkins with the I'm principal planner with the city of Nampa. The other portion of this request is to reszone that central or that Nampa downtown core. Um, I'm just gonna give you a visual for a minute. Think about Burger King and the location of that building. It is currently designated as a downtown zone. That's pretty far away from what most of us would consider to be downtown. So, um, in this process, it was determined that it would be to keep that downtown designation in the comprehensive plan just for clarity purposes because it's already on the map but we still have the ability to kind of define it as its own thing and then within that we're going to request these uh reszones. So the DB zone which we're going to start from north side and work our way to 16th um [snorts] on the north side we have a small section that is DB which is downtown business. We are requesting to change that to gateway business one. And then the next section is downtown village and we are requesting to change that to gateway business 2. And then the next section is the DH zone which um she just talked about um to change to the CN district. Um so the facts for um reszoning a piece of property as you know there are three criteria for determining the appropriateness of zoning. Um it has been determined by staff that the zones that are being requested are in harmony with the comprehensive plan based on the changes that have been presented to you tonight to redefine that downtown core. the uses um staff did a pretty indepth um comparison between the GB zones and the downtown zones to determine which

ones would be the most appropriate and not really disturb the status of properties that are there currently. Um the GB1 and the GB2 zones were those zones. So um the uses are similar to what is allowed there now. Um, and if someone were to to come in and say, "Oh, you know, what does this do to the building that I have there currently?" It's not going to change a whole lot. Um, the Gateway Business District does have um some language, and we'll talk about that with the the text amendments. It does have some language that provides for some larger setbacks and some larger firming for landscaping. But in this core, um, we're going to be asking for exceptions just to that to allow pedestrian friendly environment there. And then the third item is um it is in the interest of the public and reasonably necessary because it will align better with the entirety of that area and it will refine the requirements for the new CN zone which she discussed. So, those are all the facts for reszoning and then we're going to go into the text amendments. Okay. So, um these these chapters are kind of out of order because some of the um some of the changes are identical. So, I just tried to list them as succinctly as possible. So, chapter one, we're going to remove a definition of early early 20th century architecture because that's stated in our current downtown historic zone. And to be honest, we're not really sure what it means even there's a definition. So, we're just going to get rid of it. Um, and then remove all references to the DH zone. We are going to then reference the new downtown implementation plan for streetscape standards. And we're going to replace again all references to DH,

DV, and DV with CN. And the um not with the GB because that's already referenced in that section as GB. So we only have to replace with CN um and then replace references to commercial properties with just commercial or industrial uses rather than the DHDB and DB. And then in chapter 22 um for parking we're going to replace DH with CN. And in chapter 28, which is actually mobile home parks, we don't use that chapter very often. We're going to replace the DHD with CN as I stated GB is already listed um in that chapter. In chapter three, we're going to take those out of the chart, DB, DV, and DH, and we are going to make specific reference to the CN zone for uses that are listed in chapter 15. So, we won't be going to chapter 3 to determine the uses any longer. in that just in that zone. And then um chapter 15 and chapter 34. So chapter 15 currently is our downtown core. It has the DHDV and DB um information in it. So we will be repealing that entire chapter and we will be um linking it to the PDF that is form based code which is about 136 pages currently. So that's why it's going to be a link. Um it's just going to be easier for people to find it that way. And then um in chapter 34, which is our design review chapter, DH becomes CN. Um that has all of those form districts within it. Um any mention of DH is removed and changed to CN and um we had a repaint requirement for the entire DH um zoning district and so that

is going to be removed and we will only be historical buildings for repaints. Then in chapter 4, which is the GB zone, the properties in the downtown core are not very large and they cannot sustain the 35- foot front setback that is currently listed for the GB zone. The city also has a desire to promote this area as a pedestrian friendly area. So, a smaller front setback is necessary on these properties. So we've reduced it just in the downtown core to 10 ft and then we have removed um the requirement for a landscape burn on most properties at well we we've made an exception to the area that is designated as downtown. There were no comments received on this proposal and these are your potential motions. We'll stand for any questions. Guess [clears throat] you did a really good job. Everybody's asleep.

I I tend to do that. We've seen a lot of this before. Yeah, we have. [clears throat] Okay. Madam clerk, do we have a signup sheet? No sign sheet. Sign up. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak for against or undecided on this? Make second garner second by a closed public hearing. All those in favor. Any opposed?

Okay. Hearing is closed. Well, I think that staff always does a good job with these kind of things. So, I'm going to put a lot of trust into what they say because a lot of this is Greek to me. I don't speak Greek very well. I am in favor of it. Okay. That said, this is stuff we've been seeing. Yeah. And that's the second point. Yeah. Been in agreement with it so far. I'll throw a motion out there to approve the project as stated on the

second. It's been moved by Morgan, second by Daffer to approve this item. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay, motion carries. We'll move on to our second item, [clears throat] uh, annexation and zoning to RS4 and potential development agreement for a future residential subdivision, Shadow Creek at Lake LOL at 1408 Lake LOL Avenue. Um, for Kylie Kennedy of Co Architects is the applicant here.

And if you could please give your name and address for the record.

Yeah, Matt Hufffield, uh, 404 South 8 Street, Boyce, Idaho. Um, I think Kylie's the one that submitted it for me. So, um, this project I think, um, we've been here a few times trying to get this thing through and, um, we're we're trying to do something that we feel is going to improve the city and help, uh, minimize, uh, some of the infrastructure that's farther out, trying to help reduce traffic. But, this is a small infill development. Um, as you can see, this property is completely surrounded by um, city of Nampa property already. Um and so we're we're proposing um 12 units on this uh 12 lots on this property. Um a small local road that comes in with the the T in for fire department turnaround. Um the the intent of this project is really I think to um improve the quality of this pro parcel that's been vacant for years. um to provide for um starter homes, you know, first-time family buyers. Um really try to provide something that um you know, I I bought my first home in in 1996 in Nampa. Um and um I was able to move out here because I could afford it here. Um and we're trying to provide that back that, you know, that we put something back in the community that that those folks can afford and and move into. Um and then also um you know something that's welldesigned, works well with the community. Um we're not going out and taking over farmland. This is an underutilized piece of property um that we're we're trying to improve and and make make the city better. Um you know, some some benefits. This will be um we're working with local contractors to provide local subcontractors and all that stuff. It'll help provide e um economic viability to the community, give back to the community. Um this isn't somebody coming in from the outside trying to to do something um and bring in outside forces. We're we're

