Okay, I've got six o'clock.

Let's go ahead and get the meeting started.

Let's do a roll call.

Garner.

Here.

Miller.

Daffer.

Here.

Turner.

Here.

Keyhoe.

Morgan.

Your Kirkman.

Salman.

Here.

Copeland here.

All right.

Eight present.

Thank you.

Rodney.

You were hiding behind the TV.

I didn't see.

Commissioners, uh, 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 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 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 uh the staff has also been going to a lot of leadership classes in a bunch of schools.

Um asking all of those people in those classes to participate.

Um, and so get a little bit different perspective than just an adult um, you know, older generation sometimes.

We're getting the younger generation now.

And um, as of October twenty ninth, we had over eight hundred uh direct um comments 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.

than just an adults um you know older generation sometimes we're getting the younger generation now and um as of october twenty ninth we had over eight hundred uh direct um 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 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 even so um we're gonna be wrapping that up where we've done uh um some coordination with the communication director I in the mayor's office to get a last push out on social media for the survey and um we'll be starting the next phase and that will include um some detailed some specific um committees that will work on different topics of the comprehensive plan based on the public outreach we received some of the feedback we receive we're gonna 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 we'll get you involved in that process and then just an update on city council we had the two final plots that you had recommended approval were both approved the next one was a public hearing uh preliminary plat and annexation and zoning uh for the lakeview 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 a they clustered the homes closer to the roadway and then have a a really significant size of open space on on the western side nearest the lake and that one was approved by city council the next one was a variance 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 one two two it's one two two four East Iowa Avenue for single family home to connect to the city's sewer services kind of a rural area kind of enclaved area and you had recommended approval and city council approved that one too thank you Rodney Chair yes make a motion to approve the consent agenda second and motion by Garner second by Selman to approve the consent agenda is there any discussion all those in favor aye any opposed motion carries excuse me okay we'll go ahead and move into our public hearing a few things just so everybody understands if you haven't been to a meeting before this meeting is being recorded so try to keep the noise in the audience to a minimum don't speak from your seat basically we want to respect the people who are up here speaking and they will respect you in the same turn to get started 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's signed up if you haven't signed up don't worry about it we'll give uh 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 keep your comments pointed um specific and after the public is done speaking um we'll we'll give some time back to uh the applicant to rebut and answer questions we'll close public hearing and then we will deliberate discuss and vote on each item yes that's it we're moving up to so let's just get into it our first item is a concept comprehensive plan text amendment zoning text amendment and zoning map amendment to redefine the downtown Napa core change various chapters and sections of Title 10 where downtown is referenced or needs to be added for new form districts and change zoning designations from DH to C N E V U G V two and DB to GB1 zoning districts for the city of NAPA all right uh good evening Mr.

All right.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman and Commissioners.

My name is Brianna Howe, senior planner with the planning and zoning department tonight.

Myself and Christy will be presenting this project to you.

We're bringing forward a comprehensive plan text and zoning text amendment along with a zoning map amendment to adopt form-based code for downtown NAMPA and to redefine the downtown NAMPA core, changing various references and code sections to reflect the new form districts and new downtown zoning designations.

We're asking for your recommendation tonight to City Council.

So why form-based code for downtown NAMPA?

Form-based code was a top recommendation that came out of the downtown implementation plan that came before you uh several months ago.

Uh it is more explicit in what the city desires for the standards of development in downtown.

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 does this impact downtown and the process for reviewing development?

So currently our code is relatively strict yet somehow unclear on its intentions.

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 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.

The boards and commissions have struggled with coming to a consensus on what that means exactly.

And so the adoption of form-based code is really intended to remove that confusion.

Um and staff strongly feels that it will encourage new development in downtown NAMPA.

So here on the left side, we have our current process.

So right now, any new development or projects where exterior materials are being replaced in the downtown historic zoning district, first go before the arts and historic preservation commission for a recommendation, and then they go before the design review committee for a decision.

Any appeals would then go before this commission, the planning zoning commission, and then on to city council if appealed again.

With the new form-based code, um projects will only be reviewed by staff, 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, and then projects that are being completed on buildings that are on the National Register of Historic Places 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 and staff created uh a review worksheet to ensure a smooth process for applicants.

Um each section necessary to review an application is for compliance with the form-based 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 and move it forward.

