City Council - Regular Meeting

All right, good evening and welcome to tonight's city council workshop. Tonight we're going to hear um we're going to have an introduction to traffic studies. First up uh will be city engineer Haley Hart on traffic studies who will introduce a co-presenter I believe you brought tonight and uh yeah, we're looking forward to hearing about this topic. Thank you.

Thank you council members for coming to the workshop tonight and for the public. We just wanted to do an overview of what the traffic impact studies are, what they're not, um the information that they give uh you as council members as well as us as staff members as we read through these and how they help us make decisions when we look at developments. So with that, I will um let KD the company KDson come to the stage. They are the ones that put together our Caldwell Area Transportation System Master Plan. You'll hear it referred to as the Cats pretty frequently. um as well as assisted us with putting together our CIP and our TIFF traffic impact fee programs. They're very familiar with the way that Caldwell Road systems work and they always put together uh really great traffic impact studies that are easy to read and um very full of very helpful information. So with that, I'll pass it on. Mark, are you starting or

Yeah. Okay. And just real quick for those in the room, we did cancel the earlier workshop. We posted it online for the airport electrical update. So, we're just moving into part number two.

Okay. Hi, Mayor Phillips. Hello, council. Um, good to be in front of you. My name is Mark Heisinger. Um, I work for for KDson Associates. Um, we're a transportation engineering and planning firm. Um, we're we're national, but we have a a presence in in the Treasure Valley. So, excited to to be here. Just kind of give a a broad overview. um just talking about some of the different elements that go into transportation planning in the city. So starting with kind of on the master planning side and then going to the the traffic impact study side. Um I'll be speaking to um speak more to the the master planning side. I was involved in in putting together the Caldwell area transportation system plan and then my colleague Lauren will will speak more specifically to the um traffic impact studies. Go ahead and introduce yourself.

Yeah, my name is Lauren Nerxl um and also work for KDson Associates. I do a lot of traffic impact studies in the Treasure Valley for the past 12 years. So, um, happy to answer whatever questions that you might have tonight.

Thanks, Lauren. Okay. So, um, maybe just before I kick off kick things off. Um, we weren't planning on this being a a super formal presentation or anything. We want this to be discussion based. So, as we're as we're moving through items and you have specific questions, please let us know and and we'd be happy to to speak through it with you. Um that's that's really why we're here is to to have a discussion about these items. Um so this slide just gives an overview of of what we'll be talking about. So kind of z starting high level and then and then zooming farther in. So starting to talk about transportation planning in Caldwell as a whole. What are kind of the documents efforts agencies involved in that process. Then um zooming into kind of specifically to Caldwell um talking a little bit about the cat's plan and then about the CIP and traffic impact fee program kind of how they differ, how they're related to each other and then we'll start to dive into to um traffic impact studies and and really I think one of the themes we're going to be focusing on is kind of how these documents and interact with each other um and how they they relate to each other. Um and then at the very end we have kind of an example application trying to just kind of bring it all together for for a hypothetical kind of growth situation. If a development comes in, how are all these these documents and and planning documents used um to by the city to to make decisions um regarding the roadway system? So with that we'll um we'll jump right in. So there's a lot of um different elements at play just when we talk about transportation planning in Caldwell. This screen just shows kind of a a smattering of of what's going on. So on the left you have a lot of agencies and these are these are agencies that you don't necessarily have control over in terms of the work they do but but they're partners that you need to work with in terms of developing the system. That includes the Idaho Transportation Department um who who maintains the state roadway system, Compass, who who Caldwell is a member is a member of on the policy board um but makes planning