working with locals to do the work. Um also, it will help, you know, get back to the tax base, um help, you know, pay for infrastructure with with increased taxes, things like that. Um, again, it we're we're in a an area that is already as dense or more dense than we are, minus a couple of properties. Um, we're we're trying to match what's there and provide for um, you know, some things that are that are consistent with with the area already. I think our our parcels are a little bit bigger than what's adjacent to us, minus um, some of the more the couple of rural rural lots. Um, and I think there's even a, you know, apartment complex a couple a little bit way down. So, we're our density is right. Um the lots are a little bit bigger. So, they they are going to provide for um for some extra space for these families to have um other things um that they that they need. Um you know, off off streetet parking. I think we got four spaces. I think we meet all the all the zoning requirements. Um we're also planning to have HOAs which will help reduce any of the the concerns that neighbors have with you know street parking and things like that that um will will be able to control what the people are doing there a little bit with the HOAs to uh to make sure that we have some recourse if somebody isn't following the rules. Um and I respectfully ask you to approve. Thank you. Any questions? Not right now.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commission. Christy Watkins, principal planner for the city of Tampa. Um, as stated, the request tonight is for annexation and zoning to RS4. Um, they are not proposing the plat at this time. Um, they want to see what everybody has to say about this annexation first before they go down that road. So, the comprehensive plan is medium density residential. The property is currently under Canyon County jurisdiction and is zoned R1. In September of 2024, this planning and zoning commission recommended approval for annexation and zoning to RS4 for 12 single family lots and three common lots. In December of 2024, city council denied the annexation and zoning to RS4 for 12 single family lots and three common lots because of the lot sizes and the compatibility to the surrounding properties. So to the north is RS6, which is the South Creek subdivision. Those are single family detached homes. To the south is RS6 um and Lake Avenue. And then RA, which is a large lot single family detached home. To the east is RA and those are large lot single family detached homes as well. To the west is RS6 which is the South Creek subdivision and those are single family detached homes. Um the utilities are available in Lake LOL. So, this is an enclaved property um that is in an area that has been developed in the city for quite some time with the exception of a few large lot properties. Um the proposed RS4 zoning district does fit within the designation of medium density residential and the comp plan calls for a density of 2.5 to eight dwelling units per acre. it would be considered infill

and as you know infill encourages a little bit higher density to take advantage of services and utilities that are already available in the area. Lot sizes will be evaluated during the platting process um and will be required of course to meet city standards. Um the concept does show that uh the lot sizes are 477 square feet to 5,218 square feet. The RS4 zone requires 4,000 square ft with a maximum of 8,000 square ft. So the proposed lots do fall within that range. With a density range of 2 and a half uh to eight dwelling units per acre, the project will have 5.82 dwelling units per acre. So it'll fall right in the middle. The minimum building lot um is 30 linear feet and the proposed concept plan lot widths are larger than 30 ft. Um but again this will be evaluated at the time of plat submitt. And then um they do have some open space proposed on this concept plan. 5% is required. That is 4,486 square ft. Um the project concept plan shows four common lots on 6 acres totaling 7 approximately 7,000 square feet or 7.8%. So they've exceeded their open space requirement. So engineering division did uh submit their standard comments for um flat review. A traffic impact study will not be required due to the number of lots. Um the fire district indicated that this is 2.9 miles from fire station number six with an approximate response time of 7 minutes and they um anticipate an increased need for personnel of 003 firefighter positions. There was also some late public input

that you should have in front of you tonight. There was one letter in support um because of the current need for housing and there was a letter in opposition because of uh parking concerns, potential loss of privacy to the neighboring properties and the density. So there are four criteria to be used in determining the appropriateness of annexation. One, all land owners um have to have consented to this annexation, which they have. Um the property is contiguous to the city limits, which it is. It's completely surrounded. The comprehensive plan includes this area within its area of annexation. It is in the impact area. The property is subject to the city's agreement with the highway district. Um that one's kind of irrelevant because the streets around it are all owned by the city. Um, as far as zoning is concerned to the RS4 zone, there are three criteria to be used in determining that zoning. This request is in harmony with the comprehensive plan. The proposal would provide for uses that are deemed to be compatible with the adjoining properties. Um, RS is compatible with RS. The proposed zoning is in the interest of public of the public and reasonably necessary um as it the comprehensive plan does define compatibility as any property that falls within the same land use designation and meets the densities and development standards that are compatible with each other and it does take advantage of existing utilities. These are the recommended conditions of approval that are in your staff report and these are the potential motions. I'll stand for any questions.

Mr. Chairman Christie, um, how do they determine the miles from the location of the property to the fire station nearest? You know, does somebody go in the car and their car and drive? Commissioner Kho. Um, we have a GIS map and so they probably run a line on the streets to determine the distance and then they have a formula that they calculate to determine how fast they think that it would take them to get there and I think they average it. I don't know that. Okay. For sure. [clears throat]

Well, I live a half a mile, 510 of a mile from my house to fire station number six. It is 4/10 of a mile from my house to the project. Five and four is nine in my book. And sorry,

that's the comment that they gave me. I I can't tell you how they came up with Well, but if we're off by a mile and 8/10 on every application, we're not doing somebody's not doing a good job of determining the your insurance rates is based on the length of time it takes a fire department to get from their station to your actual incident. And speaking of which, last week my next door neighbor had a medical incident and they called the fire department. They were there in three minutes. I don't understand why we're so far off. I will need to ask them that question.

And if if if Well, never mind. Okay, we don't know the answer. I was going to stop at Fire Station 6 and ask them, but I fig they wouldn't know the answer either. Well, I think um you just stated you've got proof of whatever the distance and the time. is to your neighborhood. How do we get it changed so they have more accurate figures? I will have to ask them that question. Okay. I mean, I'll be glad to provide the proof. Okay. And I'll be glad to check at future applications, too, because in the past, I've said, well, I can't imagine it's that far away. And I haven't gone back and checked, but I I got a funny feeling we're not doing a good job of determining distance to incidents from the fire stations.

I will ask them. Thank you very much. It's all I had, Mr. Thank you. Any other questions? Not yet. Okay. Okay. We will go ahead and open up our public hearing for this item. Madam clerk, do we have a signup sheet? We do. The first one is Rafi K. Okay. Please give us your name and address for the record.

Hello, my name is Rafie Casser. Uh, I live at 821 South Cove Lane. um right across the street from the proposed project. Uh so I'm here to speak in opposition to the request to add any additional dwelling units on this property. My primary concerns are traffic, street parking, and increased pedestrian safety issues. Uh Lake LOL, if any of you have ever driven on it, is already a very, very busy road, and uh anyone who lives around that area knows how difficult it is to pull out of your driveway or uh you know, even try to find a parking spot during after school hours. Uh there's always uh children waiting for the school bus in the morning and drop offs in the afternoons. Uh increased density on a development uh with only one road in and out will only worsen that um that congestion. Even though the proposal includes driveways and designated parking spots, uh the reality is that people will park on the street. Uh this already is the case and it significantly will get worse if this moves forward. Uh we see this in nearly every densely populated subdivision in the valley. Uh overflow parking crowds the streets, blocks uh sight lines, slows down traffic, creates hazardous conditions for families who already live there. Uh there is also eight existing single family homes on the west of this property. Um I don't know if you can pull up the map. Um the proposed highdensity units are completely out of proportion with the established neighborhood and the design will disrupt the character and tone of the community. Um, another major concern for me is the developer's pattern of behavior. Uh, this is the third or fourth attempt by this builder to push this project forward. Each time the application's been denied and each time the neighbors have voiced the same concerns, yet the builder continues to return with virtually the same pro uh proposal, making no meaningful changes in response to the community's feedback. Uh at this point it feels less uh like responsible development and more like the builder pushing their own agenda with no regard

for the residents who are going to be affected. They didn't even give out proper notices for a community meeting uh per requirement. Um I assume in order to have a lesser opposition turnout during that meeting uh they get to build whatever they want, sell the units and then move on while we who live here are left dealing with the increased traffic, overcrowded parking, increased crime. Uh growth is not the issue here. Compat compatibility and responsibility are. The proposal does not fit the existing neighborhood. It does not address traffic concerns and it does not reflect any attempt to work with the community. For these reasons, I respectfully ask that the commission deny this request and stick with the decision that was made pre uh previously. Thank you so much. Thank you,