So quickly we're going to go over the form districts here.

So the form-based code will only cover what was previously identified as the DH, the downtown historic zoning district.

Uh this zone will be rezoned 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 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 NAMPA's um National Register of Historic Places District is within those 10 buildings along um 1st Street that are already on the national register.

Um so certain architectural styles will be required in the CH form district, whereas the other form districts will just have recommend recommended architectural styles.

So I'm gonna briefly go over the development standards.

We also have our consultant here if more specific questions come up about the code.

So form-based code is regulated by four major parameters frontage type, building type, form district signage, and then use.

So the form is really what is regulated.

So the stepback and setbacks and the pedestrian space in front of the building.

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 a frontage type and street type, the standards change to reflect for that building.

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, such as roof style, storefront materials that are either required or recommended based on the form district.

So we will also be updating the text for the uh NAMPA 2040 comprehensive plan to address the changes to the downtown core.

Um in chapter five, we added a section for the downtown land use designation.

Um so the table of contents was updated there.

Um in chapter four, a small change was made to a known downtown event reference.

Um all the references to the DH or DV zones have been updated throughout in chapter five.

And then this new section we've added and have defined central NAMPA and the downtown gateway area.

And Christy will discuss the the gateway area in her section of the presentation.

And then the exhibit in chapter five was also updated to include the downtown designation there at the bottom.

Um chapter five objectives were also updated to now refer to the central NAMPA 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.

Unlike zoning codes, the comp plan can be flexible and subject to change as desired by the planning commission and city council.

So these are proposed findings for the comprehensive plan text amendments, and staff concludes that the proposed changes to the table of contents, chapter four, 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 and use and design while meeting the desirable goals and objectives of the 2040 comprehensive plan.

And I'm gonna return the main uh turn the rest over to Christy.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Chairman and Commissioners.

I am Christy Watkins with the principal planner with the city of NAMPA.

Um the other portion of this request is to rezone 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 NAMPA's downtown.

So in this process, it was determined that it would be appropriate 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 rezones.

So the DB zone, which we're gonna start from north side and work our way to 16th.

Um the north side 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 two, and then the next section is the DH zone, which um she just talked about to change to the CN district.

Um the facts for um rezoning a piece of property, as you know, there are three criteria for determining the appropriateness of zoning.

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 staff did a pretty in-depth comparison between the GB zones and the downtown zones to determine which ones will be the most appropriate and not really disturb the status of the properties that are there currently.

The GB1 and the GB2 zones were those zones.

So the uses are similar to what is allowed there now.

And if someone were to come in and say, oh, you know, what is this due to the building that I have there currently?

It's not gonna change a whole lot.

Um the gateway business district does have 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 for a more 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 rezoning, and then we're gonna go into the text amendments.

There we go.

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, uh, we're gonna re remove a definition of early early 20th century architecture because that's something that's stated in our current uh downtown historic zone, and to be honest, we're not really sure what it means, even though there's a definition, so we're just going to get rid of it.

Um then remove all references to the DH zone.

We are going to then reference the new downtown implementation plan for street statescape standards, and we're going to replace again all references to DHDV and DB with C N.

And the not with the G B because that's already referenced in that section as GB, so we only have to replace it with CN.

Um, and then replace references to commercial properties with just commercial or industrial uses rather than the DHDB and D B.

And then in chapter 22 for parking, we are 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 DHDBDB with C N as I stated, GB is already listed in that chapter.

In chapter three, we're going to take those out of the chart, DB, D V 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 chapter 15 and chapter 34.

So chapter 15 currently is our downtown core.

It has the DHDV and DB information in it.

So we will be repealing that entire chapter.

And we will be linking it to the PDF that is form-based code, which is about 136 pages currently.

So that's why it's just going to be a link.

It's just gonna be easier for people to find it that way.

And then in chapter 34, which is our design review chapter, DH becomes CN that has all of those form districts within it.

Um any mention of DH is removed and changed to CN, and we had a repaint requirement for the entire DH zoning district, and so that is going to be removed, and we will only be looking at historical buildings for repaints.

Then in chapter four, 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 feet, and then we have removed the requirement for a landscape berm on those properties at well.

We've 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.

Okay.

No sign up sheet.

No sign up.

Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak for against or indecided on this item?

Okay.

