NAMPA PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING HELD TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2017, 6:30 P.M.

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "NAMPA PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING HELD TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2017, 6:30 P.M."

Transcription

1 NAMPA PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING HELD TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2017, 6:30 P.M. Members: Lance McGrath - Chairman Bret Miller Chad Gunstream Vice Chairman Victor Rodriguez Adam Hutchings Ron Van Auker, Jr Steve Kehoe Norm Holm, Director Harold Kropp Tom Points, City Engineer Absent: Peggy Sellman Robert Hobbs, Assistant Director Chairman McGrath called the meeting to order at 6:50 p.m. City Engineer Points: Points presented the map showing the City of Nampa Future Traffic Signal and Pedestrian Crossing Improvements proposed for 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and Future Grant Projects. Discussion followed regarding the various projects, their locations, and how those projects will be funded. Approval of Minutes. Kropp motioned and Miller seconded to approve the Minutes of the March 28, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Motion carried. Report on Council Actions. No City Council representative present. No Business Items on the Agenda. Chairman McGrath proceeded to the public hearing items on the agenda at 7:00 p.m. CUP : Conditional Use Permit for a Home Occupation Day Care for up to 12 children in an RS-6 (Single Family Residential 6000 sq ft) zoning district at W Huckleberry Dr. (A.16 acre or 6806 sq ft portion of the SW ¼ Section 7 T3N R2W BM, Asbury Park Phase 2, Lot 5, Block 3), for Calley Shartzer (CUP ). Chairman McGrath proceeded to public hearing. Calley Shartzer of W Huckleberry Dr, Nampa applicant: Ms Shartzer stated she was requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a Home Occupation Daycare in her home for up to 12 children. At the present time, stated Ms Shartzer, she was licensed for 6 children. Ms Shartzer added, the C-U-P was required in order to qualify for State licensing and the Idaho food program. According to Ms Shartzer she did meet the requirements for square footage available in the house for the number of children in her care. Ms Shartzer added that she had a fenced back yard, and there was a lot of parking area available. Ms Shartzer explained that she tried to keep the children inside until 9:00 a.m. or 10:00 a.m. so it would not be too noisy for the neighbors. In response to a question from Gunstream, Ms Shartzer stated she had been caring for 6 children at the current address for the last 6 months, but had been operating an in-home day care for 10 years. Ms Shartzer added that she had also obtained a Conditional Use Permit for a Home Occupation Daycare for up to 12 children at her previous home.

2 Planning Director Holm: Holm indicated the location of the subject property in Asbury Park Subdivision. The application, continued Holm, had originally been scheduled before the Planning Commission for February 14 th, however, subsequent to scheduling the application, a few s were received from the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare providing copies of child care incident reports for the subject property/daycare. Holm reviewed the concerns that had been raised, as well as some discussion regarding a felon on the premises, and a felon recently released living at the subject property without a background clearance. Holm reported no statement had been received from the Department of Health and Welfare stating there were any open issues, or advised that any of the State licensing had been revoked. A resident living behind the subject property, Eden Rodriguez of N Asbury Drive, had submitted an e- mail dated April 11, 2017, voicing concerns regarding the noise from the daycare. According to Holm, no other correspondence had been received regarding the application from neighboring property owners or residents. Holm reviewed the Staff Report and recommended conditions of approval if approved by the Commission. Kehoe inquired if the owner of the home had been notified of the application. Holm responded that the owner had been notified. Additionally, the applicant was required to get an Affidavit of Legal Interest signed by the property owner as part of the Conditional Use Permit application. Chairman McGrath proceeded to public testimony. Larry Thompson of Osprey, Caldwell opposed: Mr Thompson stated he owned the house two houses down from the subject property, at W Huckleberry Dr, and his son currently lived there. According to Mr Thompson, his concern was the size of the subject house and seemed pretty small for a daycare for 12 children. The subject house, added Mr Thompson, was located one house away from the intersection and there was a lot of traffic in the morning and evening which would be dangerous for small children. Mr Thompson also considered that parking would be an