Kevin Rushton. Good evening. Uh Kevin Rush out of 1712 South Miller Way in Nampa, Idaho. And I submitted a letter which you probably all have a copy of. So I figured it's best to just uh read off of that. But I will say first of all the argument of increased traffic would basically remove all new housing. So there's always going to be an increase in traffic if you're going to have any new development. I'm writing this letter in favor of the abovementioned project. As a real estate agent with over 40 years experience, I believe that not just this project, but other similar higher density and more affordable smaller home projects are something our community desperately needs. Many young people who grow up in our community have been [clears throat] forced to leave due to our housing prices being far out of reach for them. As a parent, I would like my kids to be able to stay in our community and help keep families close. One such project will not solve this problem alone, but would be a step in the right direction. Our neighborhoods are already overstocked with high-end homes that I know firsthand are mostly purchased from people out of state. I have heard some complaints from people who believe building similar smaller homes in a community has a negative effect on their values. This is patently and historically false. Some of the most expensive areas of the country have a healthy mix of housing options. Small homes are called starter homes for a reason. It's a first step for many who later trade up into larger homes at their in as their income increases and their their family grows. This actually helps sustain values over the long term. We also have a growing aging population who at a certain stage have a desire to downsize but end up staying in large homes they have trouble maintaining because there's not enough smaller home options available in the community. These projects also help maximize the

return of infrastructure the city has invested so much in. Having more varieties of housing options available is good for the community, not just for sustaining market values as a fairly and as a fairly close neighbor to this project for over 25 years. I asked a vote to approve this project and in the future look favorable on similar infill projects. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next, Sherman Williams. [clears throat]

Chairman Williams, 702 Spruce Creek Drive, Nampa. I have uh property on the west side of this property, buts up against it. So, the first gentleman I spoke that spoke, I'd say ditto owed to everything he said. It'll cut me down in time. Okay. Um, I want to thank you council and uh, commissioners or whatever you are. Thank you for letting us speak because the human impact is not in writing really that they have to hit the human impact. She listed all the things they have to do and he's done a very good job of making sure over two or three times to hit all of those requirements, but the human impact is not there and I thank you for letting us speak so that we could have that. So, in essence, I'm ult over overall I'm against it. I'm in favor of it for only one reason and that's so we can hold him accountable for the eyesore. It's a horrible horrible eyesore right at the moment. So if it city takes it over then we can hold him accountable for having a bad eyesore. Um if he if he could put eight homes in there just like you told him he could. He said if he'd do it I think last time you you declined it. He said if he could match the eight homes that we'd probably get it approved, but he can't according to the finances. But that's not our issue. We didn't buy the property. We didn't make the decision to purchase the property and and without uh checking to see what it's going to take, what y'all would would approve. So, like a gentleman said before, he's going to move on. We're going to stay living there with what's been approved. So, I appreciate it if you don't prove that. Um, the the traffic is actually as I stand out in front of my property and I look up and down the street and I go, "Putting 12 homes in a space that we have, eight homes. I I don't see how you can do that in that space that he has over there. Sure, he can hit all the he can hit all the uh the exact

requirements, but as far as the impact that surrounds it, it's going to be a lot worse than we would see on our streets. So, in essence, I'm I'm I'm against it. I'm in favor only for one reason, and that's to hold him accountable for cleaning up his property. Thank you. Thank you. [clears throat] Timothy Laflur.

Good evening. Timothy Laflur, 626 Spruce Creek Drive. I live just down the street from Sherm. I ditto everything they said. I'm I'm uh against this. Uh they talk about the price of houses. They have never discussed what the price of these lots will be. Now he's talking about having individual builders do it so they can set the price on what the houses are going to be. So we don't know if they're going to be affordable. Um my concern is is that it's going to be difficult for them 12 family members to get out on the Lake LOL and they're going to turn right and they're going to start heading through the neighborhoods to get out over to Roosevelt which is an easier way to get out less congested. So I'm against it. Uh I ditto everything that Sherm and Rafie said and thank you for your time. Thank you,

Joe Marorrow. My name is Joe Morrow. I live at 166 or 1500 Lake Avenue. Um, I live just two houses down the street and I'm concerned with the lot sizes and the impact of the overflow of cars, trucks, and trailers parking outside of this development, which would overflow out onto Lake LOL and Spruce Creek. um all these new infill and apartment complexes that go in, you drive by them and everybody's trailers and kids' cars, boyfriend's cars, they're they're out on the streets, whether it's over by the old Carter Mall and and Flamingo in that area or or every place else. And this is going to be another example. I'm also against the lot density, specifically the lot width and the buildability of these narrow lots. What kind of house can you really put on a narrow lot? Um, these lots are about as wide as this desk that you guys are sitting behind. [clears throat] I'm concerned you can't build a twocar garage, which then is going to force parking again along both sides of my property. Just because these lots meet the minimum requirement, doesn't mean you can build a quality twocar garage that will fit with its narrowness. I mean, a 4,000 square foot lot could be four feet wide and 1,000 feet long, and that's going to you're going to check that off on your box, but what are you really going to build on something that narrow? Same thing with with this. [clears throat] The last developer proposal was denied by city council because city council felt the narrowness of the 12 dwellings was not compatible with the adjacent properties, which are R six or bigger.

With this development, these new lots are a little bigger by 12%, not the 20% that he has claimed from the last proposal. This development now has smaller green spaces, a tighter fire turnaround at the end of the street and they have eliminated the parking on the east side of the street from the previous development proposal which was denied. This development does not match up with the surrounding subs and they are trying to cram too many units on this property. We would be happy with eight. Thank you. Stephen Rob.

Hi, good evening. My name is Steven Rob. I live at 1723 Lake LOL A L A L A L A L A L A L A L A L A L A Lab. It's about nine houses down the street from the property. Um in general, I'm supportive of annexing infill parcels within the city of Nampa. I think that's the right thing to do versus them remaining as county parcels. Um in general, I'm supportive of this parcel being developed versus it being abandoned the way it is. However, I think the development needs to be consistent with the current neighborhood, which is predominantly RX6 houses and then much larger lots. And there's several much larger parcels right close to this development. And uh when I look at the maps, I couldn't find any RS4 zoning anywhere near here. And um my concern is the density and especially when you're trying to put that much density on a spur deadend street that has parking only on one side of it managing traffic. Trying to get in and out of there. I don't even know if there's one street parking per home that they're trying to put on this street is going to be a nightmare. I don't know how you're going to deal with, you know, people very popular to have a pickup truck and they want to pull a trailer for whatever they're moving around. Um, that is totally incompatible with being able to function on this spur road with 41 foot wide frontages where there's a 20 foot driveway and 20 feet of curb. I I don't know how the cars and parking are going to work for this year. If this

was zoned RS6 and there were seven or eight homes on it, I think that could work. But I think trying to put 12 single family homes on this street, as narrow and tight as it's going to be, I think it's trying to shoehorn too much into too little space and all the traffic is in and out off Lake LOL only. There's no flow through otherwise and it puts a burden on on everyone. And you know, while it may be optimizing the use of the lot, quote unquote, I think it's more optimizing developer profits as opposed to fitting in with the neighborhood and building something that is livable as opposed to creating a driving and traffic nightmare. Uh not just for themselves, but to the people that are around it because there's going to be overflow vehicles to the adjacent streets and that's not right. Thank you.

