Voted Ron.

Yeah.

I think that's your approval.

Thanks for your service.

He was here for a long time.

We got a membership to the jellyfelly.

Okay, it is six o'clock.

I'd like to welcome everybody to the city's own commission meeting, November 25th, 2025.

Garner.

Here.

Miller.

Stafford.

Turn.

Here.

Keegan?

Here.

Morgan.

Here.

Kirkman.

Salmon.

Here.

Coban.

Here.

Thank you.

Okay.

So is it only one here for item three-four?

Continued from tonight.

Because we had to amend the agenda to put it on in the first place.

So you guys have to approve the amended agenda.

And then at the yeah, and then when we start public hearings, we'll move that up and complete that.

Mr.

Chair, yes.

I make the motion that we approve the amended uh agenda.

Second.

So moved by daughter, second and by keynote to approve the amendment agenda.

All those in favor?

I mean closed.

Okay.

Chris.

Okay.

Um so update on city council actions from November 17.

Um the two final plat approvals were approved through consent, brookhaven number one and set a maple branch number two.

Um and then there were two variances and an annexation.

One variance was to chapter four, which is the GD1 zone to not require a landscape burn burn in front of the property um off of Franklin Road, because there's actually an easement there for drainage easement and uh utility easement that runs right through where that berm would go and it would create real problems with that easement, so they allow that hearing.

Um the second variance was for uh rear yard setbacks.

We have a 15-foot rear yard setback, and these people added on to their house without realizing that they were emerging into that 15-foot rear yard setback, so that was approved.

Um and then annexation and zoning.

And the county was had some open enforcement action on them, and uh so they wanted to come in the city and kind of rectify some of that.

Um that was also approved.

Mr.

Chairman, yes, I make a motion you approve the consent agenda.

Second.

And moved by Garner Center, he voted to approve the consent agenda.

All those in favor, okay.

Um we'll go ahead and open our meeting.

Um take care of item three now.

For what no?

So the item three-four.

We need to open that item specifically.

Well it's already open, technically.

Yeah, because it wasn't closed, so yeah, so I think you can just make a motion.

Yes.

Regarding action item three-4.

I make the motion that we continue.

There's public hearing to the January 13th, 2026 meeting.

I'll second that.

Okay.

It's been moved by our second by Kurtman to continue item 3-4 to January 13, 2026 meeting.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Okay.

If you have not been to a public hearing, we need the applicant settlements to tell us what they would like to do.

Staff limited their case.

And also listen closely or be encouraged to people who are at because the mics we have pick up a lot of noise.

They're probably speaking and people in the ground are talking.

You guys must be there.

721 Sonny Lane.

Sorry, I don't hear very well.

Okay, just tell us what you already move out.

Tell us what you want to use.

Well, we have four dogs.

We've always been a big dog family people.

We lived out in the county, or it wasn't really an issue, and we were forced to move and couldn't find a place out in the county anymore.

So now we're in city limits, and we did get rid of our pit bull.

And we don't want to have to do that with any of the girls, their family.

Anyone have questions?

We'll call you back up if we need if we have any questions later.

Okay, Terry.

Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners.

My name is Terry Friend, associate planner for the city of Nampa.

Um the request before you tonight is for a conditional use permit for a non-commercial kennel license for four dogs in an RS6 zoning district for um Bobby Myers at 721 Sunny Lane.

Um in terms of the property, it's in a medium density residential for the comprehensive plan.

The front faces setting lane, and because of the way it's centered on the property, and the way sending lane goes in the direction the side of the house is also facing sunny lane.

These are the four sweet dogs we're talking about.

Um applicable regulations.

We've got quite a few of um related to animals, uh the maximum of two dogs is stated here in 1021-3D.

You can have up to two in combination between a pot belly pig or a dog, or one of each two of one combination thereof.

Um but if you have more of them, there is the opportunity for a conditional use permit for the non-conditional non-commercial license.

Um with the CUP.

So the reason we do a conditional use permit is so that we can have an opportunity for a public hearing so that we can understand any concerns that there might be about this land use in combination with the surrounding um properties.

So here we are tonight.

Um the criteria to approve a conditional use permit.

The criteria to approve a conditional use permit you've seen before, but it's that the land use is supported by the comprehensive plan, that the design construction, operation, and maintenance of the property and the project will not adversely impact the intended character and appearance of the general vicinity, that the proposed primary land use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, and that the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment, and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any person's property or the general welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise of smoke, fumes, glare, or odors.

The CUP can be revoked.

And then in addition, uh, under the police regulations, there are regulations relating to licensing dogs.

The canine licensing regulations are here.

