[1:47] Okay, I've got six o'clock. Let's get this party started.

[1:52] I would like to welcome everyone to the February 10th, 2000. No, not 10th.

[1:57] » Wrong date. >> Uh February 24th, 2026 planning and

[2:02] zoning meeting for the city of Nampa. Um, we really appreciate your attendance

[2:06] and being part of helping us shape the future of the city. Um, let's start with

[2:12] roll call, please.

[2:18] » Here, >> Copeland. Kirkman. Morgan

[2:22] » here. >> Kho

[2:23] » here. >> Turner

[2:24] » here. >> Daffer here.

[2:26] » Miller >> here. Garner

[2:28] » here. >> All right. You have a quum.

[2:32] » Thank you. have a report

[2:38] Ashby.

[2:46] Good evening. Um, chairman and commissioners. Rodney Ashby, planning

[2:50] and zoning director. For the record, um, we had several projects go before a

[2:55] couple of projects go before the city council last week. The first one was the

[2:59] subdivision final plaque approval for Middle Mbury North number four and this

[3:05] was northwest of Orchard Avenue and Midway Road. Um you had recommended

[3:10] approval on the 10th of uh February. This was for 13 single family detached

[3:18] dwelling units and four common lots. And the city council did approve that. The

[3:23] next one was a public hearing for annexation and um zoning for the ride

[3:28] ofway along Cherry Lane um as part of the East Ranch subdivision. Really

[3:33] simple one. If you recall, we just we they just missed some right away that

[3:39] they needed to incorporate into the annexation and so that one was approved.

[3:43] You had recommended approval as well. And then um the next one was a variance

[3:49] of 102320 limiting permanent freestanding pole or

[3:54] monument signs in the BC zone. Uh this is near the um or excuse me northwest of

[4:02] Lake Lel Avenue and 12th Avenue Road. Uh right along um

[4:08] you know I'm trying to think of the name of the shopping center there where True

[4:12] Value. >> Thank you. Hawaii Center. Um and uh that

[4:18] one was approved for a little bit larger sign and um height. Essentially, they're

[4:26] keeping the same sign height. It was just approved in the past when it was

[4:31] allowed at that height and now our current code would not allow it and

[4:34] they're just um putting in a new sign. Um and then last of all was annexation

[4:41] and zoning for Orchard Acres um to BC and Orchard Acres is one south

[4:48] of Greenhurst Road east of um Happy Valley Road. Um, you had recommended

[4:55] denial and there was five yeses and three nos on that one due to traffic uh

[5:02] concerns and uh the proximity of the train and congestion

[5:09] um impact to schools and multifamily were some of the concerns expressed at

[5:14] the hearing and uh city council as well denied that uh project. So that was a

[5:21] four to two vote and that's all I have for you.

[5:26] » Thank you,

[5:29] » Mr. Chairman. >> Yes.

[5:31] » I make a motion that we remove from the consent agenda subdivision final plan

[5:36] approval for Mberry South number one at zero Midway Road uh for Kent Brown

[5:41] representing Endurance Holdings LLC. Original concept was for 50 single

[5:45] family detached lots and seven common lots and the applicant has requested to

[5:50] put this on hold. So I would make a motion that we remove from the consent

[5:54] agenda. >> Second.

[5:57] » Been moved by Garner, seconded by Daffer to remove this item from the consent

[6:01] agenda. All those in favor? >> I.

[6:03] » Any opposed? >> Okay, we'll go ahead and remove that

[6:07] item. >> And chairman, if I may, um maybe a

[6:10] clarification on the motion. Is this to remove it from consent to general agenda

[6:15] or to continue it to a later date? >> So some clarification for that. They're

[6:22] not ready to do anything with it at this point. They will resubmit and we will

[6:26] put them on a new agenda when they resubmit.

[6:29] » Okay. >> Remove.

[6:30] » Well, we might just for clarity sake, we'll maybe have another motion to

[6:33] remove it entirely from the entire agenda.

[6:36] » Okay. Because usually when we lift something from consent, it will then go

[6:39] into the remainder agenda for further discussion.

[6:43] » Okay? >> And so this will just be lifting it from

[6:45] the entire agenda. >> Okay?

[6:48] » Mr. Mr. Chairman, for clarification purposes, I recommend that we remove the

[6:55] subdivision final plat approval for M middleberry south number one at zero

[6:59] Midway Road parcel number as noted in the staff report for Kent Brown

[7:05] representing Endurance Holdings LLC. Original concept was for 50 single

[7:08] family detached lots and seven common lots and remove it from the agenda

[7:12] entirely. Second,

[7:16] » that works. Thanks, sir. Again moved by Garner, seconded by Daffer to remove

[7:21] this item completely from the agenda. All those in favor?

[7:24] » I. >> Any opposed?

[7:26] » Okay. This item will be removed. >> Mr. Chairman.

[7:30] » Yes. >> I recommend that we approve the amended

[7:33] consent agenda removing the item just removed.

[7:38] » Second. >> Been moved and moved by Garner, second

[7:42] by Daffer to approve the consent agenda that is now amended. All those in favor

[7:48] I >> I. Any opposed?

[7:50] » Okay. Consent agenda has been passed. >> Updated.

[7:55] » Updated. Um Okay. So, we'll go ahead and get

[7:58] started with our meeting. Um if you haven't been to our meeting before, we

[8:03] will allow the uh applicant to come up. They'll have time, five minutes to

[8:09] present what they would like to do with their item. Um then we'll turn the time

[8:14] over to staff. They will give us their report. They have unlimited time. Then

[8:19] we'll open it up for public hearing at which time you can come up and speak

[8:22] for, against, or undecided on each item. Um, you will have three minutes to tell

[8:27] us what you think about the project, whether you like it, you don't like it,

[8:30] and why. Um, we're all pretty good about taking notes. Uh, applicants are usually

[8:36] pretty good about taking notes. And then when the public is done speaking, we'll

[8:40] call the applicant back up and ask those questions of them at that point. so you

[8:45] guys can um hear what they have to say um and hopefully answer some of your

[8:49] questions. We'll also ask some questions of staff because those are always

[8:55] brought up as well. So, um, we'll go ahead and get started with item 3-1,

[9:01] conditional use permit for barber or beauty shop, day-pa nail salon, Grace

[9:06] Beauty Company in the CN zoning district in CH Form District at 12213th Avenue

[9:12] South for Desiree Vasquez. We're representing Ian Lawson.

[9:22] » Um, and thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Desire Vasquez and I'm

[9:27] the owner of Grace Beauty Co. Salon. I am here to today to respectfully request

[9:32] approval of our permit so we can continue to operate and serve our

[9:35] community. Grace Beauty Co. was founded with the vision of creating a family

[9:39] oriented salon environment that is welcoming, peaceful, and grounded in

[9:43] strong values. We strive to provide a space where clients of all ages feel

[9:48] comfortable. mothers and daughters, families, and individuals who want not

[9:52] just beauty service, but genuine care and connection. While there are other

[9:56] salons in our area, our business offers something intentionally different. We

[10:01] focus on a calm, serviced driven atmosphere that reflects our commitment

[10:04] to kindness, integrity, and treating every guest with respect. Our goal is

[10:08] not to compete with neighboring businesses, but to complement the local

[10:12] marketplace by serving clients who are specifically looking for this type of

[10:17] environment. As a small locallyowned business, we contribute to the community

[10:21] by supporting independent professionals, creating flexible employment

[10:25] opportunities and encouraging our team members to grow their careers while

[10:29] serving the people of Nampa. Our clients are local residents, families, and

[10:33] neighbors, and we are proud to be part of the fabric of the city. We are

[10:37] committed to operating responsibly, maintaining a professional and

[10:41] well-managed space, and being a positive presence in the area. Approving this

[10:45] permit allows us to continue building a business that reflects the values of

[10:50] family service and community care. Thank you for your time, your consideration,

[10:54] and your support of local small businesses.

[10:56] » Thank you. >> Oh, could you give your address for the

[11:01] record, please? Name and you already gave your name and address.