Thank you. No one else. [clears throat] Is there anyone else that would like to speak?

Good evening, Mr. Chair and commissioners. I'm Cheryl Higgley at 12441 South Abbott Downing Way. And um I just want to say that this plan is identical to the one that was presented at the neighborhood meeting which has been stated um the neighbors were opposed to. Um it's very similar to the one that Blake Wolf presented to the city council. Um last year on November 18th, that proposal was denied 5 to one because the council felt that the proposed density of the 12 dwellings with an RS fair RS4 zoning was too high and was not compatible with the adjacent properties that are zoned RS6 and also the RA lot immediately to the east. Some of the council members indicated that they would want the number of dwellings reduced to eight or nine and then they'd be um more open to it. Um it was touted at the neighborhood meeting that they had made the lots larger, 20% larger, but when I did calculations, it came out to 12%. Um but when comparing the two proposals, it was at the expense of narrowing um the common green space lots, the fire turnaround lane and the interior roadway, which eliminated the parking. There was a parking lane along the eastern boundary of the property um which allowed for one parking space per unit. Um, as you can imagine, none of the neighbors responded favorably to the new proposal as they had valid concerns that there will not be enough parking, especially for the large trucks which many Idahoans own um and over any overflow would end up on the streets um near near their homes. So, we were hoping due to the negative feedback from the neighbors that the property owner would reconsider his proposal, but he did not and instead he filed the same

proposal as an application with the city. So, please take these facts into consideration before making your recommendation to the council. Thank you so much for your consideration. Anybody else? Um, Zachary Piper. Um, born and raised in Caldwell, moved to Southeast Idaho. I just recently moved back out here. Um, I [clears throat] was notified about this property. Address. Say that again. Get your address.

Oh, my address now is 1381 West Daro Drive, Meridian. Um, I was actually in a property out here. That's what I do. I own Integrity Builders Group. Um, I'm a general contractor here in the state of Idaho. Um, I kind of just rolled by this this property. I don't know Mr. Hufffield or the the gentleman sitting next to him. And we kind of have the same vision in bringing that affordable housing back. Um, and I've I've heard the concerns of people up here saying about traffic. Traffic's inevitable on every single street in the Treasure Valley. It's not going to stop. It's just going to get worse. Um, but I guess again back to the affordable housing, the housing market just keeps getting higher and higher and higher and it it reduces the opportunity for the younger generation to purchase a home. So, um, we talk about he talks about, um, one of the gentlemen said something about the traffic going in with trailers and building and stuff like that. Um, we're good at what we do. we know what we we have to do to keep our trailers on the property when we build. Um I don't think that's going to affect anything. HOAs once the homes are built, HOAs can reduce that immensely also by cars parking on streets, trailers on streets. We see it in all the neighborhoods around here. Um so it's good to hear the concerns from the community because that would outline the HOA for the people that do purchase the homes. So I know price of the homes have never been brought up. Um, and again, I don't know Mr. Hufffield at all. I I actually want to purchase the property and do exactly what he's doing to it, and that's bringing these smaller homes. They're doing it in Southeast Idaho right now. I have a builder friend that's doing it. Smaller single family homes for the first time home buyer. That's all [snorts] I got.

Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. you like to come back up and answer some questions for us? [clears throat]

Okay, anybody have questions? [clears throat] I think I would just be interested in um just a lot of people talked about how this looks like exactly the same plan and which was rejected by the city council. So, what's different now that would make us want to try and send this back to city council again?

Yeah, I think uh taking their insight into account. I wasn't involved in that last proposal. That was another person that was um doing that. Um we made the lots bigger than what they were before um to try to that was their concern was the size of the lots. Um, basically we were able to get the same size that we did if we would have gone to fewer lots by doing what we did by getting our engineer met with the the city engineers to figure out what the roads actually need to be. Um, I think they had kind of guessed when they did that. So, we got those back to meet what city requirements are for the road widths and the the firetruck turnaround, things like that. So, we're able to take that and apply it to the size of the lots. Um, I think some other things, uh, these are 40 41 foot wide lots. Garage is typically 20 feet wide. There's plenty of room to have a two, three car garage here. Um, these are not they're deep enough lots you can have a a larger home on there if you needed to or wanted to. Um, our our idea is to keep them a little bit smaller to keep them affordable. Um, but excuse me. um the the lot sizes are adequate compared to what's in the neighborhood and and they work and I think taking that into account and increasing the lot size is what we what we modified from the previous submitt

yes see if I understand this how many lots were there before when you went to city council and it was rejected how many lots did you have at that application I didn't but it was 12. How many how many? I think it was 12. Anybody know? 12. It's 12 now. Oh, where are you taking this? Where's this space coming from? From the road width. The roads now meet the the requirement that that the city has for road width versus what was in that plan. You really haven't done anything to eliminate any of the fears these people have. You just you just changing the lots. Well, the the city council's request was to have larger lots. That's and that's what we did.

Yeah. But you did it at the expense of other things. You didn't you didn't never mind. Thank you very much. So, did you remove parking on one side to accommodate that? Yes. Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. No more discussion. I would make a motion to close the public hearing. Second. Moved by Garner, second by Kihoo to close the public hearing. All those in favor?

I. Any opposed? Okay. Public hearing is closed. Mr. Chair.

Yeah. Oh, I understand the neighbors concerns with the narrower lots backing up to theirs, but like the like it's been stated and I I know myself being in this business that the only way you're going to make homes more affordable is putting more on per acre and coming in with smaller homes. And you have to we have to get more entry level homes for the younger generation so they can get into something. Right now, I think it's 40 40 years before people on average are buying their first home. That's ridiculous for kids to have to spend years pumping money out to pay somebody else's mortgage. And the only way you can do it is on these infill projects is is to get higher density so these kids can get into something. And honestly, there's been plenty of studies. it it's not this isn't multifamily coming up backing up to them of big apartment buildings. They're single family homes. They're detached. They're not even town homes. And I I honestly don't believe there'd be any problem with property values down the road when they go to sell. But, you know, I I was for this before because I think it's a great infill project. It's a great way to get some smaller homes for some new new young families to get into and have their own place. And it it just to me I I like the idea. I know it's skinny lots, but like you said, you can you can put a 1,200, 1300 foot house on there with a two-car garage and and have plenty of yard. and I'm for it, but I I understand people's concern, but we've got to get some some more affordable housing going for these younger families so they can get started a lot sooner. So,

I'll get off my soap so soap box. Mr. Chair,

a question for staff. Um, is parking allowed on Lake Wool? Mr. Chair, Commissioner Daffer, there is parking allowed on Lake LOL. Um that's not something [clears throat] that um I can say will always be the case, but currently um there are vehicles that park along Lake Hole. Uh they would have currently the property has um no curb gutter sidewalk and the the pavement. They would end up installing curb gutter sidewalk and and some pavement widening along their frontage. Um that would improve the pedestrian connectivity uh for that small section. Um but yes, there is currently parking on Lake LOL in certain areas. There there are areas where that the road has not been widened. The adjacent county or more rural parcels, the sidewalk and curb gutter has not been extended. In those areas, they cannot park, but there are areas where it is allowed.

Daniel, while you're here, sure.