Um as the applicant stated briefly, they moved from the county with these animals.

Um they had additional animals that they were able to re-home, um, but these ones they consider to be their beloved family members.

They are all spayed female animals, they are primarily inside dogs.

Uh these are the proposed findings related to our applications today.

These are detailed in your staff report as well.

Um, and for conclusion, a CEP is required for a non-commercial kennel in a single family residential zone so that any negative impacts can be identified and reasonably mitigated.

The property appears to be well maintained, and there is no record that the dogs are causing any concerns related to safety smell or noise.

And although four dogs as pets may impact neighboring facilities, in this case, it appears that um the impacts are being and will continue to be mitigated by the property owner, and if necessary, code allows for city staff the right to enforce property maintenance and animal control standards.

If you opt to approve this CUP today, here are some proposed conditions that the applicant apply with all requirements imposed by any agency.

There was no agency comments this time.

Um that applicants shall apply for a non-commercial kennel license with the planning and zoning district, or sorry, planning and zoning office.

The CUP will only apply to these four dogs that are listed in the applicant's narrative willow, a mini Ozzy, Kyle.

I think that's Kylie, sorry, a pug, Phoebe, a PUG, and mayor of Chihuahua.

So the applicant will secure and maintain a dog license for each dog, and the CUP is not to be transferable to other people's outside the immediate household or other animals or other locations.

Um they would need to reapply if they were going to do any of those things, and any other conditions that you may want to add.

And here are your potential motions.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

No, we do not.

Okay.

I don't think so.

Just now because we could get the license, everybody's vital free.

So my question is more of a curiosity.

How did you know?

Did you already know that you needed to come to the city for a C UP for four dogs, or did there a neighbor or somebody that said you have four dogs you need to go take care of?

That's okay.

Um, no, it's just looking up the code that being proactive and cruiser than all and then I did notice in the letter that you wrote and put in here, and you said that the chihuahua was very low.

I'm gonna have to take an issue with that.

I don't think any challenges are very well.

We used to have one, so no, that's all I have.

Thank you for the response.

Thank you.

Okay.

Aye.

Okay, we're moving.

Mr.

I'll make a motion that we approve your project as stated on the screen with recommended conditions of approval and proposed finance.

Okay.

It's been moved by Kirkville and second by Keyhoe to approve this item.

All those in favor?

Aye.

I guess we should have right.

15 calendar days from the date of decision reason statement is provided.

Yeah, unless an appeal has been filed in the planning zone part of the appropriate action.

Should we take it on the C and B until the appeal period has concluded?

The applicant must confirm with the planning and zoning staff.

Thank you.

Okay.

You guys can do that.

Subdivision preliminary plat approval for King's Court approach.

Subdivision of EC.

Um for Mason Associates.

Good evening.

My name is William Mason with Mason and Associates.

Tonight I am coming before you to ask for a preliminary plat approval for a project.

The same GIS.

So there was already King's Court somewhere else.

So we're asking to call MANA commercial park.

It's an eight-wat uh commercial subdivision about half a mile to the west of Middleton Road on the north side of the highway 55 Carter Road.

Um it's for small scale commercial artisan type uh commercial uses.

For example, a pottery maker, a leather crafter, a small uh metal or type facility.

Um our client actually would like to own one of the lots.

He hasn't talked to other end users, so this eight lots can turn into six.

It would never be more than the commercial lots that you should you see there.

Um we've looked at the staff report and talked to the city engineer, and we have no issues with the staff finding with that I can stand for any questions or what until after the staff report and testimony.

Everybody's with the paper.

Candace.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman and Commissioners.

My name is Candace Fry, assistant planner for the city and but the requesting for you this evening is a subdivision preliminary plan approval for the King's Court commercial, but now known as Mana.

The original concept is eight commercial lots and five common lots on eight point four one acres.

The property detail, the property is currently zone BC or community business.

The surrounding zoning to the north is county subdivision to the south is more commercial and sounding male subdivision to the east is commercial and more county property, and to the west is Crestwood Estates and more commercial.

The company is a plan designate this area as commercial and the only history we have on this project is that it was annexed in zone to BC in November of 2000.

Here are the applicable regulations for the BC zone.

The staff analysis, the overall site is 8.98 acres, lot sizes and lot width complied with the codes.

Commercial projects are exempt from open space requirements.

Parking will be reviewed at the time of the building permit.

A preliminary landscape was submitted.

A more formal review will be done upon the submission of the final plaque, and each individual lot within the subdivision will be landscaped according to the site layout and will be reviewed at the time of the building permit.

For correspondence, we did not receive any public comment, but we did receive agency comments.

Utilities have the capacity to serve this property.

A trip generation memo was provided and will continue to be reviewed based on the proposed tenants.

The fire district had comments regarding fire hydrants access and general compliance with the international fire code.

Nampo Marine Irrigation District left comments regarding the board drain and box lateral.

NAMPA Parks and Rec request the developer to give the city a 20-foot wide easement on the south side of the of the Elijah Drain and construct the pathway to the standards in the state and the bicycle and pedestrian master plan at the time of construction.

The NAMP GIS department had a comments regarding the street names on the plaque.

And then the item of transportation department requests that the applicant submit a traffic impact study reflecting full build out of the development.

Here are the recommended conditions of approval.

Here are the potential motions, and I don't stand for any questions.

I have a kind of an informational type question I asked.

How many times do we review these requests or do they refuse to request some land or projects like this?

Commissioner, do you mean the applicant refuses to do that?

Um that doesn't happen.

Um for the most part we've had pre-op meetings with these parks.

Um if there's a developer and of course will um has been doing this long enough to know what our codes are like and what the expectation will be, especially long along waterways.

So we think those expectations are known well in advance.

Um so we don't usually run into that issue.

If you want to develop it, this is the requirement.

And they they tend to it's in here all the time.

I've never heard anybody say they're opposed to it.

But I don't think they are really opposed to it.

You know, having a pathway isn't a bad thing.

No, but there's other things they may not give you the land for because it's money less less money for them to develop a property on there.

Yeah, it's just it's a city requirement when there's a waterway on the property, and I think we tell them that well in advance.

Okay, thank you.

Um Mr.

Church, just again for my information, I guess.

But why would the traffic impact study this is requiring this?

Yeah, because it would be requirements.

Mr.

Chair Commissioner Kirkman.

They provided a uh traffic generation memo identifying what their anticipated uses are.

Um, and it fell below the threshold for requiring a traffic impact study for our policies.

Um, we will work with the developer and the Iowa Transportation Department if they ultimately do require a traffic impact study.

Um would anticipate that it would only be looking at their entrance and whether or not a terminal is necessary to come into there, but we will staff will work with the developer, uh, his engineer and IO transportation that figure that out, but you are correct that the trip generation memo that they prepared didn't come in lower than our our threshold to require machine.

No, it's like speed for Mr.

And the site of the list.

Yes.

We need to jump to get it.

11364 cartoon route.

I would be uh ready cushion.

Um the idea was to create small lines, which individuals can own as opposed to rent somewhere, and they can build their own type of structure depending on their needs and we're like uh we'll say is something that we don't have for ourselves.

My sons and I uh we uh R and uh sell class in Beables, trust cars, like I mean a parked type of sales office as well, as well as a small car dealership somewhere on the property, not sure, but you know that type type of use.

Any other questions?

Anybody else you have questions?

I would quit question.

Um back in April, there was uh neighborhood meeting.

There were a few people that signed up and attended.

Was there any opposition to that from those for the five people that well one of them was gentlemen?

So I would imagine that there was no opposition there, but a long time ago man and I know that was a long time ago back.

Well, I was just curious if there was any opposition of those individuals that community uh associates for the record.

Uh no, there was no opposition.

They generally wanted to know what we were planning.

Right.

That was it.

I'll make a motion of post auto carrying that.

So we'd like group anybody like he or the road here, all those in favor.

I say most of the things about this one.

Fill it up, fill it up.

I like the idea.

Yeah, I like it so much.

Mr.

Chair, then I'm gonna make a motion.

To approve the project as data on the screen with recommended conditions and adopt the pretending mining is stated in the status.

Second.

It's been moved by Kirkman, second by seller to approve this item.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Okay, thank you.

Zoning that one removed from RA, R6.

Good evening.

My name is Ellen Slagley.

I live at 602 street.

Uh is to be zone from RA to R6 to allow us to split the lot um in half and allow us to build a single family home.

So it has company.

We work with Southwest District Health, as this will be uh on a septic tank system.

And we've done everything with them to allow to obtain a perfect point.

Mr.

Chair, uh just I I know this young man.

Um I know his family.

I just wanted to get that out there the record.

We had no business together or anything like that, but just friends.

All right, I say neighborhood that was a case it comes up later now.

And Mr.

Chair, if I may uh ask the question, do you feel that you can be impartial and unbiased in this decision?

Yeah, absolutely.

All right, no financial interest at all.

No financial interest or blood relationship.

No blood.

All right.

Okay, I'm good with this.

All right, I'm gonna get too.

Okay, I think running.

I mean and I shocked.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman Commissioners.

Christy Watkins, principal planner for the city of the United States and dry after this evening.

Um stated the request is a rezoned from RA to RS6.

This property is a 0.37 acre parcel, which is 16,117 square feet.

That is larger than what would be allowed in the RS6 zone.

So one of the conditions will be that he splits the lot.

So in the comprehensive plan, it is in the lead density residential district.

The surrounding zoning to the north is RA, single family residential, to the east is RA single family residential.

To the south is RS7, which is single family residential, and to the west is RS6, that is a four-acre undeveloped piece of property.

On this particular piece of property, in 2020, they apply for a rezone to RS7, but it was withdrawn after staff determined that the rezone was unnecessary to permit an accessory dwelling unit on the property.

So they chose to go that direction instead.

So here are the applicable regulations for your rezon and staff has found all three of these to be met.

These are the applicable regulations for the RS zoning district.

So if RS6 is permitted, the minimum lot size would be 6,000 square feet, and the maximum lot size would be 12,000 square feet.

So he could split that lot in such a configuration that it would the smallest would be 6,000 whatever's left over.

There's a number of different ways that that can happen, but there is still enough room for two dwelling units on that property.

And then they have to meet the setbacks that are shown here on the screen.

So the fire district, um their comment does not oppose this application, subject to compliance with the remote requirements.

A letter from Southwest District Health approving the joint use from one property store line connecting to one drain belt located on the southernmost lot shall be provided to the city building department.

A copy of the recorded agreement as stated above for both party properties shall be provided to the City of Napa building department.

These two documents will be recorded with the property boundary adjustment permit for reference when a building permit is applied for.

So prior to splitting the lot, they will they shall provide a proof of Southwest District Health Approval.

So when the evidence of the facts presented, the facts support compliance with each of the zoning map amendment criteria outlined in the city code.

The proposed map amendment is in harmony with the adopted comprehensive plan and the land use map because of the zone that they have requested and the uses specifically called out as approved in the plans.

The density falls within the plan range for medium density residential and the land uses permitted under that zone are identified as needed and compatible to the other residential uses in the area.

The proposed map amendment provides for uh proposed use that is compatible.

Um it will provide the same land use as the neighboring properties.

It is in the interest of the public and reasonably necessary as shown by the fact that the land use will not be changing and the zone and the user supported.

These are the conditions of approval that are listed in your staff report, and these are the potential motions.

I'll stand for any questions.

Um if you have to defer these to the applicant, that's fine.

Um are they gonna access off of oil still in that part of it?

Commissioner Morgan, um yeah, I I would have them answer that.

I have not seen a layout for what they're proposing when they use what those lots, so I don't know what they're proposing for that.

We would allow the access off of Chicago there, um, similar to the three houses to the south of this the existing property.

Oh, so they can do it either way.

You're okay with it.

Yep.

How far is Sewer from there?

Is it anticipated that it will go down Chicago?

So there is sewer in Ammy.

However, that sewer is shallow enough and will not reach out to this house.

The sewer that will serve this area and north is down at the dog park and would need to come up second street and then back down Chicago.

It's a it's a bit of a ways to get sewer into that area, and that's really all of that area north of the church and these all the way to the railroad tracks has it's it's an area that sewer has not yet gotten to.

It's the sewer desert.

How about that?

Yep.

Um answer what the plans are with the ADU that would be permitted, the ADU would remain um Commissioner Morgan, yes.

So a single family home in City of Nampa can have an ED with it.

So it they chose to any zone.

Any zone with a single family hall, yes.

Um any residential zone, I should say.

Um so in this case, if they wanted to split it and do another single family home with an ADU, they could do that.

Okay, there's no reason they would have to take that out.

No, and unless the property line doesn't fall in the correct place, but that will be determined in the survey.

Right.

Okay.

Okay.

We'll give you it in just a second.

No.

Okay, is there anybody who would like to speak for against or insight on the side?

Okay.

Technicality, really, but um so the ADU would be demolished in order to build that single telegram.

The subject tank system, the drain field primarily, would it allow for the space for that?

A to continue to be any other questions about that.

Okay.

Chair?

Yes, make a motion to close the public hearing.

Second.

Aye.

Public hearing is closed.

No, what else?

I guess I'll just make a clean sweep of this.

Thank you.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Um Peggy says anything, I'll always everybody very happy things to do.

Thank you.

I'm a happy thing to do.

Second.

All in favor.

All right.

Oh, who said all the things?

Sorry, Mr.

Chair.

I thought you guys made a motion.

I'm so sorry.

I apologize.

I thought it was legit.

I made a motion we turn.

I suppose thank you very much.