[11:04] » Uh 121 South Georgia Avenue, Cal, Idaho 83605. Thank you.

[11:11] » Okay, Damian, you're up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and

[11:16] commissioners. Damian Snodgrass, associate planner. So, the requested

[11:19] action item today is for a conditional use permit for a barber or beauty shop,

[11:23] day spa or nail salon. This is more specifically a nail salon. Um, within

[11:29] the CN Central Nampa zoning district and the CH Form district. Um, going to go

[11:35] into some of that code since we just recently had a code change where we

[11:39] adopted formbbased code. So this will be our first application coming through

[11:42] that falls under those new zoning guidelines.

[11:48] So the property details, it's in the downtown comprehensive map designation

[11:52] and the current zoning is CN, but is specifically under that CH central

[11:57] historic form district. To the north, south, east, and west, we have all

[12:01] similar form districts and zones, and there are current utilities to the

[12:05] property. The applicable regulations here are the

[12:09] criteria for a conditional use permit which we can cover in the findings as

[12:14] well as some applicable regulations for formbased code. So form-based code is

[12:20] was implemented so that we can redefine and show the form and look and

[12:26] feel of the downtown area. And in doing so we have more building requirements

[12:31] and things like that that will go into these developments coming downtown.

[12:36] However, since this is a change of occupancy um and we'll have a tenant

[12:41] improvement to the existing building and the building itself isn't changing, we

[12:45] can apply all of the criteria for those downtown implementations with this kind

[12:50] of application. So, we took some of the code that we know that we can apply to

[12:54] this under the use table in 10153C. uh barber shop, beauty, salon, and spa

[13:02] falls under localized services, which is a conditional use permit for this

[13:06] specific type of localized service within the CH form district. And over on

[13:13] the right here, we have a map of the form district. And just to go over that

[13:18] for everybody, the the form districts fall under that CM zoning district. So

[13:24] there are different looks and feels within each form district that falls

[13:27] under the same zoning. So each forum district will have different criteria

[13:31] that it has to adhere to and follow as well as land uses within those.

[13:37] So for this one, we did a downtown analysis of that. And looking at the

[13:43] pre-existing building, I attached a photo in your staff report of the

[13:45] pre-existing building. it mostly follows the row building type um within this

[13:51] zone on the requirements because the building itself doesn't conform with

[13:56] what we would want for a new row type. We just took the criteria that we can

[14:00] apply to the existing one which is on the ground floor a localized service

[14:05] would be a permitted use and the required occupied space which is a 30-ft

[14:10] minimum from all the facade and full doors. The required occupied space is

[14:14] the space within the front of the building that is usable and walkable and

[14:18] open. Basically, what this allows is stopping from storage or something

[14:24] blocking the windows essentially. So, you can't put all of your storage right

[14:28] on the front of the window and you look in, you can't see what it is. 30 ft from

[14:31] that window, you have to have usable space. Whether in this case it's nail

[14:36] salons and you see people when you walk by the look and feel of downtown is you

[14:40] can look in and see that it is a nail salon and it's not blocked off on the

[14:43] windows. And so with that looking at the existing building and the criteria that

[14:50] we can apply we found most of these to be not applicable. So I took a lot of

[14:56] that criteria out that we would apply to the row building type and just kept

[14:59] these ones be for this kind of conditional use permit.

[15:04] And here are some pictures of a row building type as defined within that

[15:08] area of code. Again, this building does not conform with that code since it is

[15:13] only one story. Um, and within this zone, we would need them to be minimum

[15:18] of two stories. So, this is just the criteria that we felt we could attach to

[15:23] this conditional use permit.

[15:27] For correspondence, we received a comment from the building department and

[15:32] their criteria and conditions are that it follows all of the city ordinances

[15:36] and codes for title 4 building regulations. And with that, having a

[15:41] tenant improvement permit pulled for the change of occupancy and any remodeling

[15:44] or occu or alterations to the scope of the space. A licensed architect will

[15:50] have to provide a code analysis for any design change of the nail salon, any

[15:53] mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and structural permits as well as mechanical

[15:57] ventilation permits that are required for a nail salon. And uh all of that

[16:02] needs to come through a licensed architect or engineer as well as some

[16:05] accessibility requirements as far as ADA requirements will have to be addressed

[16:09] at the time of the building permit. For public comments, we did receive one late

[16:13] comment. Um, we received one comment from the neighboring business um,

[16:18] regarding the amount of barber shops and salons going along in the area along

[16:22] with health and safety concerns of neighboring tenants and most is most of

[16:26] this was in regards to the ventilation system which is addressed by the

[16:31] building tenant improvement which will be later on in the conditions.

[16:36] So here are those criteria that the proposed use is supported by the NRA

[16:40] comprehensive plan. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance

[16:44] of the property and project will not adversely impact the intended character

[16:47] and appearance of the general vicinity. That the proposed use is served

[16:50] adequately by essential public facilities and services. and that the

[16:54] proposed use will not involve any activities or processes, materials,

[16:57] equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,

[17:01] property or general welfare by reason of excess traffic, noise, smoke, fumes,

[17:05] glares or odors. Here are those proposed findings. Um the

[17:10] biggest ones to bring into the relevant facts is that the proposed use must

[17:15] conform to that international building code and adhere to those HVAC

[17:17] ventilation standards to mitigate any kind of fumes or odors that may be

[17:22] emitted from this type of business. And as far as the other ones is that it will

[17:27] conform to the central Nampa historic form district design standards if there

[17:32] was anything to happen to the outside of the building. Um the proposed uses near

[17:37] other businesses of the same use, sewer, water, irrigation services already

[17:41] provided to the property and the NA comprehensive plan describes objectives

[17:45] of the downtown regarding business and development expansion which includes

[17:49] professional services as such. So weighing all of the facts and criteria

[17:54] under the conditional use permit, staff found that these criteria were to be

[17:57] met. Here are the proposed conditions. That

[18:02] the applicant owner shall comply with all city codes, policies, and standards

[18:04] at time of building permit, including those listed by the building department.

[18:08] And that the applicant maintains the requirements of the row building type

[18:11] during the duration of the cup. And listed is the ground floor use of

[18:16] keeping that use on the ground floor and that the required occupied space be used

[18:22] with having that 30 foot of walkable open space within the front of that

[18:25] building. And any others that the commission may add. Here are your pot

[18:30] here are your potential motions and I will stand for any questions.

[18:34] » Damian, in your opening statement, you mentioned

[18:38] a letter from another business next door to this

[18:42] u business they want to open and they were talking about they should have a

[18:47] ventilation system which you mentioned. Um, if you agreed and required the new

[18:53] business to have a ventilation system, could you

[18:58] go back or could we go back and say to the business that's asking them to have

[19:01] a ventilation system that they should have their own because they have tobacco

[19:05] products that have an odor in themselves.

[19:10] So when it comes to back requiring another business to update their

[19:15] systems, that would more fall under the building department. A tenant

[19:19] improvement or change of occupancy would need to happen to bring it up to

[19:22] different codes or standards. And um the building department would determine then

[19:27] what are those applicable criteria in accordance to the building code that

[19:31] would be required for their kind of business type. But as it sits right now,

[19:34] they would have to come back in for some type of construction

[19:38] to that building to back require them to get a new ventilation system. So they

[19:43] would have to come through and get a building permit. Let me rephrase the

[19:47] question because I'm not sure you answered what I was thinking of.

[19:51] » Can an existing business require a new business to do something that they are

[19:54] not required to do themselves like the ventilation system? In other

[19:59] words, can the new guy say to the old guy, "Well, you don't have one, so why

[20:05] do I have to have one or whatever?" >> Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Kho, um,

[20:10] so they can make that comment to you,

[20:15] but the building department has the requirement on the tenant improvement.

[20:19] So, whenever someone comes in to move into a new space, the building

[20:23] department can require it. The neighbor can't come and say, "You shall do these

[20:28] things." It's it's up to building code to make that determination.

[20:32] » But but if building code people said, "Yeah, it's a good idea. You should do

[20:35] it." Can the new Can they go back to the other guy and say, "Well, your your

[20:41] product smells just as bad, if not worse, than ours does."

[20:44] » Not if they've already been approved to be in that space. If they have

[20:47] certificate of occupancy for that space and they've met the codes for their type

[20:51] of a business, then no. >> Okay. So, it's do as I say, not do as I

[20:54] do. >> Thank you very much. You're welcome.

[20:58] » I think it'd be helpful to state that it's not the opinion of the code

[21:03] official either. It's what's required by the building code.

[21:06] » But does that apply to the new one and the old one or do you

[21:09] » It applies to all of them. >> But it depends when the code was adopted

[21:12] because maybe when the business that's next door went in, that specific item

[21:17] wasn't >> a code. They didn't have to

[21:20] » wasn't in the code. >> But the it's the code says if you have

[21:23] this type of product, you have to have this type of ventilation. It's not the

[21:27] building official takes a sniff and says, "I don't like it and I'm going to

[21:31] require it." >> Right.

[21:32] » Same thing. >> I just wanted a level playing field. I

[21:34] can't They didn't want one guy beating up the other guy.

[21:36] » Right. They should be under whatever code was in effect at the time.

[21:39] » Yeah. >> Same thing with the business. You can't

[21:42] They can say literally anything they want. It's just whatever's in the code

[21:45] at the time you apply. So, just because they said it doesn't mean

[21:49] it's going to happen. >> Right. Thank you all.

[21:54] » Mr. Mr. Chair, can I ask a >> please

[21:56] » question? The other concern that was raised was saturation of the market in

[22:01] that area. My tendency is to let the market

[22:06] determine what businesses would be profitable.

[22:10] Is there a planning reason to be worried about a saturation of a certain type of

[22:15] business in an area? Like is what's your thoughts on that?

[22:22] when it comes to um other in this instance a conditional use is coming

[22:28] before you in a public hearing but in the instance that other areas where this

[22:33] business would be permitted um we don't have any plans in place that go over the

[22:38] specific occupancy of each individual building

[22:42] » um and in the findings that this business type is permitted in a lot of

[22:46] other commercial type business zones and if every single one of them became a a

[22:51] barber shop. There's nothing in planning code that would dictate that we limit

[22:55] the amount of each business type in each different zone.

[22:59] » So, there's not a a planning principle that you learn in school that teaches

[23:02] you to avoid clustering certain types of businesses. I didn't go to planning

[23:06] school. I don't know. >> Now, you're just being

[23:11] » No, these guys are planning professionals. They learn these there's

[23:14] principles behind this stuff, right? So, I'm not trying to be facitious.

[23:19] like I like a diversity of businesses seems healthy too.

[23:23] » Yeah, Mr. Chairman. >> Um, so that's why I was wondering and

[23:28] and maybe would you like to speak to maybe you don't want to speak to why

[23:34] this particular business requires a CUP versus other types?

[23:40] It is within the adopted code that right now under the central NPA that this

[23:46] business type is conditional um as adopted within this code um the

[23:52] code would need to come back forth and be changed in front of city council if

[23:56] » council decided otherwise. >> Thanks Mr. Chairman Kman. As to the

[24:02] proliferation of the same type of business, that's actually a healthy

[24:06] thing because it tends to weed out the poor

[24:10] businesses, the ones that don't do a good job. Um because the competition

[24:15] will drive them out of business. So that's a healthy thing to have, not not

[24:18] a detriment.

[24:26] Anybody else? Okay, we'll go ahead and open the public

[24:31] testimony portion of our meeting up. Madam clerk, is there anybody signed up?

[24:37] » Okay. Is there anyone that would like to speak for, against, or undecided on this

[24:41] specific item?

[24:46] Okay, Vasquez, would you like to come back up?

[24:51] » Any questions we have for >> any other comments you'd like to make?

[24:57] » She I Mr. Mr. Chairman, >> did you get and are you in agreement

[25:02] with the conditions as they've been stated in the staff report? Are you

[25:05] aware of them? >> Yes. So, we have our own laws too within

[25:09] like the Idaho, you know, so the ventilation system. I already knew that

[25:13] was going to be >> Yeah. So,

[25:16] » Okay, perfect. >> Yeah.

[25:17] » Okay. >> Thank you.

[25:22] » Okay, I guess we're good. Thank you, >> Mr. Chairman. Yep. I'll make a motion

[25:26] that we close the public hearing. >> Second.

[25:29] » It's been moved by Garner, second by Kho to pl the close the public hearing. All

[25:33] those in favor? >> I.

[25:34] » Any opposed? >> Okay. Public hearing is closed.

[25:39] Thoughts, ideas?

[25:44] » I say more than market, let it work itself. Y

[25:50] » Yeah, >> I agree. I think the people she brought

[25:55] with them seemed to be fairly passionate about what they do. And I could tell by

[26:00] the looks on their faces as she was giving her proposal that they are and

[26:04] they're they're they want to do this for the right reason. So I I think

[26:08] » anything to do with the gun on any of the address?

[26:10] » No. >> Oh, okay.

[26:12] » I think I think I think uh I think they'll do well.

[26:15] » Yeah, I think so, too. >> That's on the record, Steve.

[26:20] » Mr. Chair. >> Yeah. I move to approve the project as

[26:24] stated on screen with recommended conditions and proposed findings.

[26:29] » I'll second it. >> Okay. It's been moved by Daffer, second

[26:33] by Garner to approve this item. All those in favor?

[26:36] » I >> I.

[26:37] » Any opposed? >> Okay.

[26:45] This cup will become effective 15 calendar days from the date the written

[26:49] decision and reason statement is provided to the applicant unless an

[26:52] appeal has been filed with the planning and zoning department with the

[26:56] appropriate fee. No action should be taken on this CUP until the appeal

[27:00] period has concluded. The applicant must confirm with the planning and zoning

[27:04] staff that there have been no appeals. >> Okay.

[27:08] » Thank you.

[27:11] You don't have to you don't have to hang out for the rest of night if you don't

[27:13] want to. >> You're good to go.

[27:16] » Thank you so much. >> Okay. Item 3-2, conditional use permit

[27:21] for automobile or truck repair for budget tires at 102 11th Avenue North

[27:25] and 106 11th Avenue North for Javier Gonzalez.

[27:30] » Oh, how you doing? >> Okay, just name and address for the

[27:34] record and tell us what you want to do. >> Uh, Javier Gonzalez Jr. My address is

[27:37] 408 2nd Avenue North here in Nampa. Uh the address is 1021 11th Avenue North

[27:44] right in front of Commercial Tire. >> Okay.

[27:50] Tell us about what you want to hear. >> Um so I'm the owner of Budget Tires on

[27:54] Third Street North and 11th Avenue North of one block away. Uh we just acquired

[27:58] this building. We will be performing the same thing just one block away and that

[28:03] is uh selling new and used tires and performing just auto repair light auto

[28:08] repair uh auto maintenance and just providing more affordable

[28:14] tire service instead of going to like bles and commercial. So it's kind of

[28:18] like a little bit cheaper option for people that are in a a good spot. So

[28:24] sometimes they just can afford a used tire and they can't get new tires at the

[28:29] time. So this is just affordable option for the area. And it's been pretty

[28:33] successful. We've done about 20,000 vehicles since we've been open since a

[28:38] year and a half. And our projections are somewhere around 10,000 to 15,000

[28:44] vehicles per year that we'll be servicing. And most of them are

[28:48] residents of Nampa. And yeah, that's that's about it. Any

[28:54] questions? >> Um, no, I don't think so.

[28:57] » Right now, >> no pet cremation services.

[29:01] » No, not not at this time. >> Okay.

[29:07] » Okay. Appreciate it. We'll call you back up.

[29:09] » Thank you.

[29:13] » Okay, Damian. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman and

[29:17] Commissioner. Damian Snodgrass, associate planner. The requested action

[29:21] item tonight is a conditional use permit for automobile or truck repair for

[29:26] budget tires at 1021 11th Avenue North and 106 11th Avenue North. And uh the

[29:32] concept is to sell tires, fix flats, and occasionally break pads.

[29:39] So, some of the property details currently this is under the BC community

[29:44] business zone and to the kind of northeast we have the BC zoning which is

[29:50] the Eagles Bar. Southeast um couldn't find the actual use of the building but

[29:55] it is a cinder block building that is also commercial. To the southwest we

[30:00] have the zoning for the Union Pacific Railard and to the northwest we have

[30:05] zoning which is the commercial tire. Um and as far as public utilities and

[30:10] services, there's already services to the property.

[30:14] Here are those applicable regulations for a conditional use permit. We'll

[30:17] cover those in the findings. And here are some more applicable

[30:22] regulations. So, a conditional use permit is required when located within

[30:27] the BC Community Business Zoning District, as well as some of the off-

[30:31] streetet parking spaces required uh for this type of business use. Um due to the

[30:37] change of use on the property and the adjoining property, which right now is a

[30:41] vacant lot, um there will have to be some site improvements that are done to

[30:45] the property, including adding striping for parking and things of that nature to

[30:51] improve the property up to current city standards.

[30:57] Here is a part of the the building plans. uh before the conditional use

[31:02] permit came forward, a building permit was submitted and that's what started

[31:06] this process of just kind of the proposed use of wanting to store some

[31:11] tires with a fence, adding a landscape buffer and then conversion of the

[31:15] existing building into a tire shop.

[31:22] So for correspondence from Nampa Development Engineering, um we received

[31:27] some comments uh about the existing utilities in the area as well as some

[31:34] notation around the construction of the parking lot for that 106 11th Avenue

[31:38] North to be reviewed by Idaho Transportation Department. So the

[31:42] conditions are that the applicant owner shall comply with all city codes,

[31:44] policies, and standards at the time of the building permit.

[31:49] From the Nampa Fire District, we received some general fire access and

[31:53] water supply comments. In addition, we received some comments regarding the the

[31:58] specific type of fire mitigation that is necessary for the storage of tires

[32:03] outside. So with under planning and zoning requirements, we would require a

[32:08] design reviewed fence to shield any of that exterior storage of merchandise on

[32:14] the side of the building, which is allowed. However, the storage of tires

[32:18] up to a certain margin will kick in some fire requirements, and the Nampa Fire

[32:22] District provided those um within their comments of what that'll specifically

[32:27] be. The M Nampa building department reviewed the proposed conditional use

[32:32] permit and had some other specifications regarding the tenant improvement that

[32:37] will be required for the change of classification of the building. U which

[32:42] include things like fire separation within the building that has to be done

[32:45] by a licensed architect and that the change of occupancy has to go with the

[32:50] international existing building code and bring the building up to compliance for

[32:55] the proposed use. Here are those propo find proposed findings

[33:02] that the proposed use is supported by the Nampa comprehensive plan and this is

[33:06] designated as commercial and this falls under one of those commercial uses. Um

[33:11] so staff found this to be met but the design construction operation

[33:16] maintenance of the property and project will not adversely impact the intended

[33:19] character and appearance of the general vicinity. Um, it fits in with

[33:23] neighboring land uses, having another tire shop directly across the street,

[33:28] um, and fits in with that general area, and it will utilize an existing building

[33:34] and have improvements to the facade. So, staff found this to be met. there is

[33:38] currently utilities available to the property

[33:43] and that the proposed use will not involve any activities, processes,

[33:46] material, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to

[33:49] any persons, property or general welfare by reason of excess traffic, noise,

[33:54] smoke, fumes, glares or odors. Um and under this that the proposed use uh will

[34:00] have mitigations put in place by the building code and the fire code that

[34:05] will mitigate any of those noise smoke fumes glares or odors that may come from

[34:10] a business of this type. And when it comes to traffic, businesses are meant

[34:15] to generate traffic to a certain margin. Um and so they it will not propose a use

[34:21] that would generate any type of excess traffic from the others in the

[34:25] surrounding use. So staff found this to be met.

[34:29] Here are those proposed conditions of approval that the applicant owner shall

[34:33] comply with all city codes, policies and standards at time of property

[34:37] development or redevelopment and prior to the issuance of a certificate of

[34:40] occupancy. So this includes the conditional use permit which will have

[34:44] any sub permits associated with that. floor plans, landscaping and irrigation

[34:49] plans, fencing plans, parking improvement plan plans with striping and

[34:53] ADA compliance, and any sign permits that will need to be done on the

[34:57] property to add any signage. That the conditional use permit is granted only

[35:01] to the current owner of the property and location for the duration of the use and

[35:04] shall not be transferable to any other owner or location. that they comply with

[35:09] all city codes policies and standards and that any proposed construction on

[35:12] the lot for 106 is subject to ITD review or comment and any others that the

[35:18] commission may impose. Here are your potential motions and I

[35:23] will stand for any questions.

[35:28] » Mr. Chair, >> yes. Um, regarding the ITD comments, I

[35:32] don't know if this is Daniel question. They're saying the only way to get in is

[35:39] through the alleyway and then the and then exit only onto 11th.

[35:44] » There are currently approaches onto 11th. With the change of use, ITD will

[35:50] um want to review that and may require changes to the access on 11th. Um

[35:55] ultimately that is ITD's jurisdiction and their decision. Um so the condition

[36:00] is just there so that um the applicant is aware that with in that building

[36:05] permit process ITD they will have to contact ITD and determine what their

[36:10] requirements will be for um the accesses on 11th. My anticipation is there

[36:16] currently two accesses there. My anticipation is one of them will be

[36:19] required to be closed. >> But can one of them be an entry? Did I

[36:22] see somewhere on there that it might be an exit only? Um,

[36:28] I didn't do the specific review on that and it looks like the applicant may be

[36:32] able to speak to that. Um, they may have already contacted ITD and had

[36:36] discussions. >> Okay. I don't know if I should opine

[36:39] now, but that would be a little bit concerning to me because as you know,

[36:42] First Street one way there. So, if you're not if you're coming from the

[36:49] eastern side of town, kind of a weird way to get in there if

[36:54] if it's only a if you can't get on there on 11th

[36:59] and you can't get on there on first if you're going the wrong way.

[37:02] » Well, and the reality is I mean, you'd be able to go up to second to come

[37:06] around the block and and access it that way or the alley.

[37:10] » Come long way down the alley >> or or come down the alley. Yes. Or what

[37:15] was the other way you said? >> Go down Second Street to 12th around the

[37:21] block and and up first. >> Oh, all the way to 12th.

[37:25] » Sure. >> Okay.

[37:28] » Wait, what? >> Yeah.

[37:32] » Second. Well, you couldn't turn into there from 11, though, right?

[37:36] » Well, I think you're coming from west to east.

[37:39] » What if you're coming from east to west? >> You'd have to go all the way around the

[37:42] city block back out. Unless you turned early and went down

[37:47] like fourth and then went over and through the back way down the alley.

[37:53] » There's ways. >> Make maps for your customers.

[37:56] » There's ways. >> No, that's that's not

[37:58] » I guess I'm just a little concerned that makes it more of a hardship on them

[38:01] because >> ultimately the access on 11th Avenue is

[38:04] ITD's jurisdiction, not the cities. >> Okay. So there's nothing

[38:09] » for us to do here. >> There is we have no jurisdiction over

[38:12] those access. So there's there would be no reason for us to remove that

[38:15] condition. You wouldn't recommend? >> I would not recommend removing that

[38:19] condition regardless. ITD has control of that road and the change of use will

[38:24] provide them the opportunity to require things to be meaningless if I remove

[38:28] that condition. >> Yes,

[38:29] » pretty much. Thank you. >> That's what I needed to hear.

[38:36] » Okay. Any other questions? >> I I need to be done. So

[38:39] » I'm not following that up. Okay. Um, okay. So, we'll go ahead and open

[38:45] this up to the public testimony portion. Madame clerk, anybody signed up?

[38:50] » There are no signups. >> Okay. Anybody in the audience that would

[38:53] like to speak for, against, or undecided on this proposal, please

[38:58] clarify some things for us. Address for the record.

[39:00] » Uh, my name is Christy Butler. When you said the cremation thing, that made me

[39:04] think. Um, we're actually working with a historical society and one of the

[39:08] methods of getting rid of that horrible paint job is like a chemical burn. So, I

[39:13] kind of thought that's like a cremation to the building.

[39:16] » Well, that's so you don't know that was beautiful. But

[39:20] what how long ago was that proposed? >> LA last year somebody came in suggesting

[39:24] this building be turned into a pet crematorium.

[39:28] » Oh, no. >> I wasn't suggesting that's what you were

[39:30] doing. >> Oh, no.

[39:31] » Burning your tires to cremate. No, no, but it'll be like a chemical burn to get

[39:35] rid of that nasty paint or whatever. And I wanted to mention on the traffic

[39:40] thing, the location that he's at right now has the same issue. There's medians

[39:45] in that road and they have to go all the way around the block, but it'll be good.

[39:48] » Okay. I've never tried to go into that business. I guess I just

[39:51] » Oh, well, once we get it established, come on in, Drew. That's all I wanted to

[39:55] say. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anybody else?

[40:01] Okay.

[40:04] Motion to close public hearing. >> Moved.

[40:08] Second. >> Been moved by Kho, second by Daffer to

[40:10] close a public hearing. All those in favor?

[40:12] » I. >> Any opposed?

[40:17] » Okay. >> They grow their business. I'd love to

[40:20] see that building say it's cool building. I'd love to get rid of the red

[40:23] paint job on it, but >> Well, apparently they're going to. So,

[40:27] » not what is the building. I like building and to see to to see a business

[40:32] in Nampa that's that's willing to grow themselves is is exciting.

[40:36] » Move to a bigger better location that they can

[40:38] » do more business and that's that's cool. I like to see that.

[40:42] » We're all for that.

[40:48] » Well, I've given him a hard enough time hold up.

[40:51] » I move to approve the project as stated on the screen with the recommended

[40:55] conditions and proposed findings. Second.

[41:00] » It's been moved by Morgan, second by Kho to approve this item. All those in

[41:05] favor? >> I.

[41:06] » Any opposed? >> Okay. Motion carries.

[41:13] » This cup will become effective 15 calendar days from the date the written

[41:17] decision and reason statement is provided to the applicant. Unless an

[41:20] appeal has been filed with the planning and zoning department with the

[41:23] appropriate fee. No action should be taken on the cup until the appeal period

[41:27] has concluded. The applicant must confirm with the planning and zoning

[41:31] staff that there have been no appeals. Thank you.

[41:34] » Thank you and good luck. >> Thanks.

[41:37] » Look forward to it.

[41:42] Okay. Item 3-3, annexation and zoning to RS7, potential development agreement and

[41:47] subdivision preliminary plat for Hudson Yards

[41:52] at 03319 East Sheet Mountain Lane. Bonnie

[41:57] Leighton representing Endur's Holdings and Thomas Murray

[42:01] Leighton.

[42:06] » Good evening, chairman and members of the commission. My name is Bonnie

[42:10] Leightton. I'm at 5561 East Hoot Lowl Drive in Boisee, Idaho, 83716.

[42:17] And I'm here tonight on behalf of uh the development team to represent Hudson

[42:22] Yards uh subdivision. This is our request for annexation, zoning, and

[42:26] preliminary plat of 21.51 acres to RS7

[42:34] uh including 59 residential lots. Um, quickly, uh, the NPA future land use

[42:40] map, you can see in the red outline with the star, that is the location of our

[42:45] property. Um, it butts up to, um, an existing um, development. And so, we're

[42:53] just tying into um, what we're currently uh, developing. So, um, as I mentioned,

[43:00] um, the future land use map uh, designation for this area is medium

[43:04] density residential. uh and RS7 is part of that uh one of the

[43:11] zones that is allowed in that uh future land use map designation. The

[43:15] description requires a gross density of um 2.51 to 8 dwelling units per acre.

[43:25] Uh on the zoning map, you can see that we have RS 8.5 next to us. Um there's

[43:30] some BC uh to the northwest and um kind of surrounded by development

[43:37] uh in this location.

[43:41] Um again our vicinity map. So you can see we've got Locust Lane to the north,

[43:46] Southside Boulevard um on our kind of to our west and Alma Lane uh to the south.

[43:58] Um, so our site plan, um, so I've rotated it. Uh, north is to the left.

[44:03] Uh, basically we're developing 59, uh, lots in this with, um, some pretty

[44:10] significant open spaces, uh, basketball court, uh, shade structure. Um, you can

[44:16] kind of see in the center park area. Um, there's also an existing house on the

[44:20] site which will remain. Um so and then there's um also the canal along along

[44:27] the boundary that will uh fence off. Uh there's walking trails throughout as

[44:33] along with sidewalks to provide connectivity um and recreation for our

[44:38] residents. Stub streets that you can see at the top of uh this plan as I

[44:43] mentioned stub into um existing plats uh in the area.

[44:50] And then uh to look a little bit more detail of of this plaid, as I mentioned,

[44:56] it's 21.51 acres. We've got 59 residential lots that we are proposing

[45:03] with a overall density of 2.74 dwelling units per acre. So, we're

[45:10] really on the low end of um density for this project. Um we have an overall open

[45:18] space of 34.22% 22% and or common area and um actual uh open space of 18.18%.

[45:29] So that's usable uh open space. Let's see

[45:35] next slide. We will be developing this project into two phase in two phases. Uh

[45:41] phase one is in green and then phase two is uh the remaining lots um there

[45:47] that'll be on the north end of our site. As I mentioned, you can see um in the

[45:52] phase 2 area there's a already an outline of a building. That's the home

[45:56] that will remain. And

[46:01] um we will just continue to build uh single family detached homes uh

[46:08] just like the ones in the um subdivision to our east. Uh these are uh character

[46:14] photos of what we build and what we intend to build in this project. Um,

[46:21] here are some more images. And with that, I will stand for any

[46:28] questions.

[46:34] » Questions? >> No.

[46:38] » Okay, we'll call you back up. >> Thank you very much,

[46:46] » Christie. Right.

[46:50] Thank you, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. Christy Watkins,

[46:53] principal planner for the city of Nampa. As stated, the action before you this

[46:57] evening is for annexation and zoning to RS7 with a preliminary plat for the

[47:01] Hudson Yard subdivision at 3319 East Sheep Mountain Lane for the development

[47:06] of the Hudson Yard subdivision. This property is located in the medium

[47:11] density residential designation on the comp plan and it is currently enclaved

[47:16] and under Canyon County jurisdiction. Adjacent parcels contain single family

[47:21] residential homes that are in the city limits and some commercially zoned

[47:25] property to the north that is not developed yet.

[47:31] So there is no traffic study required because there's only 59 lots in this

[47:35] particular subdivision. The proposed access points meet the spacing

[47:39] requirements for the city's access management policy. Water, sewer, and

[47:43] pressurized irrigation shall be supplied to the site through the existing and

[47:47] proposed lines installed or being installed in the New York Landing

[47:50] subdivision to the east. These lines have adequate capacity to serve this

[47:54] project. Sewer will be provided through the New York Landing subdivision and be

[47:58] serviced by the New York Landing lift station. The city is in negotiations to

[48:02] take over the New York landing lift station with a latecomers agreement to

[48:06] reimburse the development that installed that station. The developer shall

[48:10] provide documentation that the existing pumps in the New York landing lift

[48:14] station are adequate to serve the property without upgrade.

[48:20] So as far as the analysis of the plat, she covered it pretty well. Um the

[48:25] density is 2.74 which fits within the range for the medium density

[48:30] residential. The lot sizes in the RS7 zone can range from 7,000 ft to 14,000

[48:36] square ft. The plat shows a range of 7,04 square ft to 11,395

[48:43] ft. All of the lots meet the lot width and depth required by city code.

[48:50] um they have the appropriate amount of open space on 3.91 acres which is

[48:55] 18.18%. A sports court and walking paths are

[48:58] shown on the landscape rendering. Um the landscape plan was reviewed by

[49:03] the city forester and some requests were made seeking alternative species of some

[49:08] of the trees that were listed um due to some diseases that have been rampant

[49:13] lately. Um as far as correspondence is concerned

[49:18] um the engineering division had their comments regarding traffic access,

[49:23] utilities, drainage and irrigation. The NA building department had their typical

[49:28] um comments about um adhering to building code. The forester talked about

[49:35] the trees um that had some disease u that need to be replaced on the

[49:40] landscape plan. The police department um is recommending a commitment to fund

[49:45] 0.02 additional officers and 0.1 additional support staff. The closest

[49:50] police department is 4.8 miles away. The call volume in this area is 103 service

[49:56] calls annually. The fire department does not oppose this

[50:00] application. This development is located approximately 3.3 miles away from fire

[50:05] station 2 with an approximate response time of 8 minutes.

[50:10] Um, the impact fees from this will be $1,267

[50:16] per unit for an approximate total of 7 74,753

[50:21] for the development for the fire department. This subdivision will add

[50:26] approximately 167 residents to that 59 lots and will increase a personnel

[50:31] demand of.17 firefighter positions. So as far as annexation is concerned,

[50:38] there are four criteria to be used in determining the appropriateness of

[50:42] annexation. All land owners have consented to this annexation. The

[50:46] property is contiguous to the city limits. The comprehensive plan includes

[50:51] this area within its area of annexation and the property is subject to the

[50:55] city's agreement with the current highway district.

[50:59] And as for um the zoning, the RS4 zone is an allowed zone within

[51:05] the medium or sorry RS7 that's incorrect. RS7 is an allowed zone within

[51:10] the medium density residential designation. There are three criteria

[51:14] for determining the appropriateness of the zoning.

[51:17] Staff has found that the request is in harmony with the comprehensive plan. The

[51:21] proposal would provide for uses that are deemed to be compatible with the

[51:24] adjoining properties that are also residential. The proposed zoning is in

[51:29] the interest of the public and reasonably necessary. Um it as it

[51:34] matches the comp plan to define compatibility

[51:37] um and it will bring um improvements to the property.

[51:43] These are the recommended conditions of approval based on the engineering

[51:46] comments and these are your potential motions.

[51:50] So, I'll stand for any questions.

[51:57] » Questions? Anyone?

[52:01] » Okay, we'll open it up for public testimony. Madam Clerk, is there anybody

[52:04] signed up? >> Is there anyone here that would like to

[52:08] speak for, against, or undecided on this item? Anyone online?

[52:14] » These guys don't care. They're like, "No."

[52:18] Okay, seeing none, I would take a minute. Bonnie,

[52:21] » well, yeah. Leon, do you have anything you'd like to add? Do we have any

[52:25] questions for Miss Leon? >> No, I don't.

[52:30] » Um, I'll just say quickly again, Bonnie Leon, for the record. Um, we reviewed

[52:35] the staff report. We're in agreement with the conditions of approval that

[52:39] staff have recommended for um this project should you uh choose to approve

[52:45] us this evening. So, thank you very much for your time and if you have any

[52:49] questions, I'm happy to answer them.

[52:55] » Nobody. >> I think so.

[52:57] » Okay. Thanks. >> Thank you.

[52:58] » Thank you. >> Motion to close the public hearing.

[53:02] » Second. >> It's been moved by Kho, second by Garner

[53:07] to close the public hearing. All those in favor? I.

[53:09] » Any opposed? Okay. Public hearing is closed.

[53:16] What are we thinking? >> Seems like a no-brainer. It's just

[53:19] filling in more of what's already there. So, I don't

[53:22] » Yeah. And I like all the exter filling into the canal. So,

[53:28] » looks good to me.

[53:33] I >> meant to ask this question.

[53:37] » Nope. >> I guess I'm not.

[53:39] » Maybe not. >> Question.

[53:40] » So, this is Hudson Yards. The other one's New York Landing.

[53:45] There's stuff. >> What's going on over here?

[53:47] » Use Steves. >> He likes to talk away from his mic, so

[53:50] when he leans forward, it gets real loud.

[53:52] » I'll stay back here. >> So there's there's all these New York

[53:56] names and then you got Red Sox way right in the middle of this subdivision.

[54:02] » Somebody's a prankster. >> You're not an

[54:05] » There's not a Yankees in here. There's a Mets.

[54:08] » Maybe Cory was a Yankee. Who knows? Maybe it's an anti Yankees thing cuz

[54:11] there's a Mets in here. Anyway, I agree. I think it's a perfect infill project.

[54:16] Um, it doesn't it doesn't add any new connections to the streets. It's got

[54:21] green space. It's compatible. So, I'd support it.

[54:27] » We put a condition in that they need to rename one of them.

[54:32] » Fenway Road. >> There there's already a Fenway

[54:35] subdivision coming to the south of that. So,

[54:38] » no. >> Nope.

[54:39] » No. Okay. >> There's a there's a theme in this area

[54:41] that is not compatible. And I don't know if that's is that compatibility that we

[54:46] can consider or >> street naming is all under GIS and

[54:50] there's a giant list they have to be unique on. So street naming gets

[54:54] challenging anymore. >> Bonnie, can we get rid of the basketball

[54:57] court and put in a baseball field?

[55:03] » Sorry. >> Okay.

[55:06] Daff. >> Uh I move to recommend approval of the

[55:10] project as stated on the screen. Second. It's been moved by Daffer,

[55:14] second by Kho to recommend approval for this item. All those in favor? I

[55:19] » I. >> Any opposed?

[55:21] » Okay. Motion carries. >> You're welcome.

[55:25] » Take back what I said. There is a Yankees way.

[55:27] » Yankees way. >> Okay. Item 3-4, zoning map amendment for

[55:32] RS6 toBC zoning district at 1111 11th Avenue North

[55:40] for Raquel Padrazza. >> Good evening everyone. Thanks for

[55:45] letting me speak. Um, my name is Lennin and I'm here to represent Noah Leuga and

[55:51] Raquel Pedraza because they say that my English is better than theirs. That's a

[55:55] lie. Okay, they speak really good English. Mine is not that good. Uh if

[55:59] you have if you guys have any question just get back to me. Um I am requesting

[56:04] a resoning of my property >> point of order. Can we please get first

[56:07] last and >> Lenny Cavalero

[56:10] L E N I N Cavalero. C A B as boy. L E R O.

[56:17] » Your address. >> What was that? Sorry.

[56:20] » Address. Address. >> My address or the address on the

[56:22] property? >> Yours? Uh it is 11:25

[56:26] Powell Avenue. Nampa, Idaho 83687.

[56:35] » Perfect. >> All right. Thank you.

[56:37] » I am requesting a resoning on my property in order to operate a mobile

[56:40] auto repair business with limited low impact use on the site. The proposed use

[56:46] is specifically for storage of tools, equipment, and automotive automotive

[56:52] parts as well as preparation and dispatch to offsite service locations.

[56:57] The business will operate strictly as a mobile service. No customers will visit

[57:02] the property and no on-site customer services will be provided.

[57:07] All vehicle repairs and customer interactions will take place at the

[57:11] customer's locations wherever their vehicle is situated. Uh the property

[57:16] will not function as a traditional auto repair shop open to the public. The only

[57:21] individuals involved in the business operations will be Raquel Pedrasa and

[57:27] Noel Chuga. There will be no additional employees, no ship changes and no

[57:32] increase in traffic beyond normal residential use. Business related travel

[57:37] will consist so subtly of deporting the property to service to service customers

[57:43] and returning upon completation of service calls. A shop located on the

[57:49] property will be used only for storage of tools, equipment and parts as well as

[57:54] of maintenance and preparation related to the mobile repair services. Uh the

[57:59] existing residents on the property will not be used for customer activity or

[58:03] retail purposes and will be util utiliz utilized solely for a storage of office

[58:10] files, records and administrative materials related to the business. This

[58:15] proposed use is attendant to be quiet, low impact and compatible with the

[58:20] surround surrounding properties um with no anticipated noise, parking or

[58:25] traffic issues beyond what is typical for a residential property. Uh the

[58:30] reszoning request would allow the business to operate in comp in

[58:34] compliance with local regulations while maintaining the the character and

[58:39] integrity to the area. Sorry, I'm I get really nervous about talking in person.

[58:44] That's what I'm kind of like. >> You're doing good. You're doing really

[58:47] good. You're doing good. You're doing really good.

[58:48] » And that's it. >> Okay.

[58:50] » So, we have the address of the property. It's 1111 11th Avenue North there in AA

[58:57] 83687. >> We have questions

[59:01] » yet? Nope. No. No. >> Okay.

[59:03] » Good.

[59:06] » Okay. >> I I want to I want to call Rodney cuz

[59:09] he's not ready. Call him. He can do it. >> But I'll let you do it, Christie.

[59:15] » Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Christy Watkins,

[59:19] principal planner for the city of Nampa. As stated, the request before you this

[59:23] evening is to reszone from RS6 to BC at 1111 111th Avenue North to allow for the

[59:29] operation of a mobile auto mechanic business.

[59:33] The property is currently located in a medium density residential designation

[59:37] on the comprehensive plan, but it is adjacent to a commercial designation

[59:42] which can be stretched onto this property.

[59:46] To the north of this property is a um Iel zoned property and

[59:52] um the Mason Creek um industrial park there as well as the

[1:00:00] um the Shortline Railroad. To the east is an RS6 property. Um that is actually

[1:00:08] a uh storage yard as far as we can tell. Um we don't have any permits for that

[1:00:15] loca for that property to be used in that way at this point. Um and to the

[1:00:22] south west is a residence and to the souththeast is also residential.

[1:00:31] So these are the uses that are allowed in 1032. So a dwelling combined with a

[1:00:36] business is a permitted use in the BC zone.

[1:00:40] Um, automobile parts and accessories that will be stored in the the out

[1:00:45] building is a permitted use in the BC zone. Automobile and truck repair, if

[1:00:50] it's on site, requires a conditional use permit. Um, as stated, they're not

[1:00:55] requesting a conditional use permit tonight because that service will not

[1:00:59] happen there. Um, I just wanted to bring that to your attention that they would

[1:01:02] need an extra application if they were to do that at that location.

[1:01:10] So, should they choose to turn this into a full-fledged business and be approved

[1:01:15] to do auto repair, they would be required to bring the property up to

[1:01:19] code, which would require a 20ft landscape buffer in the front and a

[1:01:24] number of parking spaces that would be required based on the usable area of the

[1:01:29] buildings once they choose to convert it. Again, just for your information,

[1:01:35] they're not required to do that at this time because they're not converting it.

[1:01:40] But if they do convert it to a full-on auto repair business, these are the

[1:01:44] requirements that they will be held to. So, the correspondence that we received

[1:01:50] um the building department says that this will require the property to be

[1:01:55] utilized solely for the storage of tools and equipment as well as for business

[1:01:59] filing purposes with the exception of vehicles owned by the property owner. No

[1:02:03] automotive repair work shall take place on the premises. Should automotive

[1:02:07] repair services be desired on site, among other requirements, an occupancy

[1:02:11] change will be necessary and shall comply with the relevant commercial

[1:02:14] building codes outlined in all of the code books that we refer to. Um, code

[1:02:20] compliance has noted that there are some code violations on this property. Um,

[1:02:26] they are maintaining they need to maintain whatever nuisance was outlined

[1:02:31] by code compliance. They didn't outline it in their memo. They just noticed

[1:02:34] nuisance. Um, prevention of vehicular nuisances. So, I'm thinking they want to

[1:02:41] get ahead of any kind of storage of vehicles.

[1:02:44] Um, and then it's unlawful to leave inoperative vehicles on private

[1:02:48] property. So, again, I feel like this is kind of an an effort to get ahead of

[1:02:53] some things that might take place on the property.

[1:02:57] The Nampa Fire District does not oppose this application subject to compliance

[1:03:01] with all of the code requirements listed by the building department. The

[1:03:05] engineering department does not oppose this application with the following

[1:03:09] conditions. Um the roads adjacent to the site are managed by the city of Nampa

[1:03:14] and um the public roadway that provides access to the site is 11th Avenue which

[1:03:19] is a collector public rideway along 11th Avenue at the required width has already

[1:03:24] been dedicated. So, no further dedication is required at this time.

[1:03:28] Frontage improvements, including sidewalk, curb, and gutter are already

[1:03:32] there, so they don't have to install that. And the city maintains all of the

[1:03:36] utilities um in 11th Avenue. They're available to the site.

[1:03:42] So, as stated, these are the proposed conditions um and any others that you

[1:03:46] may choose to recommend at this time. So, the facts for resoning

[1:03:51] there again are the three criteria. It is in harmony with the comprehensive

[1:03:56] plan. It does propose a use that is compatible with is in the interest of

[1:04:00] the public because um it will be providing a service to our community

[1:04:04] that is much needed. These are your potential motions and

[1:04:08] I'll stand for any questions. >> Christie,

[1:04:13] um it's a big piece of property and they're

[1:04:17] going to be in the auto repair business and I'm concerned about the buildings

[1:04:20] that they're going to put their spare parts in. What happens if those

[1:04:24] buildings get to be too small and they got more parts that will fit in there or

[1:04:28] like an engine block is not something that you can just stick in a building

[1:04:32] and uh put on your back and then haul it

[1:04:36] back out again. So, it takes a lot of mechanical stuff to lift the heavy

[1:04:39] equipment. Is anything prevent them from over filling the lot with parts, car

[1:04:45] parts? >> Um, Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Kho,

[1:04:50] at this point, if you were to stand directly in front of the property and

[1:04:55] look at it head-on, there's a house there and there's a and there's a fence

[1:05:01] that almost completely screens the whole backside of this property from the right

[1:05:05] of way. Um, so any storage that they might have on site around their

[1:05:10] building, um, you're not likely going to see it. Um, if they did outgrow this

[1:05:18] location, then I would assume that they would either build another out building

[1:05:22] to store some of their stuff or find a better location and grow their business.

[1:05:27] » Hey, me.

[1:05:30] » Hey, here.

[1:05:33] » Yep. >> You let me ask more questions,

[1:05:35] » please. >> Had a rough night. Um,

[1:05:39] I know we can't change this stuff on the fly. Is this the best way to get this

[1:05:44] compliant? Like there's no path through conditional use

[1:05:49] for it seems weird to have this chunk of BC

[1:05:56] this residential zone like I assume a home occupation wouldn't work for this

[1:06:02] use. Yeah. >> Um thank you Mr. Chairman and um

[1:06:07] Commissioner Morgan. Our home occupation is an interesting

[1:06:12] um device. Um we used to allow automotive repair, quote unquote. Um

[1:06:22] in a home occupation situation, um we had a lot of problems with that.

[1:06:27] We've had a lot of complaints about that and that was removed from code.

[1:06:32] Um, as far as storing automotive parts and operating technically in business

[1:06:38] out of the location, um, we don't have anything in our home

[1:06:43] occupation code that would address that particular use. So, by reszoning it

[1:06:48] then, um, like I showed you on the chart, those are the things that would

[1:06:52] be allowed in that zone, which is what they're asking to do.

[1:06:56] So we we kind of went around this in our office as well like what would be the

[1:07:00] best way to address this problem. Um because

[1:07:05] um the only automotive repair situation that we had for our home occupations was

[1:07:11] no longer allowed. So this is the only way we could figure

[1:07:16] to get it compliant. >> And I guess I'm already tipping my hand.

[1:07:19] I'm a little concerned about like I don't have a concern with him doing

[1:07:24] this. I'm concerned about when they outgrow it and move. Now we've got this

[1:07:28] chunk of BC on this skinny lot in the middle of a bunch of RS6.

[1:07:34] Unless you think the that's the way the rest of this neighborhood's going to go

[1:07:38] as it develops. But >> if you look down the road, I think

[1:07:44] there's one little road of maybe duplexes.

[1:07:48] » Yeah. >> And then it turns into industrial the

[1:07:50] rest of the way. So like it's right on the edge.

[1:07:53] » Yeah. And the one and the one right next to

[1:07:56] it, that's what it is now anyway. It's just

[1:07:59] not zoned for it. >> Correct.

[1:08:01] » That's what the future land use map wants it to be.

[1:08:06] » Wants it to be commercial or industrial or

[1:08:09] » um I did I don't see the code or the

[1:08:15] colors, but >> what's the future land use map there? So

[1:08:20] the future land use map on the property currently is medium density residential

[1:08:24] but it is touching commercial. So it can be stretched.

[1:08:31] » Did you say somewhere in there that it was adjoining some county property?

[1:08:36] » No, it's adjoining the railroad property.

[1:08:38] » What was the

[1:08:48] » Oh, yeah. I wonder if that got copy pasted from a different

[1:08:50] » I think it probably did. >> Okay, cuz they have to access it off of

[1:08:53] Happy Valley >> down here in the bottom right.

[1:08:56] » Oh. >> Oh my god.

[1:08:58] » That's a That's a That's a long access. >> Wow.

[1:09:02] » That's crazy. >> Oh, it just shows that I was reading,

[1:09:05] not listening. Okay. Um

[1:09:11] » Okay. So, you don't think there's And I guess we couldn't do another path today

[1:09:15] without readvertising and everything, but there's no way like because it's not

[1:09:21] automotive repair like if people aren't bringing it to that site. I'm trying to

[1:09:26] see what the difference between that is and having gun parts for sale at your or

[1:09:30] something else, any other product for sale that you take somewhere else. But

[1:09:35] you you didn't feel like that would be justified in the home occupation code.

[1:09:40] Well, because we specifically took that out of our home occupation

[1:09:46] requirements for automotive

[1:09:50] u I don't know uses. >> Yeah, deliberately.

[1:09:53] » We felt Yeah, we deliberately took that out of our code. We kind of felt like we

[1:09:57] needed to take this a step further

[1:10:01] » than just a conditional use permit.

[1:10:10] Rodney stood up. I don't know if he may want to say something.

[1:10:15] » Name and address for the record, please.

[1:10:19] » And that was a a specific direction from our elected officials to do that. So, we

[1:10:26] had it, we had the concerns, and then we just we were directed to make that

[1:10:31] change in code. And so I just don't think that the home occupation is the

[1:10:36] tool that the our elected officials want to use for

[1:10:40] and you asked earlier about like conditional use permits and and you know

[1:10:46] that they are used to address impacts to neighboring properties like noise and

[1:10:52] fumes and that kind of thing. But um in this situation, they they just were not

[1:10:58] comfortable with those land uses at all because they were claiming at the time a

[1:11:04] lot of people were claiming, hey, we're not going to impact noise. We're not

[1:11:07] going to impact traffic. And then and then it was happening. So they wanted to

[1:11:14] eliminate that isn't even an option that we would have to go back and mitigate

[1:11:19] later. And I I think I agree with that

[1:11:23] that um reasoning. I just don't know that that's what this is. But

[1:11:30] that's my opinion. And as stated earlier, I'm not a planning

[1:11:33] professional. So

[1:11:38] that's all. Brett, I'll be quiet. >> All done.

[1:11:41] » I'm all done. Thank you.

[1:11:44] » Hey, any other questions for >> I got one.

[1:11:48] This is for my education, but what is the difference between a reszone and a

[1:11:52] zoning map amendment? Or are they the same thing?

[1:11:56] » Um, Commissioner Daffer, they are the same thing.

[1:12:00] » Okay, that's it. >> Reszone's just easier to say.

[1:12:07] » Anybody else? >> Okay,

[1:12:11] we will open up public testimony for this item. Madam clerk, do we have

[1:12:16] signup sheet? We do not. >> Is there anyone here that would like to

[1:12:19] speak for, against, or undecided on this proposal?

[1:12:27] » Seeing none, I would close public hearing.

[1:12:32] » Want to invite him back up or >> Oh, wow.

[1:12:34] » Would you like to come back up and tell us anything else or no?

[1:12:39] » Okay, >> there we go. Okay, it's been moved by

[1:12:42] Kho, second by Morgan to close the public

[1:12:45] hearing. All those in favor? >> I.

[1:12:48] » Any opposed? Public hearing is closed.

[1:12:57] » I'll finish my thought, then I'll be quiet. I think I I want this to go

[1:13:01] through. I want them to be able to do this business here. There's no there's

[1:13:05] no compatibility issues for me right now. it it I don't love the idea of

[1:13:11] having this little spot zone of a BC in this residential area.

[1:13:18] I'll get your guys' thoughts on it. I don't know if it's enough for me to

[1:13:20] reject it, but that's my concern. >> I do. I mean, it's it's touching the

[1:13:27] residential on the one side. I mean, it's close to the residential, but

[1:13:31] again, it's like right in between pretty heavy industrial stuff and some

[1:13:36] residential, right? And so because of the uses that are just, you know, a

[1:13:41] couple hundred feet away, I it's not as big an issue for me as it might be

[1:13:46] otherwise. And like you said, the people right next

[1:13:49] to them, >> they're doing the same thing.

[1:13:52] » That should be a BC zone as well. >> They just haven't done it. So,

[1:13:58] and a lot of those are pretty old houses on some goodiz lots. So maybe as they

[1:14:03] get redeveloped, it'll just continue to I don't have a problem with it.

[1:14:15] Yeah, I don't. Just like you said, because it's so close

[1:14:19] and if we were right smack in the middle of residential,

[1:14:22] I might feel a little bit different about it. But

[1:14:28] » as Chris just said, you can't even see what's going on from the outside of the

[1:14:30] property. >> You can't. Yeah,

[1:14:36] » but theoretically somebody could come down, tear down the house, put in a

[1:14:39] business there. >> I don't think it would ever happen. Like

[1:14:44] I'm not going to oppose it on those grounds. But that's kind of what we're

[1:14:47] letting happen though. >> Yeah. But like I say, a lot most of

[1:14:49] those are pretty old on on goodsiz lot. So if it did start to get redeveloped,

[1:14:54] it >> going to be a more intense use anyway.

[1:14:58] » Yeah.

[1:15:01] some of those other requirements.

[1:15:10] » True. >> I'll support it.

[1:15:12] » I think it's a good idea, >> Mr. Chair.

[1:15:14] » Yep. >> Um I move to recommend approval of the

[1:15:18] reszone as stated on screen with all recommended conditions of approval and

[1:15:23] proposed findings. >> Second.

[1:15:28] It's been moved by Daffer, second by Turner to approve this item or recommend

[1:15:32] approval for this item. All those in favor?

[1:15:34] » I. >> Any opposed?

[1:15:37] Motion carries. Okay. U now we would like to invite

[1:15:42] Rodney up so he could practice his budget presentation.

[1:15:48] » Well, can we journ this meeting first so the rest of us can go home?

[1:15:52] But we don't have somebody to adjurnn the first.

[1:15:56] He's not here. >> I guess I guess we're stuck here all

[1:15:58] night. Uh >> oh, he's on his way. We I invited him

[1:16:01] and now we got to listen. >> Thank you guys.

[1:16:04] » Thank you. Good luck. >> We need more money.

[1:16:09] » Second,

[1:16:12] » Mr. Chairman. >> Yes.

[1:16:13] » Make a motion that we adjourn. >> Okay.

[1:16:17] » Who Who second it? Who wants it? >> All right. Give it to them.

[1:16:21] » Okay. Okay, it's been motioned by Garner, second by Daffer to adjourn the

[1:16:23] meeting. All those in favor? >> I.

[1:16:25] » Any opposed? Meeting is adjourned.

February 24, 2026 - Planning and Zoning Meeting

Transcript