Probably should ask this the applicant, but you should know is the new roads a public road or private road? based on what they have proposed in their layout. It appears to be a public road. It is one of our um we have various um roadway widths that we allow um and they are proposing one of the um smaller width roads that is allowed for a lower um a roadway with a lower number of units on it. And this falls well within the the requirements for that. Um there was one of the comments was relating to, you know, 12 vehicles or 12 homes with a single access. Um that falls well within our policies. Um the adjacent subdivision has about two between 250 and 280 with four accesses. Um so if you do the math there, they're still well below the number of vehicles coming out at a single point than even any of the adjacent neighborhoods. But I think, correct me if I'm wrong, that means an HOA would have no authority to tell people not to park on that street.

So the they would as part of the development, it would be approved. If approved, when the subdivision comes in, that would be signed, no parking, and it would be a public street. On the east side, no signed, no parking, and on the west side, they could park on the street. Um, we would have to do an evaluation. Most likely we would do no parking on the west side because the east side would provide more parking because the driveways are not there. Okay,

Mr. Chairman. Yeah, I have a question. Um, since it's not really changed to what the council told them last time to be that they would be happy with N or 10, what's the experience of approving it and then getting it to be the council and then not approve them not, you know, wondering why we would approve it again when they said no last time. I don't know like the experience on that or the Well, I I think we have to look at it as a separate we don't look at what council's decision is. We look at it for ours. We're a land use body and we have to look at things a little bit differently than they do. Okay. Um experience says I don't know what

Okay. So, we just look at it. We don't we should not take into consideration the fact that it didn't pass last time. Okay. I think we can we don't have to. But it but it did pass it did pass us last time too. Right. Right. Um there's a lot of different things to look at. Um I mean I I agree they did make the lot sizes bigger. There are some reasons and some things that they did that you know are you for or against? I don't know. That was one of the stipulations that council had and they have increase those law sizes. So if you look at you know what council exactly said and they did they did. So

thank you.

In the application the applicant said that they would have four parking spaces. Two in the garage and two on the parking pad. They're not even planning for any parking along the street. You got your four. You got a twocar garage. Mr. Chair, I have a few thoughts that I want to throw out there. Um, first off, with the lot sizes, you can argue as a starter home, but I've seen home builders put more expensive homes on smaller lots, so that might not even be the case. So, making the lots bigger isn't going to help the affordability thing. um parking. I have a hard time making that an issue just because unless they're going to go park in your neighborhood, it shouldn't bother you. Um I'm surprised there wasn't more talk about how many homes you'd be backing up to. I mean, some of these lots, some of those existing homes would have up to three backdoor neighbors, and I didn't hear that near as much as parking along the street. Um and It's a valid argument to say that there's no R6 anywhere near it because I looked and it's completely R4 as far as the I can see. Um, so

vice versa. Vice versa. Yes. Apologize. But, uh, but it's an infill lot and I've heard too many city council members talk about how we need to focus on infill and not spread out. Well, this is our opportunity to do that. Um, all things considered, I would probably vote in favor, but I do have reservations on both sides. Anybody else?

I don't know. I think I'm I'm I'm feeling, you know, quite similar to what Commissioner Daffer is. Um, and I'm I I I'm I'm worried that if we based our decision off the valid points that we've been discussing, it could still go to city council and just get shut down because they haven't changed the number of lots, right? They've made them bigger, but at the cost of other amenities on the site, like open space, like the width of the road, and um and so I don't know that it's substantially changed. Um but I get it. I I I remember when I was first starting out and we were able to get a starter home and it was wonderful. It was amazing. Um, and you talk about affordable housing, but we're talking about affordable ownership, not just affordable, you know, because people can argue all day long that they can get a new apartment. Well, that's again like what you were saying, you're paying somebody else's mortgage, not your own. Um, and so I would love to have more affordable housing. I've got, you know, four children that are all looking for homes, but they can't find them. Um, and so affordable housing is a big deal and this would go a long way if again we could ensure that it was going to be because we could go and we can recommend approval of this and get the annexation, get the zoning and then they could come in and, you know, change it and build more expensive homes. We have no control over that. So, um, I I lean because I want to believe that it's going to be affordable housing. I I really think that that's a big deal for us. Um, and so I would love to approve it, but I really have not a lot of faith that it would go any farther than our approval. Um, and so I'm kind of torn a bit. You know, I want to be able to approve it and say that it's going to be affordable housing, and I want to have faith in being able to do that, but I I don't know how we can do that.

Make another comment to that. So, if you were to turn that into eight lots and make them the size of the ones, the RS6 next door, you're probably going to go to a 18 to 2200 square foot house. And you're going to be 500 minimum and nobody kids can't afford that. Exactly.

So we have to get some homes that are I mean even the 1,200 square foot Cory Bartons are almost 500 grand. So you got to get some people that can build something more affordable and the only way they can really do it is to put more on a more houses on a lot to to make it pencil out for them. And if if if you go make them do them eight lots all the size of the ones next door, there's no way these are going to be anywhere close to affordable. I'm sorry. Closed.

I don't think I have anything new to say. I would just emphasize a couple of points. One, the need for I I don't I hesitate calling it affordable. It's, you know, it's different form

lowercase a a affordable. You know, it what it is is adding more supply to help help with everything and and I'm in favor of that. Um whether or not city council is going to improve this doesn't matter to me. Let's let them do that. We can we will make our recommendation and they can ignore it. Wouldn't be the first time. Um there I I understand it is a little it is denser than the surrounding area, but it's an infill project. Like we literally allow infill projects to be more dense because we want them to be developed. And a lot of times that's the only way that can be is by being more dense. Um, so I'm in I'm in favor of this project for the same sentimental reasons most of us are with having siblings and kids that can't live in Nampa anymore even though we grew up here. Um, let's get some more housing here. Let's get these infill like Cody said like we can't we can't uh say we don't like the ones chewing up the farmland on the edge of town and say we got to develop the infill first and then not develop the infill when it comes to us. So, I'm in favor of it,

Mr. Chairman. I am not in favor of it, but I don't see any other point because one, I am certainly in favor of a infill project. I talk about them all the time and I approve them all the time. Um, since you're not in favor of it, do you want me to make the motion? [laughter]

Well, I'm I'm gonna I'm gonna vote for it. I'm [clears throat] going to be honest. I'm going to vote I don't want to, but I'm going to vote for it. Um, but only because I like the Enfield project and it's going to be more affordable like some of you said with 12 homes than it's going to be with eight homes. I would like to see it eight homes, but then the price is going to be so far out of reach that nobody's going to be able to buy it. Not not the people that need to, not your kids. I don't have any kids, so I don't care. [laughter] Mr. Chair,

there's one last thought and I think um a decent amount of the bad taste in my mouth about the project isn't so much what the proposal is. It's that it feels like based off of comments that they haven't been the best neighbor. You know, they haven't kept their property up and it doesn't look like they've made accommodations for those around them. and either one of those things are requirements outside of what code says, but I think that that's where a lot of the negative emotion come from is the perception of them being a bad neighbor. Whether we can take that into account or not legally, I don't know, but I'm just putting that on the record.

Well, and I think I think uh not in their defense, but if you look in the past, all the times that we've heard this, it's different people each time. So, is the owner the same or is it different owners or different potential future? I don't know.