decisions in conjunction with other agencies in in the Treasure Valley and determines how how funding is is allocated um to the the state and federal highway system. And then you have agencies like like Nampa and and Middleton. So kind of neighboring agencies where um you know obviously you know you you have there different jurisdictions but you you make decisions that that impact one another. So there's a lot at play. Um today we'll be focusing on kind of what's on the right side of the screen. So talking about the the transportation plan, the CIP and traffic impact fee program and then finally traffic impact studies and and kind of how that that fits into the big picture. So the uh Caldwell area transportation system plan um also called the cat's plan. So this was this is a transportation master plan adopted by the city in 2023. Um and it's development of it began in about 2020 2021. I know a lot of folks were were kind of in in their positions when this was adopted. So maybe you're familiar with it, but um I know there are some new faces here so kind of want to walk through this. Um what the plan does is at a very high level is it lays out the long-term vision and goals for for transportation um within the city. So what are these performance measures you're using? What are you targeting? You know, how are you trying to limit congestion as the city grows? Um those kind of items. What do you want the arterial system to look like as these areas of impact build out? Those are kind of questions that the Caldwell area transportation system plan um tries to tries to answer. Um, one very large component of it is that it um looks at anticipated growth within the city and the areas of impact and then the anticipated impact of that growth on the system in terms of congestion, level of service, traffic volumes, those kind of things. Um, the cat's plan looks out to year 2050. So a 20 when it was adopted

it was over 25 years. So now about about 24 years and that future growth is based on projections developed by compass and then also refined by the city. So when we went through those growth projections we we started with kind of compasses based demographics and then we refined them based on input from staff where we knew development was coming in and we actually had a much more aggressive level of growth than than what compass assumed. Um, but that's really a big part is saying where is growth anticipated and then what kind of roadway infrastructure improvements are needed to serve that growth. So what part of the arterial system needs to be widened? Where do you need traffic signals, roundabouts, those kind of items? It's also a lot more holistic. So it included a a deep dive look at at safety. So it looked at five years of crash data. Where are crashes happening? Where are fatality serious injury crashes? what projects are are needed to help mitigate um those hot spots. Um and then also active transportation. So what does the bike ped network look like? Where are the gaps and sidewalks especially in these areas with a lot of pedestrian activity? Those kind of items. Um and the result of this was 200 plus projects. We included cost estimates, prioritizations to kind of address all of these items. So it's really long term 25 years from now, you know, what do we want to implement to kind of reach our our goals and vision? Um maybe I'll pause right there. Any any question just on kind of the cat's plan and and and the role that that plan serves? Any questions from council on that?

Okay, I'll I'll keep moving on. So the next item I I want to hit on um because it's very directly related to the CAT's plan is the capital improvement plan um and the traffic impact fee program. So the capital improvements plan essentially just takes projects from the CAT's plan um and identifies projects and parts of projects that can be funded via traffic impact fees. And why and why this is important is because the Idaho Development Impact Feact has very specific requirements for how impact fees can and can't be spent and the types of projects they can be spent on. So, for example, they can only look up to 20 years in the future while the CAT CATs plan went out to 2050. Um, traffic impact fees cannot be spent to cure existing deficiencies. Um, which is something that we looked at in the CATS plan. So, it's kind of going through that filter and that lens of the Idaho Development Impact FE act. um and and and relating that to the CIP. And so the traffic impact fees are are related directly to the projects in the CIP and essentially says what's the dollar amount of all of those impact fee eligible projects um in the CIP and you essentially divide that by the anticipated level of growth in the system and then it it we we translate that into a traffic impact fee. And there's there's a lot more detail we can go into but very broad strokes that's what um that represents. And another key item I just wanted to focus on is that traffic impact fees can only be spent on on system level projects needed to growth. Um the Idaho development impact fee act is a little bit vague in terms of how they describe system level impact vaxs but how we like to think about it as they're their um projects that can serve multiple developments. So probably not an access to a specific site, but maybe widening of an arterial or installation of a project that improves capacity at an arterial to arterial intersection. Those are kind of the types of projects that are generally impact fee eligible. Um anyway, so this was this was adopted

in December 2024 and the city has been um collecting impact fees since then. Um and yeah, that's kind of the overview of the CIP and impact fee program. Any questions before I pass it over to Lauren to talk about impact studies? Councelor Stoic. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. How often do you visit the uh impact fee schedule? Is it every five years, 10 years, one year, two years? Yeah, councelor Stoic. Um, good question. It Idaho Development Impact Fee Act requires that it is updated every five years. And the city may choose to update it more um if they'd like to. And who chooses that? The cities or who chooses? Correct. The cities.