I make a motion to close the public hearing.

Second.

By Garner, second by Keyhu at a closed public hearing.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Okay.

Hearings closed.

Well, I think that staff always has a good job with these kind of things, so I'm gonna put a lot of trust into what they say because a lot of this is Greek to me, and I don't speak Greek very well.

I am in favor of it.

Okay.

Like Matt said, this is stuff we've been seeing.

I think that's another second point, yeah.

Other than in agreement with us so far.

Yeah.

I'll throw a motion out there to approve the project as stated on the screen.

Second.

It's been moved by Morgan, second by Daper to approve this item.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, motion carries.

We will move on to our second item.

Uh annexation and zoning to RS4 and potential development agreement for future residential subdivision.

Shadow Creek at Lake Low at 1408 Lake Lowell Avenue.

Um for Kylie Canada of Coal Architects.

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

Yeah, Matt Hufffield, uh 404 South 8th Street, Voice Idaho.

Um I think Kylie's the one that submitted it for me.

So this project, I think we've been here a few times to try to get this thing through, and um we're we're trying to do something that we feel is gonna 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 infield development.

Um as you can see, this property is completely surrounded by City of Napoleon 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 uh the TN for fire department turnaround.

Um the the intent of this project is really I think to um improve the quality of this prop parcel that's been vacant for years to provide for um starter homes, you know, first-time family buyers, um, really try to provide something that you know.

I I bought my first home in night 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.

The 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 well designed, works well with the community.

Um we're not going out and taking over farmland.

This is an underutilized piece of property that we're we're trying to improve 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 um economic viability to the community, get back to the community.

Um this isn't somebody coming in from the outside trying to do something 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 paper 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 the 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 I think there's even a you know a 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 gonna provide for um for some extra space for these families to have um other things um that they that they need.

Um off street parking.

I think we've 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, but um 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.

So and I respectfully ask you to approve.

Thank you.

Any questions about it?

Not right now.

Okay, Christy.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Chairman and Commission, um, 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 and Lake Lowell Avenue, and then RA, which is a large lot single family detached home.

To the east is RA, and those are uh large lots 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 Lowell.

So this is an enclaved property that it 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 8 dwelling units per acre.

It would be considered in fill, and as you know, in-fill encourages a little bit higher density to take advantage of services and utilities that are already available in the area.

Um lot sizes will be evaluated during the platting process and will be required, of course, to meet city standards.

Um the concept does show that uh the lot sizes are 4,707 square feet to 5,218 square feet.

The RS4 zone requires 4,000 square feet with a maximum of 8,000 square feet.

So the proposed lots do fall within that range.

With a density range of two 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 is 30 linear feet, and the proposed concept plan lot widths are larger than 30 feet.

Um but again, this will be evaluated at the time of Platzum Middle.

And then they do have some open space proposed on this concept plan.

Five percent is required.

That is 4,486 square feet.

Um the project concept plan shows four common lots on 0.16 acres, totaling seven 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 plat 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 seven minutes, and they um anticipate an increased need for personnel of 0.03 firefighter positions.

There was also some late public input that you should have in front of you tonight.

There was one letter in support 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 landowners have to have consented to this annexation, which they have.

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 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.

Yes.

Christy, um do they determine the miles from the location of the property to the fire station nearest?

You know?

Is somebody get in the car and get their car and drive?

Commissioner Kehoe, 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.

I live a half a mile, five tenths of a mile from my house to fire station number six.

It is four tenths of a mile from my house to the project.

Five and four is nine in my book.

And that's the comment that they gave me.

I I can't tell you how they came up with that.

Well, but if we're off by a mile and eight tenths on every application, we're not doing somebody's not doing a good job of determining the your insurance rates based on the length of time it takes a fire department to get from their station to your uh 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.

So I don't understand why we're so far off.

I will need to ask them that question.

And if if well, never mind.

Okay.

We don't know the answer.

I was gonna stop at fire station six and ask them, but I figured they wouldn't know the answer either.

Well, I think uh 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 that it had more accurate figures?

I will have to ask them that question.

Okay, I'm advocating to provide proof.

Okay.

And I'll be glad to check the feature applications too because in the past I've said, well, I can't imagine it's that far away, and I never gone back and checked.

But I got a funny feeling we're not doing a good job of determining the distance to incidents from the fire stations.

I will ask them.

Thank you very much.

I'll add Mr.

Chairman.

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 sign-up sheet?

We do.

The first one is Rafi K.

Okay.

I live at 821 South Cope 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 Lowell, 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 increased density on a development uh with only one road in and out will only worsen that congestion.

Uh 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 site 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 high density 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 has 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.

The 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.

Combative 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 uh previously.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Kevin Rushton.

Good evening.

Uh Kevin Rushton, I live at 1712 South Miller Wayne, 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 gonna have any new development.

I'm writing this letter in favor of the above-mentioned 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 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 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, has a fairly and as a fairly close neighbor to this project for over 25 years.

I asked to vote to approve this project, and in the future look favorable on similar infill projects.

Thank you.

Next.

So the first gentleman I spoke that spoke, I'd say ditto to everything he said.

It'll cut me down in time.

Okay.

Um I want to thank you, counsel and uh commissioners or whatever you are.

Uh, 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 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 eye sore.

It's a horrible, horrible eyesore right at the moment.

So if a city takes it over, then we can hold him accountable for having a bad eye sore.

Um 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, 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 gonna move on.

We're gonna stay living there with what's been approved.

So I appreciate if you don't approve that.

Um 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 gonna be a lot worse than we would see on our streets.

So, in essence, I'm I'm uh 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, Timothy LaFleur.

Good evening.

Timothy LaFleur, 626 Spruce Creek Drive.

I live just down the street from Sherm.

I did 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 gonna be.

So we don't know if they're gonna be affordable.

Um my concern is is that it's gonna be difficult for them 12 family members to get out onto Lake Lowell, and they're gonna turn right and they're gonna 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 did everything that Sherm and Rafi said, and thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Joe Morrow.

My name is Joe Morrow.

I live at 166 or 1500 Lakelow 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 Lowell 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, boyfriends' 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 gonna 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.

I'm concerned you can't build a two-car 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 two-car garage that will fit with its narrowness.

I mean, a 4,000 square foot lot could be four feet wide and a thousand feet long, and that's gonna you're gonna check that off on your box.

But what are you really gonna build on something that narrow?

Same thing with with this.

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 R6 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.

Thank you.

Stephen Rob, evening.

My name is Stephen Robb.

I live at 1723 Lake Lowell Lab.

It's about nine houses down the street from the property.

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.

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 RX 6 houses, and then much larger lots, and there are several much larger parcels right close to this development.

And when I look at the maps, I couldn't find any RS4 zoning anywhere near here.

And my concern is the density, and especially when you're trying to put that much density on a spur dead end 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.

People very popular to have a pickup truck and they want to pull a trailer for whatever they're moving around.

I I don't know how the cars and parking are going to work for this here.

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 Love only.

There's no flow through otherwise, and it puts a burden 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, 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?

Is there anyone else that would like to speak?

Good evening, Mr.

Chair and Commissioners.

I'm Cheryl Higley at 12441 South Abbott Downing Way.

And I just want to say that this plan is identical to the one that was presented at the neighborhood meeting, which has been stated the neighbors were opposed to.

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 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.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Um Zachary Piper, um, born and raised in Caldwell, moved to Southeast Idaho.

I just recently moved back out here.

Um I was notified about this property.

Yes.

Say that again, get your address.

Oh, my address now is 1381 West Dara 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.

Huffeld or the gentleman sit next to him, and we kind of have the same vision in bringing that affordable housing back.

Um 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 gonna stop, it's just gonna 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 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 gonna 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 home.

So I know price price of the homes have never been brought up.

Um, and again, I don't know Mr.

Huffield 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 I got.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Okay, anybody have questions?

I think I would just be interested in just a lot of people talked about how this looks like exactly the same plan in 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 wasn't another person that was um doing that.

Um we made the lots bigger than what they were before 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 fire truck 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 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.

Um and they work.

And I think taking that into account and increasing the lot sizes what we what we modified from the previous seminal.

Yes.

Let me see if I understand this.

How many lots were there before when you went to city council and was rejected?

How many lots did you have at that application?

Uh I didn't how many how many?

I think it was 12.

Anybody know?

Well, it's 12 now.

So where are you taking this?

Where's the second space coming from?

You 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 of well the the city council's request was to have larger lots.

That's and that's what we did.

Yeah, but it you did it at the expense of other things.

You didn't you didn't mind.

Thank you very much.

Anybody else?

So did you remove parking on one side to accommodate that?

Yeah, yes.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Thank you.

There's no more discussion.

I would make a motion to close the public hearing.

Second.

Move by Garner, second by Keyhu to close public hearing.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Me opposed.

Okay.

Public hearing is closed.

Mr.

Chairman.

Yeah.

So I understand the neighbors' can 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 gonna 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's not this isn't multi-family coming up backing up to them with big parking 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 could put a 1200-1300 square foot house on there with a two-car garage, and have plenty of yard, and I 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 sop soapbox, Mr.

Chair.

Yeah, a question for staff.

Um, is parking allowed on Lake Wall.

Uh Mr.

Chair, Commissioner Gaffer, there is parking allowed on Lake Lowell.

Um that's not something that um I can say will always be the case, but currently um there are vehicles that park along Lake Lowell.

Uh they would have currently the property has no curb gutter sidewalk and the the pavement, they would end up installing curb gutter sidewalk and and some pavement widening along their frontage that would improve the pedestrian connectivity uh for that small section.

Um but yes, there is currently parking on Lake Lowell in certain areas.

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 lowell 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 um probably should ask the C 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 I think correct me if I'm wrong that means an HOA would have no authority to tell people not to park on a 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 wouldn't do no parking on the west side because the east side would provide more parking because the driveways are not there.

Okay so 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 nine or ten what's the experience of approving it and then getting it to be the council and then not approv 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 it's a thoughts up I don't know what else 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 can we don't have to but it but it did pass it did pass us last time too 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 but that was one of the stipulations that council had and they have increased those loss 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 so they're not even planning for any parking along the street you got you a four if you got a two claw garage and parking Mr.

Chair I have a few thoughts that I want to to throw out there.

First off with the lot sizes you could 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 gonna go park in your neighborhood it shouldn't bother you 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 in that'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 eye can see 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.

I don't know.

I think I'm I'm I'm feeling you know quite similar to what Commissioner Daffer is.

Um I'm uh 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 it's 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 I I lean because I want to believe that it's gonna 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 gonna 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.

So if you were to turn that into eight lots and make them the size of the ones the RSX next door, you're probably gonna go to uh 18 to 2200 square foot house and you're gonna be 500 minimum and nobody kids can't afford that exactly.

So we have to get some homes that are I mean, even the 1200 square foot Corey Bartons are almost 500 grand.

So you gotta 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 a pencil out for them.

And if if you go make them do them eight lots, all the size of the ones next door, there's no way these are gonna be anywhere close to affordable.

Yeah.

I'm sorry, public room's 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 from it.

Lowercase 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 gonna improve this doesn't matter to me.

Let's let them do that.

We can we'll make our recommendation and they can ignore it.

It wouldn't be the first time.

Um 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.

I 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 gotta develop the infill first and then not develop the infill when it comes to us.

So I'm in favor of it.

Ms.

Chairman, I am not in favor of it, but I don't see any of the point because one, I am certainly in favor of an infill project.

I talk about them all the time and I approve them all the time.

Um you want me to make the motion?

No.

Well, I I'm I'm gonna I'm gonna vote for it.

I'm to be honest, I'm gonna vote.

I don't want to, but I'm gonna vote for it.

Um but only because I like the NFL project, and it's gonna be more affordable like someone you said with 12 homes than it's gonna be with eight homes.

I would like to see it eight homes, but then the price is gonna be so far out of reach that nobody's gonna be able to buy it.

Not the people that need to.

Not your kids.

I don't have any kids, so I don't care.

Mr.

Chair.

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 comes 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 it the owner the same, or is it different owners, or does it differ potential future owners?

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 it 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?

And there might have been an effort that just wasn't presented.

I don't know, but 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.

I know I am, I'm biting my tongue to vote yes.

Christy, I have a question.

So this is um just annexation and zoning.

We wouldn't there's no we're not applied approving a plat 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 plating process.

So can it come back to you?

Could we make a recommendation that um lot sizes not to be smaller than what's what we're seeing here?

You certainly because technically speaking, they could reduce lot sizes and if we if we uh 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 agreement.

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 try to.

I mean, that's not on the consent agenda, right?

The preliminary so I I guess if we're gonna see it again, then that'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.

Yeah, Mr.

Chair, commissioners.

I just one quick thought on that.

Um development uh or 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 you think 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 uh a public concern because it doesn't match exactly what that preliminary plot 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 that way.

Thank you.

Yeah, 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 remain as has been presented in the presentation today.

Second McGill.

Should be good.

Then move by Garner.

Seconded by Morgan.

All those in favor?

I need you to do a roll call.

Oh, yeah, probably probably near a roll call.

Okay.

Miller.

Yes.

Garner.

Hi.

Daffer.

Yes.

Turner.

Hi.

Keyhoe.

Aye.

Morgan.

Yes.

Kirkman.

Oh, sorry, Selman.

Hi.

Copeland.

Aye.

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 Kite Street.

Or Catherine Self is the applicant here.

Yes.

Good and come on up.

Catherine Self, 11235 West Kite Street.

I own Chickadees Preschool in Nampa.

I recently got licensed by the state.

And I wanted to combine my love of early childhood education with the flexibility to be more present for my family.

So my goal has always been to create a small high quality program that supports both early learning and family balance.

So I am requesting a conditional use permit that I believe would allow me to care for up to 12 children.

However, I do want to emphasize that I do not intend to watch 12 children.

So I'm only hoping to increase my class size by one next school year.

So that would be seven children in my classes.

And I do just offer preschool, not daycare, so it's three hour classes.

That is all I have.

Thank you.

And thank you for your consideration.

One quick question, if I could.

Yes.

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 office.

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 on it?

No, so I decided early on that they would just park on West Kite Street.

So the parents all park there and then 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 of it?

I hope so.

Can I ask what you call your preschool?

Yeah, it's called Chickadees Preschool.

Okay.

Yeah.

Because the title here says self-preschool, which gives a different connotation.

I didn't know if it was like a self-directed.

Uh well, that's my last name.

So I don't know.

Okay.

I was wondering if that's what you call it.

Okay.

That's it.

Mr.

Chairman.

Yeah.

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 the one more.

Is there a reason seven is your goal?

Um, well, I've I've had I've ex I've tried different numbers, and I just feel like I could handle seven.

Gotcha.

Just curious.

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.

Gotcha.

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 two-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 Napa.

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 mixed use.

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 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 NAMPA 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 NAMPA 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.

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.

And 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 NAPA 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 right of way 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.

And I will stand for any 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 old kids doing that.

No, I don't.

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 gotta twist it back and forth?

Yeah.

Okay.

That's a good thing to have, then isn't it?

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 gonna what what the what's the fire department gonna 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 Keho, 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.

What would you and and the fire department views it the same way?

It they would so they they say the word school, they won't think it 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.

I I apologize, staff for asking this again, but how do we determine whether a C UP 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 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 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.

And we make that determination, you guys don't, and when the application comes in, you do, but we would typically recommend that.

Um 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 NASA again, so yeah, appreciate it.

Yeah, Mr.

Chair, if I may wait on on that.

Uh generally under Idaho law, it will run with the land.

Um some cities have gotten creative in uh 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 nother debate discussion in my opinion, whether that's uh enforceable or prudent, but for what it's worth.

Um there is some discretion there, but typically it'll run with the land.

Thank you.

Go ahead and open up public testimony.

No sign up.

Is there anyone here that would like to speak for, against or undecided on this particular item?

Okay, seeing none.

Do you have a reason to call the applicant back up?

You got any questions?

Do you have anything you'd like to add?

Um I don't think so.

Motion we close the public hearing.

Second.

And moved by Garner, second by Keyhoe to close the public hearing.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

What do you all think?

I think we would approve it.

I commend her for wanting to take on more kids.

I think they should all have to go through a psychopal, but that's and I learned something new tonight, so I'm in favor of it.

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 I 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 Kehoe, seconded by Selman with the added condition.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Okay.

All right.

This C UP 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.

The applicant must confirm with planning and zoning staff that there have been no appeals.

Thank you.

We have to teach you some manners.

These guys have incredible manners.

It's hard for them to be that good this long.

Yeah.

Okay, time for our break.

Okay.

Last item, conditionally use permit for a home occupation daycare for up to children.

Up to 12 children in RS6 zoning district.

11540 West Sami Street.

I'm not even gonna try.

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 uh Mukalai Patient Wembo.

My address is uh one one.

Um one one five forty West is my street number.

So I received some uh comment from my neighbors uh complaining about noise, parking, and um I don't think that's uh a single family can have uh traffic like a lot of cars because it's not gonna be a center care.

So it's not it's just uh 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 uh a sp space on our uh our pload.

So that's the things I can say, and they thank you so much to give me this opportunity.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions?

I can chairman.

Can I do you have a fenced backyard?

Yep.

Yes.

And um how many children?

I mean, so what our what are your hours of operation?

I know up to 12, but what are your hours of operation gonna be?

6 a.m.

to 6 p.m.

Okay.

That's all.

Thank you.

Yeah.

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 under the full.

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 Sunnyville Westdivision.

Um Flamingo and almost a midway there.

Um plan, community mixed use, RS6 zoning, uh surrounding land use is all the 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 home there yet.

And so this is the only uh map that I could find with a picture of the actual property being developed.

Um here's what they are proposing inside the home for uh where they'll do the daycare.

Looks like upstairs and downstairs.

Um you know the criteria here.

We just went over it, so I'm not gonna 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 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 think a lot of people get worried about are the traffic, the noise, and the signs.

Umrdances 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 uh daycare.

So um I we have to be careful there just because just to assume that there's noise created um just because of the daycare beyond a normal family uh residence.

Um conditional use permit is required.

Umpa building department asked for some clarity about how many uh children are gonna 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-uh commercial uh property situation, they um have some more requirements 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.

Tampa Fire 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.

Umpa 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 daycares.

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, an authorized use of private amenities in the subdivision.

They were concerned that these children would be using the playground and open space that is provided by the subdivision.

Property value concerns, neighborhood integrity.

Oh, and concern number four under mark.

Samay Street.

Precedent setting for commercial land use in a residential area.

That was his one of his concerns.

Safety concerns, 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 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.

You can see under number three.

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 the second point, the proposed daycare provides a service land use within a commercial structure.

And then the rest of them are according to you, your staff report as I proposed it.

And then the conclusion.

Thank you, Ronnie.

Mr.

Chair.

Ron, you will you go back to your uh Google image?

To which one?

Google Google uh maps image.

Map?

Google the Google.

Oh, oh.

Way back at the beat.

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 be 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 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?

Uh 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 Copeland, go back to that one.

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 child care 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.

Yep.

Thank you for that.

Other questions?

Good.

Okay.

Madam Clerk, I think I know the answer, but 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 had a question for them.

You have a question.

Can you come back up?

We got one more question for you.

Yep.

I think one.

Turn into 10.

So reading through all the comments.

Uh the only are the only point they made that I can I want to ask about is is using VHOA 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 let usually kids they have toys and uh somebody watch them.

I think that's all.

And uh for the protection as uh uh you the one you're taking care of them, you need to be there and to 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're gonna use my garage.

Go in straight on the job, and they left.

So your neighborhood has a playground, right?

They do, and uh, we have uh uh where my house is located, it's just by the corner, separate with other houses so that if somebody comes, 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 gonna be just mine because I have a huge big uh backyard.

Okay.

That's what I wanted to know.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Okay, other questions?

No.

Okay.

Thank you.

Motion we close the public hearing.

Second.

And moved by Garner, second by Keyhoe again to close the public hearing.

All those in favor?

Aye.

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 gonna ruin the family-friendly neighborhood by having the sound of children.

Cheers, and that we're going to have we're going to have children walking on the grass in the neighborhood.

Um, okay, so you're track as you are because when when Rodney read off all those comments, I'm saying, when the heck we've had how many hundreds of these applications in the past, and nobody's ever mentioned any of these things before.

It's like they're wow let field someplace.

They just want to complain about something.

This is this is a service our community needs.

And it's gonna it's gonna keep we're gonna keep needing it more and more.

Um 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 that one too.

Too late.

I missed it.

Oh it's been moved by Morgan, seconded by Selman to approve this item.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Read your thing.

Uh 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 a planning and zoning department with the appropriate fee.

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.

And I would commend them for their children's behavior.

Yeah.

Yes.

That's amazing.

Long huddles would there and not be other problems.

They got that.

I make a motion, we adjourn.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?