Yeah. Well, there's the maintenance part, but then um Cheryl talked about the getting feedback in the plan and it not changing at all, right? That kind of stuff. So, we've seen developers come get feedback and it might be minimal changes, but they do make an effort, right? When and there might have been an effort that just wasn't presented. I don't know. Based off of what I've been able to see and listen to today, you know, that's just kind of the general feeling I got. Again, I'm still gonna vote in favor of it, but these are just getting all my thoughts out there. Biting your tongue to do it. I know I am. I'm biting my tongue to vote yes.

Christie, I have a question. So, this is um just annexation and zoning. We wouldn't there's no we're not approving a plaid or anything like that. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Um this is just annexation and zoning to RS4. This will go on to city council as that request and then if it gets approved they will go through the platting process. So and it will come back to you. Could we make a re recommendation that um lot sizes not to be smaller than what's what we're seeing here? You certainly

I mean because technically speaking they could reduce lot sizes and if we if we approve it as RS4 what they bring to us could be completely different. from what we're seeing now. Yes, you could um lock the development agree you could lock in a development agreement and one of the conditions would be that it would have to follow that concept plan and those lot sizes. Exactly. Or deny it then when they come back and I mean that's not on the consent, right? The preliminary the No, it would be a public hearing. It'll be a public hearing. So I I guess if we're going to see it again, then it's we can deny it then if they try to pull.

But it might it might save time if we did the development agreement, right, and just made that part of the approval that they wouldn't have the ability to go back and try and change and make a different plan. Yes. Typically when uh we don't have a preliminary plot tied to the decision, um I would highly encourage a development agreement to be put in place. So that would be my recommendation to city council. You have thought, Rodney?

Yeah, Mr. Chair, commissioners, I just one quick thought on that. Um, development uh development agreements, if we lock in place the exact concept, there's no flexibility. Uh, we've run into that problem in the past where they start designing the actual subdivision and there's a problem with, you know, the way a lot is laid out or whatever. And so then it just becomes a a public concern because it doesn't match exactly what that preliminary plat is. So if there are specific conditions that you want to place on it and say, "Hey, no, no smaller than the the smallest lot that you're showing on this concept plan." I'd recommend you do it that way rather than say it it has to match this this concept. We could do it to where, you know, no more than this many buildable lots at the smallest lot proposed.

Yes, exactly. You can do it. Thank you.

Yeah. Yeah, I think so. Mr. Chairman, I would move to recommend approval of the project as stated on the screen and with the addition of a development agreement with the stipulation that the lots do not exceed the proposed number of 12 and that the minimum lot size um remain as has been presented in the presentation today. Second should be good. been moved by Garner, seconded by Morgan. All those in favor? I

any do a roll call? Oh, yeah. Probably probably do roll. Okay. Miller, yes. Garner, hi. Daffer, yes. Turner, hi. Kho, hi. Morgan, yes. Kirkman, oh, sorry, Salman. Hi. Copeland, I motion carries.

Thank you. Okay, next item. Uh, conditional use permit for a home occupation daycare for up to 12 children in RS6 zoning district at 11235 West Height Street. Or Katherine Self is the applicant here. Go ahead and come on up. Katherine Self, 11235 West Kite Street. Um, thank you so much for allowing me to speak tonight. Um, my name is Katie Self. Um, I own Chickades Preschool in Nampa. Um, I recently got licensed uh, by the state. Um, I have a background in education. I spent four years teaching in the public school system before deciding to open my own program in 2023. Um, and I wanted to combine my love of early childhood education with um, the flexibility to be more present for my family. Um, so my goal has always been to create um, a small highquality program that supports um, both early learning and family balance. Um, so I am requesting a conditional use permit um, that I believe would allow me to care for up to 12 children. However, I do um want to emphasize that I do not intend to watch um 12 children. So, I'm only hoping um to increase my class size by one next school year. So, that would be seven children um in my classes. And I do um just offer preschool um not daycare. So, it's three-hour classes. Um, and also

another reason that I am requesting this permit is um to have the possibility of next school year having my own child who will be two um in my home with a nanny while I operate my preschool. Um, so my preschool is in a designated room in my home. So it's not it's not all over. Um, but like I said, I don't plan to teach 12 children. It's just that I would like the option of like a max of eight children. Um, and I did recently license through the state um, and confirmed with her that if this does go through and you guys do grant me this request, um, I can update my state license to reflect that. um that I am able to watch more children or at least for them to be present um because of my it's mostly for my two-year-old next year. So, that is all I have. Thank you. I truly enjoy serving children and family in our community. Um and thank you for your consideration.

One quick question if I could. Uh you said your classes are three-hour classes. You have more than one class in a day or just one class? Yes. Um, this year I have two classes in one day. So, an AM and a PM group. Okay. Mr. Chair, so you've been doing this. I'm just curious. It looks like on the map you're at the end of a little spur off. Yes. I mean, I guess it's right there, correct? How's that working? They do. They pull into that little road or do they just park there?

No. So, I decided early on that they would just park on West Kite Street. So, the parents all park there and then um they walk their children across to my driveway. And as far as I know, my neighbors have been very friendly and okay with it. I haven't had any issues. All these people here tonight, you think they're What's that? All these people here tonight, you think they're all in favor? I hope so. [laughter] Can I ask what you call your preschool? Yeah, it's called Chickadies Preschool. Okay. Yeah. The title here says self preschool which gives a different connotation. I didn't know if it was like a self-directed. Well, that's my last name. So, right. I figured that now. Okay. I was wondering if that's what you call it.

Okay. That's it, Mr. Chairman. So, with the two the AM and the PM, is there seven in each or seven basically saying seven at a time? Yes, I hope to have seven at a time. Okay. Thank you. Plus my two-year-old. So, yeah. Other questions? We'll call you. One more one more. Is there um a reason seven is your goal or um Well, I've I've had I've ex I've tried different numbers and I just feel like I could handle seven.

Just curious that it lets you go up to 12. So, I was curious why you weren't trying to go higher. Yeah. So, I mean, I have one of my bedrooms in my home designated for my preschool, and it's it's small, and I just I feel like I can have a better better handle on it. I just I don't have any desire to like have another teacher and have a bigger group. I just like the small setting. So, six or seven is what I am saying with my 2-year-old would be max eight. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. We'll call you back up. Okay. Thank you, Candace.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. My name is Candace Fry, assistant planner for the city of Nampa. The request before you this evening is a conditional use permit for a home occupation daycare for up to 12 children in an RS6 zoning district. Property details. The comprehensive plan designates this area as residential mixeduse. All of the surrounding land uses are single family residential and all public utilities are currently being served to the property. The applicable regulations, these are the applicable regulations for a conditional use permit. I will cover these more in depth in the formal findings. And these are the applicable regulations for a home occupation which are defined in 10-1-10.b. So for correspondence, we didn't receive any public comments. We did receive three agency comments. So the NA Engineering Department left comments regarding the number of peak hour vehicle trips. The Nampa Fire District provided general water supply and fire access comments. And then the building department left conditions that will need to be met through a residential building permit. The proposed findings, number one, the proposed use is supported by the NPA comprehensive plan. The proposed use provides access to daycare services near residential properties. Number two, the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the property and project will not adversely impact the intended character of the general vicinity. The

applicant will be subject to all criteria laid out by the home occupation permit. And number three, the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services. The proposed use, the property, excuse me, currently has access to services and will continue to be served. Number four, the proposed use will not involve activities or processes of operation that will be detrimental to any person's property or general welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. The home must be kept the character and appearance of a single family home. So weighing the facts and looking at department input, the project meets the criteria as outlined by 10-25-4. The proposed use must follow all city codes and standards at the time of development. So here are the conditions of approval. Number one, the applicant shall comply with all state, city state, and city codes, policies, and standards in place at the time of individual property development. This includes all of the requirements listed in the residential permit and comments that were included by the Nampa building department. Number two, the applicant must obtain a home occupation permit with the planning and zoning department. And number three, vehicular traffic shall be required to park in the public ride ofway along the road and walk the children to and from the preschool. Vehicles shall not be allowed to block the common driveway or any other driveways. And then any conditions imposed by the commission. These are your potential motions and I will stand for any questions.

