Okay.

I got six o'clock.

Let's get this party started.

I would like to welcome everyone to the February tenth, two thousand tenth.

Uh February twenty-fourth, twenty twenty-six planning and zoning meeting for the city of Nampa.

Um we really appreciate your attendance and being part of helping us shape the future of the city.

Um let's start with roll call, please.

Copeland.

Morgan.

Here.

Keyhoe.

Here.

Turner.

Here.

Gaper.

Miller.

Here.

Garner.

Here.

All right, you have a quorum.

Thank you.

Have a report.

Senior Ashby.

Good evening.

Um Chairman and Commissioners, Rodney Ashby, planning and zoning director for the record.

Um we had several projects go before a couple of projects go before the city council last week.

The first one was the subdivision final plot approval for Middlebury Middlebury North number four, and this was northwest of Orchard Avenue and Midway Road.

Um you had recommended approval on the tenth of uh February.

This was for thirteen single family detached dwelling units and four common lots.

And the city council did approve that.

The next one was a public hearing for annexation and um zoning for the right-of-way along Cherry Lane as part of the East Ranch subdivision.

Really simple one, if you recall, we just we they just missed some rocket that they needed to incorporate into the annexation, and so that one was approved.

You had recommended approval as well.

And then um the next one was a variance of ten twenty-three twenty limiting permanent freestanding pole or monument signs in the BC zone.

Uh this is near the um or excuse me, the northwest of Lake Lowell Avenue and Twelfth Avenue Road, uh right along um I'm trying to think of the name of the shopping center there where true value it Hawaii Center.

Um that one was approved for a little bit larger sign and um height.

Essentially they're keeping the same sign height.

It was just approved in the past when it was allowed at that height, and now our current code would not allow it, and they're just um putting in a new sign.

Um and then last of all was annexation and zoning for Orchard Acres to BC and Orchard Acres is one south of Greenhurst Road, east of um Happy Valley Road.

Um you had recommended denial, and there was five yeses and three no's on that one due to traffic uh concerns and uh the proximity of the train and congestion um impact to schools and multifamily were some of the concerns expressed at the hearing and uh city council as well denied that uh project.

So that was uh four to two vote, and that's all I have for you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Yes.

I make a motion that we remove from the consent agenda subdivision final plan approval for Middlebury South number one at zero midway road.

Uh for Kent Brown representing endurance holdings LLC original concept was for 50 single family detached lots and seven common lots, and the applicant has requested to put this on hold.

So I would make a motion that we remove from the consent agenda.

Okay.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed.

Okay, we'll go ahead and remove that item.

And Chairman, if I may um maybe a clarification on the motion, is this to remove it from consent to general agenda or to continue it to a later date.

So some clarification for that they're not ready to do anything with it at this point.

They will resubmit and we will put them on a new agenda when they resubmit.

Okay.

Well, we might just for clarity's sake, we'll maybe have another motion to remove it entirely from the entire agenda.

Okay.

Because usually when we lift something from consent, it will then go into the remainder agenda for further discussion.

Okay.

So we'll this will just be lifting it from the entire agenda.

Okay.

Mr.

Chairman.

For clarification purposes, I recommend that we remove the subdivision final plat approval for Middlebury South number one at zero midway road parcel number as noted in the staff report for Kent Brown representing endurance holdings LLC original concept was for 50 single family detached lots and seven common lots and remove it from the agenda entirely.

Okay.

That works.

Thanks.

Again, moved by Garner, seconded by Daper to remove this item completely from the agenda.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, this item will be removed.

Mr.

Chairman.

Yes.

I recommend that we approve the amended consent agenda, removing the item just removed.

Okay.

Been moved and moved by Garner, second by Daper to approve the consent agenda that is now amended.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

Consent agenda has been passed.

Updated.

Updated.

Um, so we'll go ahead and get started with our meeting.

Um if you haven't been to our meeting before, we will allow the uh applicant to come up.

They'll have time, five minutes to present what they would like to do with their item.

Um, then we'll turn the time over to staff.

They will give us their report.

They have unlimited time, then we'll open it up for public hearing, at which time you can come up and speak for against or undecided on each item.

Um, you will have three minutes to tell us what you think about the project, whether you like it, you don't like it, and why.

Um we're all pretty good about taking notes.

Uh applicants are usually pretty good about taking notes, and then when the public is done speaking, we'll call the applicant back up and ask those questions of them at that point, so you guys can um hear what they have to say and hopefully answer some of your questions.

Uh, we'll also ask some questions of staff because those are always brought up as well.

So we'll go ahead and get started with item 3-1, conditional use permit for Barber Beauty Shop, Day Spa, Nail Salon, Grace Beauty Company in the CN Zoning District and CH Form District at 122 13th Avenue South for Desiree Vasquez representing Ian Lawson.

Um and thank you for allowing me to speak.

My name is Desiree Vasquez, and I'm the owner of Grace Beauty Coast Salon.

I am here today today to respectfully request approval of our permit so we can continue to operate and serve our community.

Grace Beauty Co is founded with the vision of creating a family-oriented salon environment that is welcoming, peaceful, and grounded in strong values.

We strive to provide a space where clients of all ages feel comfortable.

Mothers and daughters, families, and individuals who want not just beauty service, but genuine care and connection.

While there are other salons in our area, our business offers something intentionally different.

We focus on a calm, service-driven atmosphere that reflects our commitment to kindness, integrity, and treating every guest with respect.

Our goal is not to compete with neighboring businesses, but to complement the local marketplace by serving clients who are specifically looking for this type of environment.

As a small locally owned business, we contribute to the community by supporting independent professionals, creating flexible employment opportunities, and encouraging our team members to grow their careers while serving the people of NAMPA.