issue. If cars were backing out of their driveways along the road and vehicles were parked close to the driveways it could create a problem. Mr Thompson questioned if the backyard of the subject property was large enough to accommodate 12 children playing. Mr Thompson questioned if there would be liability to the homeowners in the subdivision if one of the daycare children was injured on the subdivision open space/playground. The other concern stated Mr Thompson, was that if the subject daycare was approved would it encourage more and more daycares in the subdivision. Calley Shartzer: Ms Shartzer responded to comments brought up by previous speakers. According to Ms Shartzer, sometimes parents pull up in front of the house but most of the time they do pull into the driveway to park and drop off their children. Regarding children being in the front yard, Ms Shartzer stated the children were not allowed in the front yard unless they were being escorted by their parents to and from the front door. The daycare children do not go to the common area playground, continued Ms Shartzer, and if they did go on a field trip they would go to the park and would not use the playground area in the subdivision. Ms Shartzer noted her house was a tri-level and looked small from the outside, but contained a kitchen and living room on the main level, and downstairs has a bedroom, laundry room, and a full size living room, as well as the bedrooms on the upper floor. The daycare is run out of the main level of the house and the downstairs area, per Fire Code. The house had been inspected by the Fire Department, added Ms Shartzer and they made sure there was enough square footage in the house per child, for up to 12 children in the home. Ms Shartzer stated she did rent the house, and the owner was very aware that she was running the daycare out of the house. The owner, noted Ms Shartzer, had signed the Affidavit of Legal Interest that was attached to the Conditional Use Permit application. Page 2

3 Regarding the from the neighboring property behind, stated Ms Shartzer, she did try to keep the children inside until at least 9:00 a.m. or 10:00 a.m., but it would be no different than if she had 6 children of her own and they played outside. Ms Shartzer reiterated she did try to make sure the children were not outside too early in the morning and never has daycare children past 6:00 p.m. Chairman McGrath inquired if the applicant s licensing was current with the State Department of Health and Welfare. Ms Shartzer advised she was fully licensed. The issues with the IDH&W when she first moved into the home were from a disgruntled employee. IDH&W, continued Ms Shartzer, had been out to her home numerous times and had found nothing wrong. Ms Shartzer stated she was also current on all her classes and her ratios were accurate. Ms Shartzer reported she had to let employees go when she moved into the subject property because she was not yet licensed for 12 at her current location, but only for 6. Chairman McGrath inquired about the issues with the felon on the premises. Ms Shartzer replied that he (the felon) was not on the premises and was not allowed to be there from 8;00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., during the daycare business hours, as required by IDH&W, as well as Probation and Parole. In response to a question from Gunstream, Ms Shartzer stated she had no other staff at this time, as she was only permitted to have 6 daycare children at the present time. Ms Shartzer stated that at her 2204 W Orchard Ave, Nampa, home (Canyon County jurisdiction), she had been licensed for up to 12 children. Additionally, stated Ms Shartzer, she had also been licensed for 12 children with a Home Occupation Daycare C-U-P through the City for W Crested Butte Dr, Nampa and noted there had been no issues with the IDH&W at the previous locations. Rodriguez inquired if all the complaints noted by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare were as a result of an employee. Ms Shartzer stated that was correct, the complaints were from a disgruntled ex-employee. Rodriguez inquired who Mike Davis was and Ms Shartzer stated he was her husband. In response to a question from Rodriguez, Ms Shartzer explained the convictions against her husband. Kropp motioned and Gunstream seconded to close public hearing. Motion carried. Discussion followed regarding the fact that information regarding IDH&W clearance for the applicant and approval of the applicant s IDH&W daycare license had not yet been received. Holm stated he had been trying to determine whether the IDH&W had suspended Ms Shartzer s license in any fashion regarding the complaints and Staff had not been notified. Holm considered if licensing had been withheld then City Planning Staff would have been notified, and added Staff had been in close communication with IDH&W. The applicant has indicated she does have a current license, added Holm, and would be able to document that license. Rodriguez stated he would not feel comfortable approving the C-U-P until the City received documentation of licensing approval from IDH&W. Kehoe concurred with Rodriguez comments. Gunstream stated he did not have a problem with approving the Conditional Use Permit as long as stipulations were attached to the approval, noting approval would be pending upon IDH&W verification of daycare licensing for the applicant; and the notation that the Conditional Use Permit would be revoked in the event there were to be another incident with the felon (Michael Davis) on the property. Gunstream motioned and Miller seconded to grant the Conditional Use Permit for a Home Occupation Daycare for up to 12 children for W Huckleberry for Calley Shartzer, subject to: 1. The applicant/operator obtains and maintains licensing with the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare (IDHW). 2. The operator/applicant provides documentation/verification from IDHW that their State license is valid and has not been revoked. 3. The use as a Home Occupation Daycare does not substantially change the character of the home and shall clearly be secondary to use of the home as a residence. 4. The outdoor play area and landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner. 5. The outdoor play area shall be continuously fenced to retain children from wandering out of the area. Page 3

4 6. All requirements of the Nampa Building, Fire and Engineering Departments regarding daycare use shall be satisfied as per State Law prior to occupancy. 7. The size of any advertising signs shall not exceed that allowed for Home Occupations of two (2) sq ft. 8. The Conditional Use Permit be granted to Calley Shartzer only, for W Huckleberry Dr only, and shall not be transferable to any other operator or location, 9. The Conditional Use Permit shall be revoked upon: 1) Notification and documentation from IDHW, of any violation of State licensure provisions; and, 2) documented presence of any person(s) on the premises without the required background clearance during the hours of daycare operation (8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Motion carried with Gunstream, Miller, Hutchings, Van Auker and Kropp in favor and Rodriguez and Kehoe opposed. CUP : Conditional Use Permit for a Helipad in an existing BC (Community Business) zoning district proposed to be an HC (Health Care) zoning district at 0 Jacob Allcott Way. (A acre portion of the SE ¼ Section 13 T3N R2W BM, Tax and Tax 11135) for LCA Architects, representing Saint Alphonsus Medical Center Nampa. (CUP ). Chairman McGrath proceeded to public hearing. Tom Scofield of LCA Architects 1221 Shoreline Ln, Boise representing the applicant: Mr Scofield stated they were requesting a new medical transport heli-pad (heli-stop). Mr Scofield noted the SAMC hospital was under construction and nearing completion and a heli-pad tends to be one of the higher priorities for primarily bringing patients in and occasionally taking patients out. Mr Scofield explained the proposed heli-pad would be a replacement of the existing 12 th Ave Rd hospital helipad. According to Mr Scofield, the heli-pad would be supporting approximately 72 additional hospital beds. Mr Scofield stated that current calculations had the helicopter count per month at approximately 1.6 to 1.8 transports per month, or approximately 20 per year. A heli-pad consultant had been brought in from T-O Engineers, continued Mr Scofield, and it had been determined the subject 40 ft x 40 ft site would be the most appropriate. The heli-pad would be illuminated, as well as four obstruction avoidance lights. The heli-pad itself, added Mr Scofield, would have illumination that would be turned on by the helicopter pilot. The patients, explained Mr Scofield, would be transported to and from the hospital via ambulance. Mr Scofield discussed the reasons for the proposed location of the heli-pad. Michael Chidester of 7174 S Angel Way, Meridian representing St Alphonsus Medical Center Nampa: Mr Chidester advised that SAMC had reached out to the local businesses and had not heard significant concerns regarding the proposed heli-pad from the tenants in the vicinity, which included medical office, retail, restaurant tenants, dentist, and imaging center tenants. Mr Scofield: In response to a question from Kehoe, Mr Scofield replied it would depend on the schedule and helicopters that were already up and aloft, as well as the patient criteria regarding which hospital they would be taken to. Mr Scofield explained it was a precedent to have a second heli-pad in town in case of problems with one helipad. Rodriguez inquired about the recommendation for tabling in the Staff Report due to the fact the Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation was from the Fort Worth Texas FAA office and according the Nampa Airport Manager, the Helena, Montana branch of the FAA governs Nampa Airport. Mr Scofield replied that as soon as they found out about that issue last week they put the request in to the Helena FAA regarding the Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation report. Mr Scofield noted the heli-pad would comprise a 40 ft x 40 ft pad. Planning Director Holm: Page 4

5 Holm reviewed the Staff Report and noted at the time the Staff Report was prepared the Engineering Division had been concerned that the appropriate FAA regional authority had provided the report regarding Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation. The applicants, added Holm, were now in the process of getting the report from the correct regional FAA office. The Engineering Division, stated Holm, had provided a revised Memorandum stating the Engineering and Airport Divisions do not oppose approval of the requested action, with the following condition: Applicant receives approval from the FAA for the proposed airspace. Holm advised he had been contacted by the owners of the nearby Fiesta Guadalajara Restaurant regarding how a helicopter either landing or taking off would create noise for people in the restaurant. There had been another contact from the Chevron Station on the south side of Garrity Blvd and their question was more to the improvements on Garrity Blvd and access to the Chevron property. City Engineer Points: According to Points, the Airport Manager had been concerned about the FAA permit. Although approval had been given by FAA for the location of the hospital building in terms of the Nampa Airport airspace, the next step would be to get the FAA clearance for the special airspace for the helicopter to land, and the planning and logistics on how the helicopter would communicate with the Nampa Airport. The only concern, continued Points, was to make sure the applicants work with FAA to make sure they get the airspace approved. Chairman McGrath proceeded to public testimony. Scott Thomson of Ketchum representing the owners of 1203 N Jacob Allcott Way, Nampa: Mr Thomson stated he represented the owners of the two buildings on the parcel addressed as 1201 N Jacob Allcott Way, to the south and southeast of the proposed heliport. Mr Thomson stated they were not opposed to a helipad in the general area, however, the application appears to be very rushed, unprepared and unplanned, and requested the application be tabled until some of the issues were resolved. Mr Thomson noted the application had been made while the property was still zoned BC (Community Business) and helipads are not an allowed use within that zone. The zoning was just recently chanced to HC (Health Care) on April 4 th. According to the Staff Report, continued Mr Thomson, the City Engineering and Airport Division had recommended tabling the decision until the Airport Division Manager had reviewed the request with the Helena branch of the FAA. The current design of the helipad, explained Mr Thomson, would not meet the design standards of the National EMS Pilots Association, or the FAA Advisory Circular for heliport design. Mr Thomson indicated exhibits depicting the prevailing winds, paragraph 109, regarding departure paths and crosswind/downwind conditions, and considered the heliport design had the approach/departure paths directly in the crosswinds and, therefore, would not be the best location for a heliport. Mr Thomson noted other locations on the St Alphonsus properties that would accommodate a heliport. The distance from the helipad to the hospital would be contrary to the National EMS Pilots Association Standards of Design so that critical moments for the patient would not be lost. Mr Thomson argued the heliport should be closer to the main hospital. Regarding heliport design, Mr Thomson reported there should be a surface area before the approach and departure and a certain radius, and those specifications were not reflected in the proposed helipad design. Additionally, stated Mr Thomson, the current street design was still a straight shot from the hospital to Garrity Blvd, and had not been changed. Mr Thomson requested the applicant come back and address some of the issues, under the proper zoning designation and receive the Airport Manager s approval before making a decision. Gunstream noted the helipad at St Alphonsus Boise was further away from the hospital than the application before the Commission. M Thomson reiterated he would like to see the helipad further away from the commercial building area and closer to the hospital. In response to a question from Hutchings, Mr Thomson listed the number of businesses located within the two commercial buildings represented by Mr Thomson and reiterated the heliport would be very close to those commercial buildings. Page 5

6 Maria Bobabilla of Fiesta Guadalajara Restaurant, 1202 N Jacob Allcott Way, Nampa: Ms Bobabilla stated her husband was the manager of Fiesta Guadalajara Restaurant and they did have concerns regarding the noise, especially in relation to the patio area at the side of the building and the wind gusts from the helicopter blowing the patio umbrellas away, or into parked cars. Tom Scofield: Mr Scofield responded to comments from Mr Thomson regarding the predominant wind direction and considered those requirements pertained more to airports. Winds change constantly, added Mr Scofield, and the pilots adjust their vectors accordingly. They would prefer to have the helipad closer to the building, added Mr Scofield, and explained some of the reasons why the helipad needed to be further away. Mr Scofield stated there was a flight surface, and discussed the flight vectors. There would be a couple of flight obstruction lights on the parking lot lamps that would intrude about 2 ft into the glide slope threshold. According to Mr Scofield, helicopters do generate a significant amount of downdraft energy, which would be directly vertical. Mr Scofield stated they do understand the concerns regarding proximity of the helipad to buildings, and generally speaking they would always put the helipad in the safest spot possible. Mr Scofield agreed there would be some noise for the adjacent commercial buildings but it would lessen if they were the further away from the landing spot and noted the nearby I-84 freeway noise and Garrity Blvd noise for most of the day. The helicopter noise would only be for 12 to 14 minutes, 1.2 to 1.6 times per month. Kehoe inquired if the applicants had insurance that would cover damage from flying debris caused by the helicopter downdraft. Mr Scofield stated they did have insurance but would have to determine how that kind of issue would be handled. Mr Scofield stated they had only met with Mr Thomson last week and had insufficient time to reconfigure any design. Mr Scofield confirmed the applicants would commit to pushing the helipad as far as possible toward the street, possibly 40 or 50 ft. According to Mr Scofield, they would also commit to put in fencing that would withstand wind, which would also help, and mitigate, noise, or rock hazards. If the application for helipad were approved, continued Mr Scofield, they would meet with Mr Thomson to look at the location and hopefully locate the helipad in a better place. The proposed site, isolated the helipad as much as possible from anything other than cars. Mr Scofield reiterated they would work to push the helipad up as far as possible, and mitigate noise and rock hazards as much as possible. According to Mr Scofield it was not uncommon to have ambulances transport patients from helicopters to the hospital, for example, St Luke s in Meridian. Mr Scofield noted the road layout design was not finalized at this time, but the proposed design would jog the traffic around through a parking area and, therefore, would not be a straight shot through to Garrity Blvd. Mr Scofield noted the terminology from the FAA would be a positive recommendation and not an actual approval for a private helipad which would be Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation from the Helena FAA office. Planning Director Holm: Holm explained City Council had approved and adopted the rezoning to HC (Healthcare) zoning district, would have been legally published yesterday, Monday, April 10 th, and that would be the effective date of the zoning change. Kehoe motioned and Gunstream seconded to close public hearing. Motion carried. Rodriguez stated he did have a concern with the location. Gunstream agreed the proposed location is questionable but at the same time St Alphonsus indicated they would be willing to bump it, or push it, and do everything they could accommodate the requests of the concerned neighbors, and therefore, he did not have a problem with the application. Page 6

7 Kehoe stated he did have concerns for the nearby businesses, and considered the number of proposed helicopter landings per month will be a lot more in 5 years. However, the applicants had stated if there were legal liability problems they would be addressed up front. Gunstream motioned and Kehoe seconded to approve the Conditional Use Permit for a Helipad at 0 Jacob Allcott Way, for LCA Architects, representing Saint Alphonsus Medical Center, subject to: 1. All City Code requirements of the Nampa Planning, Building, Engineering, and Fire Departments, as well as applicable State, or Federal agencies regarding use of the property for a Helipad shall be satisfied prior to establishment of Helipad use. 2. The Conditional Use Permit shall be issued only for a Helipad. 3. The applicant shall receive approval/affidavit from the Helena Regional Office of the FAA for the proposed airspace and provide a copy of the approval documents to the City of Nampa. 4. The applicant shall push the Helipad as far north of the 1201 N Jacob Allcott Way property owned by Goose Investments, and meet with their representative Scott Thomson once the design and location of the Helipad is finalized. Motion carried. Annexation and Zoning to RS-6 (Single Family Residential 6000 sq ft) at the South end of South Florence Street, just past E Dakota Avenue. (A.753 acre parcel of land located in the NW ¼ Section 35 T3N R2W BM, Tax 10D-1, for Blake Wolf (ANN Chairman McGrath proceeded to public hearing. Blake Wolf of 843 W Horizon Way, Nampa the applicant: Mr Wolf stated he purchased the.75 acre parcel just south of the E Dakota Ave and S Florence St intersection, which was currently an enclaved County parcel. The parcel, added Mr Wolf, abutted City of Nampa RS-6 zoning. According to Mr Wolf, his intent was to split the lot via an administrative lot split to allow two single family homes. Both lots, continued Mr Wolf, would access off the dead end of S Florence St. Mr Wolf stated he had met with the Nampa Fire Department regarding a fire truck turnaround, as well as the Engineering Division. In response to a question from Kropp, Mr Wolf stated the Fire Department would come out and measure to determine if a fire truck turnaround would be required. Planning Director Holm: Holm indicated the location of the subject property within an enclaved area, and advised the applicant was requesting annexation and RS-6 zoning designation. Holm advised no communications had been received from surrounding property owners. The RS-6 zoning designation for the two lots, explained Holm, would be compatible with the Nampa Comprehensive Plan and what is existing in the neighborhood. Holm noted the Engineering Division memorandum dated April 4, 2017, authored by Jim Brooks, stating the Engineering Division had no concerns with granting the request, subject to conditions regarding extension of sewer, Fire Department requirements, and ingress/egress/cross access utility easements. Chairman McGrath proceeded to public testimony. Karren Harms of 1115 S Florence St, Nampa: Ms Harms stated she did not know the property was for sale until someone was viewing the property. The vacant parcel, continued Ms Harms, had been behind their property for the past 20 years. S Florence St did dead end at the subject property, noted Ms Harms, and voiced concern regarding power poles and easements. Ms Harms reiterated she would just like to know if the houses would be two story or single story. According to Ms Harms, the neighbors had been taking care of maintenance of the dead-end street and questioned if the applicant would now be maintaining the dead-end street. The sewer lines, added Ms Harms, were very old and inquired if the new development would impact her property s utilities. Page 7

8 The subject property, added Ms Harms, was currently served by flood irrigation split between different property owners. Ms Harms also questioned what the proposed development would do to the property value of her home and the neighboring homes. Sharry Smith of 1116 S Florence St, Nampa: Ms Smith stated she had lived there for about 25 years and enjoyed the pasture behind her property. Ms Smith voiced concern regarding the dead end of S Florence St being a very narrow dead-end and would there be disruption of her property in order to make the road wider for a road into the two lots. Chairman McGrath replied the proposed access to the two lots would follow the same road right-of-way lines to the dead end and then become private driveways into each lot. Those driveways, added Chairman McGrath would have to meet Nampa Fire Department specifications. Any turnaround required by the Nampa Fire Department, added Kropp, would have to be placed on the subject private properties. The other concern, stated Ms Smith, was the huge dip in the dead-end portion of S Florence St because there had been cars speeding down S Florence St with car pieces and radiators flying when vehicles hit the dip, and if it appeared that S Florence St continued on there would be additional cars speeding through. Ms Smith stated she had previously asked the City for a dead end sign and dip ahead sign, but had received no response. Blake Wolf: Mr Wolf stated he did not know what size of house they would be building on each lot and considered that would be determined by the potential buyers. There had been some interest already for single story homes but that could change if those sales did not finalize. Regarding the other concerns, stated Mr Wolf, he would have to abide by all the easements and everything else the City Engineering Division would require. There would only be the increased traffic for two more homes on a dead-end road, added Mr Wolf. Kehoe motioned and Miller seconded to close public hearing. Motion carried. Gunstream considered the lot split would be less impact on the neighbors as there would be no through traffic. Gunstream motioned and Kehoe seconded to recommend to City Council annexation and RS-6 zoning for the.753 acre parcel at the south end of S Florence St, just past E Dakota Ave, for Blake Wolf, subject to: 1. Extend sewer main at developer s expense. 2. Provide approved Nampa Fire Department turnaround required if travel distance from intersection of E Dakota Avenue and S Florence Street exceeds Nampa Fire Department standards. 3. Provide and install additional fire hydrant if required by Nampa Fire Department. 4. Provide ingress/egress/cross-access, utility easement in favor of adjacent property to the south. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Norman L Holm, Planning Director :sm Page 8