Chairman, yes. Um, Candace, I I'm going to ask you a couple of questions and I don't know the answers. That's why I'm asking you. So, if you don't know the answers, don't be embarrassed because if I don't know, I don't expect you to know either. But what the heck? What is a Tampa resistant outlet? It's It's an No, I don't. [clears throat and laughter] It's an outlet that you can't get shocked in. It's all the new ones that you can't plug anything into. Is it You feel like you got to twist it back and forth. Yeah.

Okay. That's a good thing to have then, isn't it? Yeah. Okay. All right. Good enough. So, you didn't know the answer, but they all did. Second question is, did we decide whether this is a daycare or a preschool? What's going to what what's the fire department going to get from us saying that what this is? So, when they get a call and it says preschool, they know to react a certain way. If it says daycare, they know to react a different way. Uh, so Commissioner Kio, we use the term daycare for to basically encompass children under a certain age, under school age. So if they're going to school, so six, seven, eight, they're in elementary school, they're of school age. If they're under that and they need care or teaching or whatever, we consider that all to fall under the category of daycare.

And and the fire department views it the same way. it they would so they they say the word school they won't think there could be 20 kids there. No, they're still going to identify it as a daycare as well and they'll still have to meet the same requirements as a daycare. I just want to make sure everybody's safe. Yep. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Got a question. I I apologize staff for asking this again, but how do we determine whether a cup follows a person or a property? because I know that we've done this for multifamily housing. We've done this for specific uses.

Mr. Chair and commissioners, um it really is on a case-by case basis, but in this situation, this is probably appropriate for the the person or the entity and the the property. That's how we've done it in the past because the the idea is each applicant would need to come forward and say here's how I run my business. Here's what I'm doing on the property. If you just attach it to the property itself, then the business could be sold. The prop the home could be sold and somebody else could come in and start running a a daycare and maybe they don't go through all the same process. Maybe there's some concerns from neighbors and they need to be addressed because of the previous um conditional use permit that was issued and you need to have those conditions on there. So, I would recommend that in these kinds of situations that you attach it both to the property owner and to the property or to the to the uh daycare provider and to the property.

We make that determination. you guys don't when the application comes in. You do, but we would typically recommend that. Um I, you know, I I think maybe we we probably should have just had a condition on here to say that specifically, but I would uh recommend that you add that and to your conditions. I'm I'm asking so that in the future I don't have to ask this again. So, yeah, appreciate it.

Yeah, Mr. Sheriff, if I may weigh in on that, generally under Idaho law, it will run with the land. Um, some cities have gotten creative in tying it to the specific owner for the period in which they own it. But in that period, it technically still applies to the land. It's just tied to that owner owning the land. So, it always really is tied to the land. It's just whether you put a limit on it on ownership. um which is a whole another debate discussion in my opinion whether that's uh enforceable um or prudent but for what it's worth um it there is some discretion there but typically I'll run with the land.

Thank you questions. Okay go ahead and open up public testimony. Madam clerk, do we have a signup sheet? No sign up. Is there anyone here that would like to speak for against or undecided on this particular item? Okay, seeing none have a reason to call the applicant back up. You have anything you'd like to add? Motion we close the public hearing? Second. Moved by Garner, second by Kho to close public hearing. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? What do y'all think?

I think we ought to approve it. I commend her for wanting to take on more kids. I think they should all have to go through a psychopath. [laughter] And I learned something new tonight. So, I'm in favor of it. Good. I like it. It's not just a daycare. She's actually wanting to teach the kids. So, it's something different that we haven't seen before. So, I appreciate that as well. Mr. Chairman, not hearing anything else. I move to approve the project as stated on the screen with recommended conditions and proposed findings. Second. You want to add the uh as long as she is living at that property. You want to add that condition?

Sure. Okay. It's been moved by Kho, second by Selman with the added condition. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay.

All right. The CUP will become effective 15 calendar days from the date its 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. Applicant must confirm with planning and zoning staff that there have been no appeals. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Christie, we have Christie, we have to teach [clears throat] you some manners. [laughter] These guys have incredible manners.

No, I would agree. Manners are ladies first, not the boys. The ladies. Hey, it's hard for them to be that good this long. Yeah. Okay, time for our break. Just kidding. Okay, last item. Conditionally use permit for a home occupation daycare for up to children to 12 children in RS6 zoning district 11540 West Sammy Street.

I'm not even going to try. [laughter] I don't want to butcher your name, so I'll let you say it when you come up with your address for the record, please. Thank you very much. My name is Malai, patient. My address is uh one um one 540

West Si Street number. So, I received some uh comment from my neighbors um complaining about noise parking and uh I don't think that uh a single family can have uh traffic like a lot of cars because it's not going to be a center care. So it's nice. It's just a home like you can see uh my beautiful family over here. Uh no any noise to neighbors. So and uh it may be like uh two to three families that we can take care of maybe three to two cars. So and uh I believe they come different times not same time. So and we have a a space on our our plot. So that's the things I can say and I thank you so much to give me this opportunity.

Thank you. Thank you. Questions chairman can I do you have a fenced backyard? Yep. Yes. And um how many children I mean so what what are your hours of operation? I know up to 12 but what are your hours of operation going to be? 6 a.m. to 6 pm. That's all. Thank you. Sure. Um, how many children? Do you have an idea of how many? Could you go all the way up to 12? Can you repeat that again? How many What's the maximum number of children you think you would have?

Um, I don't have much yet. I have uh one family and they are four. Okay. would be the plan to expand and get up to 12. Yes, if you allow me. Okay. Well, yeah. Thank you. Thank you so much,

Rodney.