Yeah. uh on the Carter Road improvement. I've been here 19 since 1977. I can't tell you how many transportation meetings I've attended where we've been promised that we're going to improve Carter Road. And of course, it never happened until this past year. Now, do you have a an approximate date when that might be finished at all? Have they told you anything about that? Councelor Stoic, I I couldn't speak to the Yeah. The status. Are you talking about the roadway widening? Yeah. Yeah. I I couldn't speak to the timing of of that. That would that would be ITD's jurisdiction.

Do you get do you get involved with any of the traffic studies uh relative to new subdivisions going in on different streets in the city at all? Um Mayor Phillips, Councelor Satak, you're you're kind of teen teeing us up for the next portion of the presentation here.

All right. The only reason I ask is because I always tell Mr. McDonald. I haven't I haven't read a traffic study yet that I believe because every time it seems especially where there's a school being built in a subdivision that for instance the last new elementary school on Montana between Carter and Montana or Homedale I guess it is. Uh I seen cars lined up there at at school hour times from the school all the way down to to Homedale Road and it just seems like we're missing something when a new subdivision goes in to have that kind of problems. Then the other problem I saw was maybe some of the traffic studies aren't being studied at the right times a day. You know, I don't know if they're 8 to five or seven. Okay, you're going to address that. All right.

Sorry to get ahead of you. You're good. Anything else, council? All right, let's move on. Okay, thank you.

All right, I'm going to talk a little bit more about the traffic impact studies um that you've just heard about. So, why does Caldwell require traffic impact studies? Well, we want to make sure that the development aligns with the city's goals. So, that's beyond just traffic. That's looking at landscaping, um how um the access is, things like that. So, we want to make sure we align with the city's goals. It's a little bit it's more detailed than what um the CAT's plan is. So, we're getting into more specifics of what that development is looking like. Um, and we're trying to find out what the traffic impact is with that development going in in that specific area. So, we're really only looking at a part of the city here versus the entire system. Um, we use the traffic impact studies to identify improvements. Um, so assigning a new roundabout, a new turn lane, um, whatever that improvement might be and really gives the city a bunch of databased um, data to make database decisions on for that development. Um, I'll just touch on here. So when does the city require TIS's? Um the city's uh policy right now is that when a development is anticipated to generate more than a 100 trips in the peak hour and I will say that is a national practice as well um used across various uh jurisdictions. Um now that is not the only necessarily trigger that might come up. There can be a trigger where the city uh decides that they would like a traffic impact study for a development because there's a school nearby. um there might be a safety already identified safety issue in the area or the development has a complicated access. So there are um a few other reasons why a city might um require a TIS but for the most part the 100 trip threshold is something that uh traffic engineers have studied and feel like

that is kind of the threshold when you start to notice an impact um of operations. Any questions before I move on? All right. Um, so what does the traffic um study give us? Well, we're going to find out how much new traffic the project is going to create. And I'm going to talk through how we get that here in the next slide. Um, we will decide how the where the traffic goes. Um, we use compass uh to help look at a model on um where that new traffic might be going. So, you know, if you have a residential um they're likely to be going to um commercial developments or uh work. So, that model um on that compass runs is helps us decide on that. So, it's standard across the entire Treasure Valley. Um, we also get into how the new development will affect the nearby streets, the intersections, what the proposed access sites might look like, um, and what improvements are needed in this development and kind of reference back to the cat's plan and the CIP, um, of what might be identified already in that area. Um, what does a traffic study not do is also really important to understand. It does not set or assign funding responsibilities. So, it might identify that an improvement is needed. Um it is up to the city and the developer um to kind of work out what that those funding responsibilities are. Um there are some restrictions of course with that with rideaway and things. Um it does not design the improvements. It will help give an idea of what those improvements might be needed but it doesn't go into the design of that. Um it does not set policy. So it cannot set the speed limit of the road. It cannot change the zoning. Um those are different applications. Um same with land use that's already set in the CAST plan. So the TIS does not do that. Um other documents do. Um it does not

evaluate or determine maintenance needs. So um things like snow removal, pavement rehabitation, all of that. Um it does not fix existing condition uh congestion. Um it's not in there to u make an intersection better. However, there is like a caveat with that. you know, as it adds more traffic, um, a good percentage that, um, ACD uses is 10%. When it adds 10% of traffic to that intersection, um, then there may be some mitigation that needed to help fix that intersection. Um, and then it of course does not determine that the project is approved or not. That is, um, your guys's job. Any questions? All right. All right. So, I'm going to get into a little bit of the details here just to help understand where how do we understand what a new development is going to have. Well, traffic engineers have a national practice um called the Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation manual. Um this manual is full of thousands of studies from all different types of developments um throughout the US, Mexico, and Canada. Um mostly from the US here. Um, and so every land use, and I'm talking about a land use of a single family house or a coffee shop with a drive-thru or a bank or um shopping center, there is um it is very detailed on what that type of land use is. So there's um couple hundred codes that we use. Um they generate a trip. A trip is going into the development or out. And so if you were to go into a development and go out of your development, that's two trips. So um the estimates come from uh thousands of studies across the country. Um they're grouped by land type, so we can get into the specifics of a um single family residential subdivision

that's in a suburban area. Um it's developed on different times of the week. And so um whether you look at a weekday or you look at a Saturday or a Sunday. Um and then of course the time of day. So we um standard usually work look at 7 to 9:00 am as the weekday AM peak period. Um weekday PM period is standard between 4 and 6:00 p.m. Um what they do on that they don't count they count for the two hours and then they find the highest hour. So it might be um 4:15 to 5:15. Um so they look at the highest hour for that. um when a school is involved, they do um usually change they have a change in the um trip generation. So you might look at an analysis of um 2 to 4 p.m. because you have school releasing at 3. Um when you have commercial, a lot of times the TIS might look at a Saturday. Um a Saturday peak has been uh 12 to 2:00 p.m. So the time of the uh day does change based off of the land use when you look to analyze, but a standard one is uh usually A.M. and PM. Any questions on that? Does that help? Okay.

Okay. Um, so how trip generation studies are conducted. Um, I think I kind of talked through a lot of this already. So, um, I will go ahead and skip this just in the l of time unless council has more questions on actual studies. I can come back to this. Um, looking at how we evaluate traffic. So we evaluate traffic in transportation impact studies for the peak 15 minutes of the day. So when we show you an LOSD um with a VC of 75 that is for 15 minutes the worst 15 minutes of that entire day. Um and which usually falls in that AM to PM time period. A traffic study evaluates three different scenarios. They evaluate existing conditions, what we call background conditions, and then total traffic conditions. So, the existing conditions are um there's a counting company that will send out, they'll go get counts on a random Tuesday through Thursday. Uh we make sure that there's nothing special going on so we can get just an average. Um and we will analyze what it looks like today. Um then we will grow the volumes based off of the growth rates in the models and add in any inprocess developments, approved inprocess developments. So if there's any other um developments going on in the area, we'll add in their traffic. So since they weren't out there when we went to go count existing counts. Um and we'll analyze the background. So this does not have the current development that's being proposed. It only has what would it look like if I start at this plot of field in the future? What would the traffic look like at this intersection? Then we add in our project um generated trips and we look at our future total traffic conditions. So, if I stood at that same corner and the development was made, what would the traffic look like at that intersection? And this will help us kind of determine is the um issues more of a background need, is an existing need, or is it um based off of the uh future toilet traffic.

Um quickly into operations here. Um this is kind of a fun graphic um to kind of explain this. So when we look at operations, Caldwell standard is LOSD for the worst 15 minutes of the day. Um as you can see, you know, LOSD is approaching the unstable condition um with increasing congestion. Um, this if you were to make this an LOSB, for example, if you're like, well, I want all my roads to be LOSB at the worst, that just means that you're going to have to build bigger intersections, more roads, and the cost is going to go up. So, um, that's why the standard is set for the worst 15 minutes. Um, outside of that 15 minutes, you probably notice a drop off and that's when you get more of your LOC, LOSB type of um, operation. So throughout most of the day, your intersections are going to be operating a lot better than what they are in that peak 15. Um, so I kind of talked through a little bit this how you use the results. So it's providing clear information for you to make that decision of the conditions of approval. Um, it helps the city coordinate other developments that are going on the area and other improvements that might be going on. And last can help inform grant applications and the capital improvement planning. So before we get to the example, I'll kind of pause there. That's kind of an overview of the traffic impact studies. I'm happy to go into any details. Um if council would like

council real quick, just just one quick question. Do you guys actually I mean do you guys put the the strips across the road? Do you actually count cars at times physically or is it all estimated on population? No. So, um they we do put uh well the company that uh counts counters when they count a road they'll put the strip across and that they can get the speed of the vehicle, the type of the vehicle, the number of vehicles in the direction it's going. Now, for intersections, um it's camera based and so they'll video the camera, set it out there for a little bit, and they'll come back and manually have someone watch the video and count the cars of which direction they're turning. So, it is the exact count of that. And you guys use that information?

We do. Thank you. Thank you, councelor. All good. Councelor Stodd. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. A question for you. You had a statement up there that you don't fix current digestion or you know the the traffic problems. The problem I see is like when an elementary school is built, there might there might be maybe one subdivision there and before your five years is up to make another study, there might be two or three more subdivisions in and then the traffic that's uh going to the elementary school blocks the traffic trying to come out of the subdivision. So, how do we solve that? Montana would be a great example of that. go into the example.

Yeah, councelor Stoic, we have like two more slides kind of piecing it all together, these planning elements and and maybe this helps, maybe it doesn't, and we can come back to the question, but Okay, just one more one other quick question and I'll be quiet. Uh, on the traffic studies, are they required to use you or can they hire their own traffic study folks? Yeah, so we are just one transportation consulting firm. Um, there are plenty of them around there. However, they use the same methodologies that I just explained today. Nothing is specific to KDson here. This is just general how a traffic engineer um would do a TIS and what you should be looking for um on those studies. Okay. So you they follow your format then. Is that what you're saying?

It's not mine. Whatever it is, it's a national it's a standard practice. Okay. Um that professional engineers I think that's where the problem lies. But anyway, thank you. And that can get in um to kind of just some TIS guidelines. We've kind of talked with Haley a little bit and as Caldwell like to define a little bit more sort of a standard practice to make sure that all the studies follow that um that's where you can get into defining your TIS guidelines and policy.

Yeah, I um hope hoping to just kind of put this together and talk about how this is kind of the current framework that the city uses to plan for growth just just very generally and kind of when decisions get made. So at a very high level when you're planning for growth. So on on this screen I have kind of just to represent you know your typically mile by mile arterial spaced maybe the roads are one lane direction intersections are stop control but you anticipate it to be developed in the next 25 years. In the master plan in the cat's plan we make an assumption based on land use and zoning designations about what growth will be there. And maybe for this plot of land it's about 2,000 homes 1,000 jobs. And that's just kind of for the sake of discussion very high level. This isn't to the point where we're counting counts. We get to that level of detail, but just just high level. We look at uh we then say, you know, approximately how much traffic will that generate and we'll identify at a high level what are the system improvements that we need to serve that development. And so maybe we find one of these arterials, you're going to need two lanes per direction. You're going to need five lanes total. Um and these arterial to arterial intersections, you're going to need traffic signals and roundabouts. And again, this is kind of very generalized, basic, but this is kind of at the point where you make these high level system determinations of of what your your transportation system should look like. Um, and if you're, you know, if the goal is, you know, real minimal congestion, you know, we want to make sure these are all five lanes. This is this is really the point to to make that decision is kind of these preliminary planning stages. So, next stage, you know, when you actually have a a development start to come in. So maybe about a quarter of this this area there's a development application and they propose construction of of 500 homes within your current system and with your current um impact fee um program. They would they would pay about $2 million in traffic impact fees and that's very ballpark just based on your your single family home impact fee and that can be spent on