Our clients are local residents, families, and neighbors, and we are proud to be part of the fabric of the city.

We are committed to operating responsibly, maintaining a professional and well-managed space, and being a positive presence in the area.

Approving this permit allows us to continue building a business that reflects the values of family service and community care.

Thank you for your time, your consideration, and your support of local small businesses.

Thank you.

Oh, could you give your address for the record, please?

Name it were to give your name and address.

121 South Georgia Avenue, Caldwell, Idaho, 83605.

Thank you.

Okay, Damien, you're up.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman and Commissioners.

Damien Snodgrass, Associate Planner.

So the requested action item today is for a conditional use permit for a barber or beauty shop, day spa or nail salon.

This is more specifically a nail salon.

Within the CN Central Nampa zoning district and the CH form district.

Gonna go into some of that code since we did recently had a code change where we adopted form-based code.

So this will be our first application coming through that falls under those new zoning guidelines.

So the property details, it's in the downtown comprehensive map designation, and the current zoning is CN, but is specifically under that CH Central Historic Form District.

To the north, south, east, and west, we have all similar form districts and zones, and there are current utilities to the property.

The applicable regulations here are the criteria for a conditional use permit, which we can cover in the findings.

As well as some applicable regulations for form-based code.

So form-based code is was implemented so that we can redefine and show the form and look and feel of the downtown area.

And in doing so, we have more building requirements and things like that that will go into these developments coming downtown.

However, since this is a change of occupancy and we'll have a tenant improvement to the existing building, and the building itself isn't changing, we can't apply all of the criteria for those downtown implementations with this kind of application.

So we took some of the code that we know that we can apply to this.

Under the use table in 10153C, uh barbershop beauty salon and spa falls under localized services, which is a conditional use permit for this specific type of localized service within the CH form district.

And over on the right here, we have a map of the form district.

And just to go over that for everybody, the form districts fall under that CM zoning district.

So there are different looks and feels within each form district that falls under the same zoning.

So each form district will have different criteria that it has to adhere to to follow, as well as land uses within those.

So for this one, we did a downtown analysis of that and looking at the pre-existing that we're going to attach the photo in your staff report of the pre-existing building.

It mostly follows the row building type within this zone on the requirements because the building itself doesn't conform with what we would want for a new row type.

We just took the criteria that we can apply to the existing one, which is on the ground floor, a localized service would be a permitted use.

And the required occupied space, which is a 30-foot minimum from all the facade and full doors.

The required occupied space is the space within the front of this building that is usable and walkable and open.

Basically, what this allows is stopping from storage or something blocking the windows essentially.

So you can't put all of your storage right on the front of the window and you look in, you can't see what it is.

30 feet from that window, you have to have usable space, whether in this case it's nail salons, and you see people when you walk by the look and feel of downtown is you can look in and see that it is a nail salon and it's not blocked off on the windows.

And so with that looking at the existing building and the criteria that we can apply.

We found most of these to be not applicable, so I took a lot of that criteria out that we would apply to the row building type and just kept these ones for this kind of conditional use permit.

And here are some pictures of a row building type as defined within that area of code.

Again, this building does not conform with that code since it is only one story.

Um within this zone, we would need them to be a minimum of two stories.

So this is just the criteria that we felt we could attach to this conditional use permit.

For correspondence, we received a comment from the building department, and their criteria and conditions are that it follows all of the city ordinances and codes for Title IV building regulations, and with that having a tenant improvement permit pulled for the change of occupancy and any remodeling or occup or alterations to the scope of the space.

A licensed architect will have to provide a code analysis for any design change of the nail salon, any mechanical electrical plumbing and structural permits, as well as mechanical ventilation permits that are required for a nail salon.

And uh all of that needs to come through a licensed architect or engineer, as well as some accessibility requirements as far as ADA requirements will have to be addressed at the time of the building permit.

For public comments, we did receive one late comment.

Um we received one comment from the neighboring business regarding the amount of barbershops and salons going along in the area, along with health and safety concerns of neighboring tenants, and most is the most of this was in regards to the ventilation system, which is addressed by the building tenant improvement, which will be later on in the conditions.

So here are those criteria that the proposed use is supported by the NAPRA comprehensive plan, that the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the property and project will not adversely impact the intended character and appearance of the general vicinity, that the proposed use is served adequately by essential public facilities and services, and that the proposed use will not involve any activities or processes, materials, equipment, and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or general welfare by reason of excess traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glares, or odors.

Here are those proposed findings.

Um the biggest ones to bring into the relevant facts is that the proposed use must conform to that international building code and adhere to those HVAC ventilation standards to mitigate any kind of fumes or odors that may be emitted from this type of business.

And as far as the other ones is that it will conform to the central NAMPA historic form district design standards if there was anything to happen to the outside of the building.

The proposed use is near other businesses of the same use, sewer water, irrigation services are already provided to the property, and the NAMPA comprehensive plan describes objectives of the downtown regarding business and development expansions, which includes professional services as such.

So weighing all of the facts and criteria under the conditional use permit, staff found that these criteria were to be met.

Here are the proposed conditions that the applicant owner shall comply with all city codes, policies, and standards at time of building permit, including those listed by the building department, and that the applicant maintains the requirements of the row building type during the duration of the CUP and listed is the ground floor use of keeping that use on the ground floor, and that the required occupied space be used with having that 30 foot of walkable open space within the front of that building, and any others that the commission may add.

Here are your pot here are your potential motions, and I will stand for any questions.

Damian in your opening statement, you mentioned a letter from another business next door to this business they want to open.

And they were talking about they should have a ventilation system, which you mentioned.

Um if you agreed and required the new business to have ventilation system, could you go back or could we go back and say to the business that's asking them to have a ventilation system that they should have their own because they have tobacco products that have an older than themselves?

So when it comes to back requiring another business to update their systems, that would more fall under the building department.

Uh a tenant improvement or change of occupancy would need to happen to bring it up to different codes or standards.

And um, the building department would determine then what are those applicable criteria in accordance to the building code that would be required for their kind of business type.

But as it sits right now, they would have to come back in for some type of construction to that building to back require them to get a new ventilation system.

So they would have to come through and get a building permit.

Let me rephrase the question because I'm not sure you answered what I was thinking of.

Can an existing business require a new business to do something that they are not required to do themselves?

Like the ventilation system.

In other words, can the new guy say to the old guy?

Well, you don't have one, so why do I have to have one?

Or whatever.

Mr.

Chairman and Commissioner Keyho.

Um so they can make that comment to you.

But the building department has the requirement on the tenant improvement.

So whenever someone comes in to move into a new space, the building department can require it.

The neighbor can't come and say you shall do these things.

But but if building code people said yeah, it's a good idea, you should do it.

Can the new can they go back to the other guy and say, well, your your product smells just as bad, if not worse than ours does.

Not if they've already been approved to be in that space.

If they have a certificate of occupancy for that space and they've met the codes for their type of a business, then no.

Okay.

So it's do as I say, not do as I do.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

I think it'd be helpful to state that it's not the opinion of the code official either.

It's what's required by the building code.

So it's does that apply to the new one and the old one, or just it applies to all of them.

But it depends when the code is adopted.

Because maybe when the business that's next door went in, that specific item wasn't a code.

So it wasn't.

So they didn't have to do it.

Was it in the code?

But the it's the code says if you have this type of product, you have to have this type of ventilation.

It's not the building official takes a sniff and says, I don't like it, and I'm gonna require it.

Right.

Same thing.

I just wanted a level playing field.

I can't do what one guy beat up the other guy.

Right.

They should be under whatever code was in effect at the time.

Yeah.

Same thing with the business.

You can't they can say literally anything they want.

It's just whatever's in the code at the time you apply.

So just because they said it doesn't mean it's gonna happen.

Right.

Thank you all.

Mr.

Chair, can I ask a please?

Question.

The other concern that was raised was saturation of the market in that area.

My tendency is to let the market determine what businesses would be profitable.

Is there a planning reason to be worried about the saturation of a certain type of business in an area?

Like is what's your thoughts on that?

When it comes to um other in this instance, a conditional use is coming before you in a public hearing, but in the instance that other areas where this business would be permitted.

Um we don't have any plans in place that go over the specific occupancy of each individual building.

Um in the findings, that this business type is permitted in a lot of other commercial type business zones.

And if every single one of them became a barber shop, there's nothing in planning code that would dictate that we limit the amount of each business type in each different zone.

So there's not a planning principle that you learn in school that teaches you to avoid clustering certain types of businesses.

I didn't go to planning school.

I don't know.

Now you're just being well planning professionals, they learn these there's principles behind this stuff, right?

So I'm not trying to be facetious.

Um diversity of businesses seems healthy too.

Yeah, but um so that's why I was wondering.

And maybe would you like to speak to maybe you don't want to speak to why this particular business requires a C UP versus other types?

It is within the adopted code they're right now under the central NAMPA that this business type is conditional as adopted within this code.

Um the code would need to come back forth and be changed in front of city council if council decided otherwise.

Thanks.

Mr.

Chairman Cumman?

As to the proliferation of the same type of business, that's actually a healthy thing because it tends to weed out the poor businesses, the ones that don't do a good job.

Um, because the competition will drive them out of business.

So that's a healthy thing to have, not a detriment.

Good.

Anyone else?

Okay.

We'll go ahead and open the public testimony portion of our meeting up.

Okay.

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

Okay.

Ms.

Vasquez, would you like to come back up?

Any questions we have for her?

No.

Any other comments you'd like to make?

Did she I Mr.

Chairman?

Chairman did you get and are you in agreement with the conditions as they've been stated in the staff report if you aware of them yes so we have our own laws too within like the Idaho you know so the ventilation system I already knew that was gonna be yeah so perfect yeah okay thank you okay I guess we're good thank you Mr.

Chairman yep I'll make a motion that we close the public hearing second it's been moved by Garner second by Q to plug the close the public hearing all those in favor aye aye any opposed okay public hearing is closed thoughts ideas I'll say more than Maria market free market let it work itself yeah I agree I think the people she brought with them seem to be fairly passionate about what they do and I can tell by the looks on their faces that she was given her proposal that they are and they're they're they want to do this for the right reason so I think anything to do with the gun on India's address no okay I think I think I think uh I think they'll do well yeah I think so too that's on the record Steve Mr.

Chair yeah I move to approve the project as stated on screen with recommended conditions and proposed findings I'll second it okay it's been moved by daffer second by Garner to approve this item all those in favor aye aye any opposed okay yep this CUP will become effective 15 calendar days from the date the written decision and reason statement is provided to the applicant unless an appeal has been filed with the planning and zoning department with the appropriate fee.

No action should be taken on this CUP until the appeal period has concluded the applicant must confirm with the planning and zoning staff that there have been no appeals okay thank you you don't have to you don't have to hang out with Rosen if you don't want to you're gonna go thank you so much okay item three two conditional use permit for automobile or truck repair for budget tires at 102 11th Avenue North and 106 11th Avenue North for Javier Gonzalez oh how you doing okay just name an address for the record and tell us what you want to do Javier Gonzalez Jr.

My address is 408 2nd Avenue North here in Ampa uh the address is 102 11th Avenue North right in front of commercial tire okay tell us about what you want to hear um so I'm the owner of budget tires on third street north and 11th Avenue north at one block away uh we just acquired this building we'll be performing the same thing just one block away and that is uh selling new and used tires and performing just auto repair light auto repair uh auto maintenance and it's providing more affordable but tire service instead of going to like Bleshwab and commercial so it's kind of like a little bit cheaper option for people that are in a a good spot so sometimes they can just can afford a used tire and they can't get new tires at the time so this is just affordable option for the area and it's been pretty successful we've done about 2000 vehicles since we've been open since I had a year and a half and our projections are somewhere around 1000 to 1500 vehicles per year that we'll be servicing and most of them are residents of NAMPA.

And yeah that's that's about it.

Okay.

Any questions um no I don't think so right now cremation services no not not at this time okay okay appreciate it we'll call you back up thank you okay thank you Mr Chairman and commissioners Damien Snodgas uh associate planner the requested action item tonight is a conditional use permit for automobile or truck repair for budget tires at 102 11th Avenue North and 106 11th Avenue North and uh the concept is to sell tires fix flats and occasionally break pads so some of the property details currently this is under the BC community business zone and to the kind of northeast we have the BC zoning which is the Eagles Bar Southeast um couldn't find the actual use of the building but it is a Cinderblic building that is also commercial to the Southwest we have the aisle zoning for the Union Pacific Rail yard and to the northwest we have aisle zoning which is the commercial tire and as far as public utilities and services there's already services to the property here are those applicable regulations for a conditional use permit cover those in the findings and here are some more applicable regulations so a conditional use permit is required when located within the BC community business zoning district

To the Southwest, we have the aisle zoning for the Union Pacific Rail Yard, and to the northwest, we have aisle zoning, which is the commercial tire.

And as far as public utilities and services, there's already services to the property.

Here are those applicable regulations for a conditional use permit.

Cover those in the findings.

And here are some more applicable regulations.

So a conditional use permit is required when located within the BC community business zoning district, as well as some of the off-street parking spaces required for this type of business use.

Due to the change of use on the property and the adjoining property, which right now is a vacant lot, there will have to be some site improvements that are done to the property, including adding striping for parking and things of that nature to improve the property up to current city standards.

Here is a part of the building plans before the conditional use permit came forward.

Just kind of the proposed use of wanting to store some tires with a fence, adding a landscape offer, and then conversion of the existing building into a tire shop.

So for correspondence from NAMPA development engineering, we received some comments about the existing utilities in the area as well as some notation around the construction of the parking lot for that 106 11th Avenue North to be reviewed by Idaho Transportation Department.

So the conditions are that the applicant owner shall comply with all city codes, policies, and standards at the time of the building permit.

From the NAPA fire district, we received some general fire access and water supply comments.

In addition, we received some comments regarding the specific type of fire mitigation that is necessary for the storage of tires outside.

So with the under planning and zoning requirements, we would require a design reviewed fence to shield any of that exterior storage of merchandise on the side of the building, which is allowed.

However, the storage of tires up to a certain margin will kick in some fire requirements, and the NAMPA Fire District provided those within their comments of what that'll specifically be.

The NAMPA building department reviewed the proposed conditional use permit and had some other specifications regarding the tenant improvement that will be required for the change of classification of the building, which include things like fire separation within the building that has to be done by a licensed architect, and that the change of occupation has to go with the international existing building code and bring the building up to compliance for the proposed use.

Here are those propos fine proposed findings that the proposed use is supported by the NAMPA comprehensive plan.

And this is designated as commercial, and this falls under one of those commercial uses.

So staff found this to be met.

The design, construction, operation, maintenance of the property and project will not adversely impact the intended character and appearance of the general vicinity.

It fits in with neighboring land uses, having another tire shop directly across the street and fits in with that general area, and it will utilize an existing building and have improvements to the facade.

So staff found this to be met.

There is currently utilities available to the property.

And that the proposed use will not involve any activities, processes, material, equipment, and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or general welfare by reason of excess traffic, noise, mute smoke, fumes, glares, or odors.

And under this, that the proposed use will have mitigations put in place by the building code and the fire code that will mitigate any of those noise, smoke, fumes, glares, or odors that may come from a business of this type.

And when it comes to traffic, businesses are meant to generate traffic to a certain margin.

And so they it will not propose a use that would generate any type of excess traffic from the others and the surrounding use.

So staff found this to be met.

Here are those proposed conditions of approval that the applicant owner shall comply with all city codes, policies, and standards at time of property development or redevelopment, and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

So this includes the conditional use permit, which will have any subpermits associated with that.

Floor plans, landscaping and irrigation plans, fencing plans, parking improvement plans with striping and ADA compliance and any sign permits that will need to be done on the property to add any signage.

That the conditional use permit is granted only to the current owner of the property and location for the duration of the use and shall not be transferable to any other owner or location.

That they comply with all city codes policies and standards, and that any proposed construction on the lot for 106 is subject to ITD review or comment.

Any others that the commission may impose.

Yes.

Um regarding the ITD comments.

I don't know if this is Daniel question.

They're saying the only way to get in is through the alleyway and then the and then exit only onto 11th.

There are currently approaches on to 11th with the change of use.

ITD will want to review that and may require changes to the access on 11th.

Um ultimately that is ITD's jurisdiction and their decision.

Um so the condition is just there so that um the applicant is aware that we're in that building permit process.

ITD would they will have to contact ITD and determine what their requirements will be for um the access is on 11th.

My anticipation is there are currently two accesses there, and my anticipation is one of them will be required to be closed.

But can one of them be an entry?

Did I see somewhere on there that it might be an exit only?

Um I didn't do the specific review on that, and it looks like the applicant may be able to speak to that.

Um they may have already contacted ITD and had discussions.

Okay.

I don't know if I should opine now, but that would be a little bit concerning to me because as you know, first street is one way there.

So if you're not if you're coming from the eastern side of town.

If you can't get on there on 11th.

And you can't get on there on first if you're going the wrong way.

Well, and uh the the reality is I mean, you'd be able to go up to second to come around the block and and access it that way, or the alley.

Come on long way down the alley.

Or or come down the alley, yes.

Or what was the other way you said?

Go down second street to 12th around the block and and up first.

Oh, all the way to 12th.

Okay.

Wait, what?

Yeah.

Second.

Well, you couldn't turn on into there from 11th, all right.

Well, I think you're coming from west to east.

Well, if you're coming from east to west.

You'd have to go all the way around the city block back out.

Unless you turned early and went down like fourth and then went over and through the back way down the alley.

There's ways.

That make maps for your customers.

There's ways.

No, that's that's not.

I guess I'm just a little concerned that makes it a more of a hardship on them.

Ultimately, yeah, the access on 11th Avenue is ITD's jurisdiction, not the city's.

Okay.

So there's nothing for us to do here.

There is we have no jurisdiction over those access.

So there's there would be no reason for us to remove that condition.

You wouldn't recommend it.

I would not recommend removing that condition regardless.

ITD has control of that road, and the change of use will provide them the opportunity to require things to be meaningless if I remove that condition.

Yes, pretty much.

Thank you.

That's what I needed to hear.

Okay, any other questions?

I I need to be done, so I'm not following that up.

Okay.

Um, so we'll go ahead and open this up to the public testimony portion.

Madam Clerk, anybody signed up?

There are no sign-ups.

Okay, anybody in the audience that would like to speak for against or undecided on this proposal, please.

Clarify some things for us.

Any rest of the record too.

My name is Christy Butler.

When you said the cremation thing, that made me think um we're actually working with a historical society, and one of the methods of getting rid of that horrible paint job is like a chemical burn.

So I kind of thought that's like a cremation to the building.

Well, that's uh so that was the how long ago was that proposed.

You're at last last year.

Somebody came in suggesting this building be turned into a pet crematory.

Oh no.

I wasn't suggesting that's what you were doing.

Oh no, okay.

Burning your tires to cremate.

No, no, but it'll be like a chemical burn to get rid of that.

It'll see paint or whatever.

And I wanted to mention on the traffic thing, the location that he's at right now has the same issue.

There's mediums in that road, and they have to go all the way around the block.

But it'll be good.

Oh, okay.

I've never tried to go into that business, I guess.

I just once we get it established, come on in, Drew.

That's all I want to say.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Okay.

Moved.

Okay.

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

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

I'd love to see that building site.

It's a cool building.

We'd love to get rid of the red paint job on it.

Well, apparently they're going to.

So is the building.

I like that.

And to see to see a business in Napa that's that's willing to grow themselves is exciting.

Move to a bigger, better location that they can do more business and that's that's cool.

I like to see that.

We're all for that.

Well, I've given them a hard enough time all the I move to approve the project as stated on the screen with the recommended conditions and proposed findings.

Second.

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

All those in favor?

I mean opposed.

Okay, motion carries.

The CUP will become effective 15 calendar days from the date the written decision and reason statement is provided to the applicant unless an appeal has been filed with the planning and zoning department.

With the appropriate fee.

No action should be taken on the CUP until the appeal period has concluded.

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

And good luck.

Thanks.

Look forward to it.

Okay, item 3-3, annexation and zoning to RS7, potential development agreement and subdivision preliminary plat for Hudson Yards.

Bonnie Leighton representing Endurance Holdings and Thomas Murray.

Slayton.

Good evening, Chairman and members of the commission.

My name is Bonnie Leighton.

I'm at 5561 East Hoot L Drive in Boise, Idaho, 83716.

And I'm here tonight on behalf of the development team to represent Hudson Yards subdivision.

This is our request for annexation zoning and preliminary plat of 21.51 acres to RS7, including 59 residential lots.

Quickly, the Napa future land use map.

You can see in the red outline with the star, that is the location of our property.

And so we're just tying into what we're currently developing.

So as I mentioned, um the future land use map uh designation for this area is medium density residential.

Um and RS7 is part of that uh uh one of the zones that is allowed in that uh future land use map designation.

The description requires a gross density of um 2.51 to 8 dwelling units per acre.

Uh on the zoning map, you can see that we have RS 8.5 next to us.

Um, there's some BC uh to the northwest.

And um kind of surrounded by development uh in this location.

Um again, our vicinity map, so you can see we've got locust lane to the north, South Side Boulevard on our kind of to our west, and Alma Lane uh to the south.

Um so our site plan um so I've rotated it, uh north is to the left.

Uh basically we're developing 59 uh lots in this with um some pretty significant open spaces, uh basketball court, uh shade structure.

Um you can kind of see in the center park area.

Um there's also an existing house on the site, which will remain.

Um so, and then there's um also the canal along along the boundary that will uh fence off.

Uh there's walking trails throughout as along with sidewalks to provide connectivity um and recreation for our residents, step streets that you can see at the top of uh this plan, as I mentioned, stub into um existing plates uh in the area.

And then uh to look a little bit more detail of of this plat, as I mentioned, it's 21.51 acres.

We've got 59 residential lots that we are proposing with a overall density of 2.74 dwelling units per acre.

So we're really on the low end of density for this project.

We have an overall open space of 34.22% and common area and actual open space of 18.18%.

So that's usable open space.

Let's see.

Next slide.

We will be developing this project into two phase in two phases.

Phase one is in green, and then phase two is uh the remaining lots there that'll be on the north end of our site.

As I mentioned, you can see in the phase two area.

There's a already an outline of a building that's the home that will remain.

And we will just continue to build single family detached homes.

Just like the ones in the subdivision to our east.

And with that, I will stand for any questions.

Questions.

No.

Okay, we'll call you back up.

Thank you very much.

Christy.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman and Commissioners.

Christy Watkins, principal planner for the city of Nampa.

As stated, the action before you this evening is for annexation and zoning to RS7 with a preliminary plat for the Hudson Yard subdivision at 3319 East Sheet Mountain Lane for the development of the Hudson Yard subdivision.

This property is located in the medium density residential designation on the comp plan, and it is currently enclaved and under Canyon County jurisdiction.

Adjacent parcels contain single family residential homes that are in the city limits and some commercially zoned property to the north that is not developed yet.

So there is no traffic study required because there's only 59 lots in this particular subdivision.

The proposed access points meet the spacing requirements for the city's access management policy.

Water sewer and pressurized irrigation shall be supplied to the site through the existing and proposed lines installed or being installed in the New York landing subdivision to the east.

These lines have adequate capacity to serve this project.

Sewer will be provided through the New York landing subdivision and be serviced by the New York Landing Lift Station.

The city is in negotiations to take over the New York Landing Lift Station with a latecomers agreement to reimburse the development that installed that station.

The developer shall provide documentation that the existing pumps in the New York landing lift station are adequate to serve the property without upgrade.

So as far as the analysis of the plat, she covered it pretty well.

The density is 2.74, which fits within the range for the medium density residential.

The lot sizes in the RS7 zone can range from 7,000 square feet to 14,000 square feet.

The plat shows a range of 7,04 square feet to 11,395 square feet.

All of the lots meet the lot width and depth required by city code.

The landscape plan was reviewed by the City Forester, and some requests were made seeking alternative species of some of the trees that were listed due to some diseases that have been rampant lately.

As far as correspondence is concerned, the engineering division had their comments regarding traffic, access, utilities, drainage, and irrigation.

The NAMA building department had their typical comments about adhering to building code.

The forester talked about the trees that had some disease that need to be replaced on the landscape plan.

The police department is recommending a commitment to fund.02 additional officers and 0.1 additional support staff.

The closest police department is 4.8 miles away.

The call volume in this area is 103 service calls annually.

The police department is recommending a commitment to fund.02 additional officers and.17 firefighter positions.

So as far as annexation is concerned, there are four criteria to be used in determining the appropriateness of annexation.

All landowners have consented to this annexation.

The property is contiguous to the city limits.

The comprehensive plan includes this area within its area of annexation.

And the property is subject to the city's agreement with the current highway district.

And as for um the zoning, the RS4 zone is an allowed zone within the medium, or sorry, RS7.

That's incorrect.

RS7 is an allowed zone within the medium density residential designation.

There are three criteria for determining the appropriateness of the zoning.

Staff has found that the request is in harmony with the comprehensive plan.

The proposal would provide for uses that are deemed to be compatible with the adjoining properties that are also residential.

The proposed zoning is in the interest of the public and reasonably necessary.

Um it as it matches the comp plan to define compatibility.

Um it will bring um improvements to the property.

These are the recommended conditions of approval based on the engineering comments.

And these are your potential motions.

I'll stand for any questions.

Questions, anyone okay?

We'll open it up for public testimony.

Madam Clerk, is there anybody signed up?

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

Anyone online?

These guys don't care.

Okay.

Seeing none, I would take a minute.

Bonnie.

Well, yeah.

Slayton, do you have anything you'd like to add?

Do we have any questions for Ms.

Leighton?

No, I don't.

Um I'll just say quickly again, Bonnie Lane for the record.

Um we reviewed the staff report.

We're in agreement with the conditions of approval that staff have recommended for um this project, should you uh choose to approve us this evening.

So thank you very much for your time.

And if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

Nobody?

Thanks.

Okay, thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Motion closed public hearing.

Second.

It's been moved by Kehho, second by Garner to close the public hearing.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, public hearing is closed.

I'm thinking seems like a no-brainer.

It's just filling in more of what's already there.

So I don't yeah, and I like all the extra open space too.

Yep.

Filling into the canal.

So meant to ask this question.

I guess I'm not getting maybe not.

So this is Hudson Yards.

The other one's New York landing.

There's stuff going on over here.

Excuse Steve's.

I'll stay back here.

So there's there's all these New York names, and then you got Red Sox Way.

Right in the middle of the subdivision.

There's not a Yankees in here.

There's a mess.

Maybe Corey was a Yankee.

Who knows?

Maybe it's an anti-Yankees thing because there's a Mets in here.

Anyway, I agree.

I think it's a perfect infill project.

Um it doesn't add any new connections to the streets.

It's got green space.

It's compatible, so I'd support it.

Sure.

We put a condition in that they need to rename one of them.

That one was Fenway Road.

There's already a Fenway subdivision coming to the south of that.

So no.

Okay.

There's a there's a theme in this area that is not compatible, and I don't know if that's that compatibility that we can consider.

Street naming is uh all under GIS, and there's a giant list they have to be unique on.

So street naming gets challenging anymore.

Bonnie, can we get rid of the basketball court and put in a baseball field?

Sorry.

Okay.

Deference.

I move to recommend approval of the project as stated on the screen.

Second.

It's been moved by Daph or second by Keyhoe to recommend approval for this item.

All those in favor.

Any opposed.

Okay.

Motion carries.

You're welcome.

Take back what I said.

There is a Yankees way.

Okay, item 3 4, zoning map amendment for RS6 to BC zoning district at 1111 11th Avenue North.

For Raquel Pradraza.

Good evening, everyone.

Thanks for letting me speak.

My name is Lenin.

And I'm here to represent uh Noah Lechuga and Raquel Pedraza.

Because they say that my English is better than theirs.

That's a black.

Okay, they speak really good English.

Can we get it?

If you have if you guys have any questions, just get back to me.

I am requesting a rezoning on my property.

Going order.

Can we please get first, last, and Lenin Caballero?

L E N I M Caballero, C A B SM Boy, L E R O.

Your address.

What was that?

Sorry?

Your address?

My address or the address on the property.

Yours.

It is 1125 Powell Avenue.

Nampa, Idaho, 83687.

Perfect.

All right.

Thank you.

I am requesting a rezoning on my property in order to operate a mobile auto repair business with limited low impact use on the site.

The proposal use is specifically for storage of tools, equipment, and automotive automotive parts, as well as preparation and dispatch to off-site service locations.

The business will operate as strictly as a mobile service.

Whatever their vehicle is situated.

The only individuals involved in the business operations will be Raquel Pedrasa and Noel Lechuga.

There will be no additional employees, no ship changes, and no increase in traffic beyond normal residential use.

Business related travel will consist so subtly of deporting the property to service to service customers and returning upon completion of service calls.

A shop located on the property will be used only for a storage of tools, equipment, and parts, as well as of maintenance and preparation related to the mobile repair services.

This proposed use is attended to be quiet, low impact, and compatible with the surrounding surrounding properties.

Sorry, I'm I get really nervous about tacking in person.

That's what I'm kind of like.

You're doing really good.

You're doing really good.

And that's it.

Okay.

That's all we have.

The address of the property.

It's 1111 11th Avenue North.

They're in Ampa 83667.

Do we have questions?

Yeah.

No.

No.

No.

Okay.

Good.

Okay.

I I want to I want to call Rodney because he's not ready.

He can do it.

I'll let you do that, Chris.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chairman and Commissioners.

Christie Watkins, principal planner for the city of Nampa.

As stated, the request before you this evening is to rezone from RS6 to BC at 1111 11th Avenue North to allow the operation of a mobile auto mechanic business.

The property is currently located in a medium density residential designation on the comprehensive plan, but it is adjacent to a commercial designation which can be stretched onto this property.

And the Mason Creek Industrial Park there, as well as the um the shortline railroad.

To the east is an RS6 property that is actually a storage yard as far as we can tell.

For that property to be used in that way at this point.

And to the South West is a residence, and to the southeast is also residential.

So these are the uses that are allowed in 1032.

So a dwelling combined with a business is a permitted use in the BC zone.

Automobile parts and accessories that will be stored in the outbuilding is a permitted use in the BC zone.

Automobile and truck repair, if it's on site, requires a conditional use permit.

As stated, they're not requesting a conditional use permit tonight because that service will not happen there.

So should they choose to turn this into a full-fledged business and be approved to do auto repair, they would be required to bring the property up to code, which would require a 20-foot landscape buffer in the front and a number of parking spaces that would be required based on the usable area of the buildings once they choose to convert it.

Again, just for your information, they're not required to do that at this time because they're not converting it.

But if they do convert it to a full-on auto repair business, these are the requirements that they will be held to.

Co-compliance has noted that there are some code violations on this property.

They are maintaining, they need to maintain whatever nuisance was outlined by code compliance.

They didn't outline it in their memo, they just noticed nuisance.

Prevention of vehicular nuisances.

So I'm thinking they want to get ahead of any kind of storage of vehicles.

And then it's unlawful to leave inoperative vehicles on private property.

So again, I feel like this is kind of an effort to get ahead of some things that might take place on the property.

The NAMPA Fire District does not oppose this application, subject to compliance with all of the code requirements listed by the building department.

The engineering department does not oppose this application with the following conditions.

And the public roadway that provides access to the site is 11th Avenue, which is a collector.

Public right-of-way along 11th Avenue at the required width has already been dedicated, so no further dedication is required at this time.

Frontage improvements, including sidewalk, curb, and gutter, are already there, so they don't have to install that.

And the city maintains all of the utilities in 11th Avenue.

They're available to the site.

So the facts for rezoning there again are the three criteria.

It is in harmony with the comprehensive plan.

Is in the interest of the public because it will be providing a service to our community that is much needed.

These are your potential motions, and I'll stand for any questions.

Christy.

Um so any storage that they might have on site around their building, um you're not likely going to see it.

Um if they did outgrow this location, then I would assume that they would either build another outbuilding to store some of their stuff or find a better location and grow their business.

Okay.

Okay.

Can you let me ask more questions?

Please had a rough night.

Um I know we can't change this stuff on the fly.

Is this the best way to get this compliant?

Like there's no path through conditional use or it seems weird to have this chunk of BC, this residential zone.

Like I assume uh home occupation wouldn't work for this use.

Yeah.

Um, thank you, Mr.

Chairman, and um Commissioner Morgan.

Our home occupation is an interesting uh device.

Um we used to allow automotive repair, quote unquote.

Um in a home occupation situation.

Um we had a lot of problems with that.

We've had a lot of complaints about that, and that was removed from code.

Um as far as storing automotive parts and operating technically business out of the location.

Um we don't have anything in our home occupation code that would address that particular use.

So by rezoning it, then um, like I showed you on the chart, those are the things that would be allowed in that zone, which is what they're asking to do.

So we we kind of went around this in our office as well.

Like, what would be the best way to address this problem?

Um, because um the only automotive repair situation that we had for our home occupations was no longer allowed.

So this is the only way we could figure to get it compliant.

And I guess I'm already tipping my hand.