Okay, Mr. Chair and commissioners. Rodney Ashby, planning and zoning director for the record. Um, you've just gone through this, so this should be pretty straightforward, but I'll go through pretty quickly. Um this is uh the location. I should have just stated that it's in the uh Sunnybell West subdivision um out off of Flamingo and almost a midway there. Um comp plan, community mixed use, RS6 zoning, uh surrounding land use is all same, single family or RS6 zoning. Um public utilities are all there. Here's a a Google view of it because on our map. We didn't show the the home there yet. And so this is the only uh map that I could find with a a picture of the actual property um being developed. Um here's what they are proposing inside the home for uh where they'll do the daycare. It looks like upstairs and downstairs. Um you you know the criteria here. we just went over it, so I'm not going to spend time there. Um, I just wanted to quickly point out on this one, um, a reminder that home occupations of things like this in a home, we we have standards in there to make sure that it doesn't start feeling like commercial. Um, and if there's ever a problem where it actually starts looking like or acting like a commercial property, then we we can revoke that home occupation permit and the CUP permit. Um, we'd have to have proof that that was the case. But but there is a way to handle that. And we do have requirements about employment, about traffic, about signs. Those are the kinds of things that I I think a lot

of people get worried about are the traffic, the noise, and the signs. Um, our noise ordinances in place for everyone, frankly. Um, you could have a a family, your own family of 10 kids or 12 kids, right? And have as much noise as a as a daycare. So, um I we have to be careful there just because um just to assume that there's noise created um just because it's a daycare beyond a normal family uh residence. Um conditional use permit is required. Um Nampa building department asked for some clarity about how many uh children are going to be cared for and um and how many of them are under the year the age of 2.5. Apparently there are different standards uh for that young of age being cared for in the home. And so, um, because it's a a semi commercial, uh, property situation, they, um, have some more requirements, um, for their safety when they're younger. Um, and that will be handled at time of building permit. They they are asking for a building permit to be um, applied for. And so that's one of the conditions I placed on it. Amplifier District. Again, same kind of situation. We're looking at how many kids and how many of them are under the age of two and a half. Um, NA Engineering Division just gave their traffic estimates. Again, these are really hard because the um the traffic manual or the trip generation manual uh does not specifically call it

out for these kinds of daycarees. They call it out for a commercial daycare, but not for residents. So, we did our best to estimate how many uh trips would be required. Um we did receive five late comments as the applicant indicated. Um, all of them were opposed. You can see traffic and congestion, noise and neighborhood disruption, neighborhood character, um, unauthorized use of private amenities in the subdivision. They were concerned that these children would be using the the playground and open space that is provided by the subdivision. Um, property value concerns, neighborhood integrity. Um, I think that's it on that page. Oh, and concern number four under Mark, I'm not going to say that one, but 11504 West Sammy Smai Street. Um, precedent setting for commercial land use in a residential area. That that was his one of his concerns. uh safety concerns, um traffic again and congestion, lack of applicant introducing themselves and talking about their proposal to the to the neighbors before they requested this application. And then um the last one is concerns about children's safety because of unknown people coming to the area for drop off and pickup. And those were all of the comments. Um here are the proposed conditions. You can see under number three, uh, I just put a residential building permit shall be applied for within 6 months of the conditional use permit issuance in order to obtain an on-site inspection and building floor plan approval from the building department and fire district. I talked to the building department and

and just recommended that we look put a time frame on that so that they could do it. Uh, they can follow up and they agreed with that. So, that was the recommendation. pretty standard conditions here for number one and number two. Um, under the proposed findings, there was a a finding of a fact that um was not was kind of conclusion. Uh, it was kind of a conclusion. So, I modified it and just put it as two facts. Really nothing changed except that I'm not concluding anything in those facts. So that's the comprehensive plan includes smart growth principles including locating residential and commercial land uses in proximity to each other to reduce travel distance and wear on infrastructure. And then second point the proposed daycare provides a service land use within a commercial structure that should be residential structure. So, I'll change that um residential structure and within a residential neighborhood that may utilize the services and then um the rest of them are according to you your staff report as I proposed it and then the conclusion considering all the facts all the criteria listed in code uh will be met. The proposed use is supported by the comp plan. It's it meets a lot of the criteria in the comp plan. Um they'll have to obtain a building permit and meet all the safety standards. Um because of the home occupation conditions, they'll still maintain a residential feel for that property. And then here's a couple of motions for your consideration.

Thank you, Ronnie. Mr. Sure. Rodney, you will you go back to your Google image to which one? Excuse me. The Google Google uh maps image. Map Google. Oh. Oh, way back at the beginning. So, I just want to clarify that this particular house isn't the one they're living at. The house that they have is five houses down and across the street. Oh,

but when you type any of the neighbors that have submitted comments into Google Maps, it pulls up the same exact house. So, just for the clarification on public record. Yeah. Thank you,

Mr. Chairman. I was confused about what the building permit was for. I must not been paying attention. Mr. Chair, um the building permit is just so that they can get an inspection done. Okay. It's a pretty simple residential it they actually told me we really need to create a new type of permit because it's a it's a very very simple go and inspect it. Make sure the the plugs are um what did we call it? The temper resistant. Yeah, there you go. Which is which is code anyway. All new outlets have to be. So, it's a new home. I guarantee they do. Uh, so, Commissioner Copelan, go back to that one.

That one there. Yeah. On there, it says, uh, residential building permit will need to be pulled so that we can have the floor plan on file for review with associated on-site inspections for the building department and the fire department for approval. The floor plan will need to include the entire house with the childcare area specified for each location. That is specifically for emergency services so that they know where to find children if there is an emergency. Okay. Thank you very much. Y thank you for that. Other questions?

Good. Okay. Madam clerk, I think I know the answer, but [laughter] no s. Is there anyone here that would like to speak for, against, or undecided on this proposal? Is there anything you'd like to add as the applicant that you haven't already stated?

Mr. Chair, I actually have a question for them. You have a question? Could you come back up? We got one more question for you. Yep. I think one turn into 10.

So, um, reading through all the comments, the only ar the only point they made that I can that I want to ask about is is using the HOA equipment as for your business. Is that something you guys plan on doing that you do? Do you let the kids go play in the playground that the HOA maintains? Uh it's only like usually kids they have toys and uh somebody watch them. I think that's all and uh for their protection as uh uh you the one you taking care of them you need to be there and watch them. I think that's all.

When they kids get dropped off at your house, do they ever leave your house or your backyard? Uh may you repeat that again? When the kids after the kids come to your home, do they ever leave your house or your backyard? Um, when they come to drop uh the kids, so they going to use my garage, go in straight and drop and they left. So, your neighborhood has a playground, right?

They do. And uh we have u uh where my house is located is just by the corner separate with other houses. So that if somebody come it may not go to neighbors just to my my place. My my question is about the playground at at your neighborhood. No, it's it's going to be just mine because I have a huge big uh backyard. Okay, that's what I wanted to know. Thanks. Thank you. Other questions? No. Okay. Thank you. [snorts] Motion we close the public hearing. Second.

Moved by Garner, second by Kho again to close the public hearing. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Public hearing is closed. Just a little. Everybody else is just being quiet. Um like the assertiveness. So, it seems like the big arguments against this is it's going to ruin the familyfriendly neighborhood by having the sound of children. [laughter] Cheers. And that we're going to have we're going to have children walking on the grass. Yeah. In the neighborhood. Um, [laughter] does anybody have anything else to say or can I just

Okay. you're the same track as you are because when when Rodney read off all those comments, I was saying, "What in the heck?" And we've had I don't know how many hundreds of these applications pass and nobody's ever mentioned any of these things before. It's like they're out left field someplace. They just want to complain about something. This this is a service our community needs and and it's going to it's going to keep we're going to keep needing it more and more. Um, this is I commend them for doing this. And if there's no other further discussion, I'll move to approve the project as stated on the screen for approval. Second. I'll second that one, too. Too late. I missed it. It's been moved by Morgan, second by Selman

to approve this item. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Read your thing. [cough] [clears throat] The cup will become effective 15 calendar days from the date the handwritten 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. 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. And I would commend them for their children's behavior. Yes. A long time to sit there and not be Yes. The problems.

Yeah. All they got was a Hershey's kiss. [laughter] They got that. Peggy, we're waiting for you. I think I make a motion we adjourn. Second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed?