[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.