I'm a little concerned about like I don't have a concern with them doing this.

I'm concerned about when they outgrow it and move now.

We've got this chunk of BC on this skinny lot in the middle of a bunch of RS6, unless you think the right that's the way the rest of this neighborhood's gonna go as it develops, but if you look down the road, I I think there's one little road of maybe duplexes.

Yeah, and then it turns into industrial the rest of the way, so that it's it's right on the edge.

Yeah.

And the one and the one right next to it's that's what it is now anyway.

It's just not zoned for it.

Correct.

That's what the future land use map wants it to be.

Wants it to be commercial or industrial?

Um, I did I don't see the code or the colors, but what's the future land use map?

So the future land use map on the property currently is medium density residential, but it is touching commercial, so it can be stretched.

Did you say somewhere in there that it was adjoining some county property?

No, it's adjoining the railroad property.

Well, what was the oh yeah?

I wonder if that got copy-pasted from it.

I think it probably did.

Okay, because they have to access it off Happy Valley.

Not in the bottom right.

Oh my god.

That's all that's a long access.

Wow.

That's crazy.

It just shows that I was reading, not listening.

Okay.

Um you don't think there's and I guess we couldn't do another path today without re-advertising and everything, but there's no way like it's not automotive repair, like if people aren't bringing it to that site, I'm trying to see what the difference between that is and having gun parts for sale at your or something else, any other product for sale that you take somewhere else, but you didn't you didn't feel like that would be justified in the home occupation code.

Well, because we specifically took that out of our home occupation requirements for automotive uh I don't know, uses.

Yeah, deliberately.

We felt yeah, we deliberately took that out of our code.

We kind of felt like we needed to take this a step further than just a conditional use permit.

Than just a conditional use permit.

Yeah.

Rodney stood up.

I don't know if it's a good idea.

Yeah, they may want to say something.

Name and address for the record, please.

And that was a specific direction from our elected officials to do that.

So we had it, we had the concerns, and then we just we were directed to make that change in code.

And so I I just don't think that the home occupation is the tool that the our elected officials want to use for that.

You asked earlier about like conditional use permits and you know that they are used to address impacts to neighboring properties like noise and fumes and that kind of thing.

But um in this situation, they they just were not comfortable with those land uses at all because they were claiming at the time a lot of people were claiming, hey, we're not gonna impact noise, we're not gonna impact traffic, and then it was happening.

So they wanted to eliminate that as any even an option that we would have to go back and mitigate later.

And I I think I agree with that um reasoning.

I just don't know that that's what this is, but that's my opinion, and as stated earlier, I'm not a planning professional, so that's all bro, I'll be quiet.

Well done.

I'm all done.

Thank you.

Any other questions for I got one?

This is for my education, but what is the difference between a rezone and a zoning map amendment?

Or are they the same thing?

Um, Commissioner Daffer, they are the same thing.

Okay, that's it.

Rezones just easier to say.

Anybody else?

Okay.

We will open up public testimony to this item.

Madam Clerk, do we have sign-up sheet?

We do not.

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

Seeing none, I would show close public hearing.

Oh well.

Would you like to come back up and tell us anything else or no?

Okay.

There we go.

Okay.

It's been moved by Keyhouse.

Second by Morgan to close the public hearing.

All those in favor?

All right.

Any opposed.

Public hearing is closed.

Well finished my thought, then I'll be quiet.

But I think I I want this to go through.

I want them to be able to do this business here.

There's no there's no compatibility issues for me right now.

It it I don't love the idea of having this little spot zone of a BC in this residential area.

I'll get your guys' thoughts on it.

I don't know if it's enough for me to reject it, but that's my concern.

I do, I mean it's it's touching the residential on the one side.

I mean, it's close to the residential, but again, it's like right in between pretty heavy industrial stuff and some residential, right?

And so because of the uses that are just you know a couple of hundred feet away, I it's not as big an issue for me as it might be otherwise.

And like you said, the people right next to them, they're doing the same thing.

That should be a BC zone as well.

They just haven't done it, so and a lot of those are pretty old houses on some good sized lots, so maybe as they get redeveloped, it'll just continue to I don't have a problem with it.

Yeah, I don't just like you said, because it's so close.

And if we were right smack in the middle of residential, I might feel a little bit different about it, but said you can't even see what's going on from the outside of the property.

Yeah, but theoretically, somebody could come down, tear down the house, put in a business there.

I don't think it would ever happen.

Like I'm not gonna oppose it on those grounds, but that's kind of what we're letting happen though.

Yeah, but like I say, a lot of muscles are pretty old on on good size lots, so if it did start to get redeveloped, it's gonna be a more intense use anyway.

Yeah.

Some of those other requirements.

True.

I'll support it.

I think that's a good idea.

Mr.

Chair.

Yep.

Um I move to recommend approval of the rezone as stated on screen with all recommended conditions of approval and proposed findings.

Second.

It's been moved by Daffer, second by Turner to approve this item or recommend approval for this item.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Motion carries.

Okay.

Um now we would like to invite Rodney up so he could practice his budget presentation.

Oh, well, can we adjourn this meeting first so the rest of us can go home?

We don't have somebody to adjourn the remote.

Yeah, we're asking for adjournment.

No, he's not here.

I guess I guess we're stuck here all night.

Oh, he's on his way.

We I invited him and now we gotta listen.

Thank you.

Good luck.

We need more money.

Second.

Mr.

Chairman.

Yes.

Make a motion that we adjourn.

Okay.

Who's seconded?

Who wants it?

Yeah.

So that would have to them.

Okay, it's been motion by Garner, second by daffer to adjourn the meeting.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Meeting is adjourned.

Now everybody has to go home.