on any projects within within the CIP. So, councelor Stick, maybe to go back to your your question about the school coming in in subdivisions, those subdivisions should be paying into that that impact fee pot and those can be used at the city's discretion on projects within the CIP. And that's kind of how you you plan proactively because those dollars can be spent before that development is even built. They're they're collected at the time the building permit is pulled. And so that's kind of a mechanism that the city has to proactively fund some of these these systemwide improvements. And then when the TIS comes in, you know, really hopefully at that point you've you've figured out what your system needs are. You you figured out which arterials need to be widened, where you need signals, roundabouts, those kind of items, and you can really focus on on smaller things. So maybe you have refinements to adjacent projects in the CIP. So that that intersection where you were like it's it's either a signal or roundabout. Maybe you figure out that yeah, you definitely need a traffic signal there just based on specific travel patterns from the development. Maybe you figure out other conditions of approval. You know that it needs turn lanes at specific accesses those and those kind of um items. And then finally, one other thing I want to note, development, they can they may construct projects in the CIP, but if they do so, then they need to be refunded for impact fee for impact fees that they paid. Just so you're not kind of double dipping in those in those two pots. And that's a very specific part of the impact fee development act. So anyways, that's that's all we had. Hope hopefully this is helpful. Um and I I know we're probably running out of time here, but do want to open it up for for additional questions.

Any questions from council? Quick question over here. Yes, council good. So, when you're rating a road, LOS A B C, are you rating it for that peak 15 minutes of the day? Are you rating it for 100,000 trips a day? Are are you What's What's your criteria? Are you saying the LOSB is rated on the 15 minutes of most congestion? How do you make that decision?

Yes. So counselor, so when we run operations, say we're looking at existing conditions and we want to see what the LOS is of an intersection, um our analysis in the model is looking at the peak 15 minutes of that day. And so we are telling you that it operates at LOSD and a VC of 75 in that peak 15 minutes. Okay. And but possibly that road could operate at that almost that peak level almost all day.

Um it's possible highly unlikely as traffic volumes do fluctuate and tend to go down outside of those commuter peaks. But it is possible like Eagle Road for example um it you know it's has that high capacity for a lot longer um but you're still trying to analyze that worst condition. Gotcha. Because yeah, Eagle Road is a wonderful example. It's hard to find during business hours when it's not, you know, you know what I'm saying? And that's kind of what I was going with. Yeah.

I guess counselor all good another point there is that the reason why we do look at maybe just the AM peak hour and the PM peak hour is is time savings essentially because you have to collect counts for every hour. You have to analyze it. And so typically the the default is just looking at those specific hours if if you know for whatever reason there there's a good reason to look at adjacent hours. It's it's definitely possible, but we kind of default to those peak hours just because especially when we're looking at a big system, a lot of intersections and roadways, it it kind of simplifies that that process. Got you. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Uh councelor, sorry. Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh ju just one statement I like to make. I know there's an impact fee committee now that looks at these things, but that was only developed two years ago and we're still playing catch-up because the impact fees weren't uh visited enough relative to the cost that the actual cost that we have. So you might keep that in mind relative to you know the other things you folks do because I just don't think we visit it often enough because of the the prices going up as drastic as they can. If you do it every five years, you're always going to be behind on what you should be charging. So that's my only comment. Thank you.

Anything else from council? All right. Well, thank you for that informative presentation. Thank you, Haley, for putting that together. She'd reached out, asked if we would like to have this before council and definitely some good information. So, thank you for that. All right, this concludes tonight's workshop and we will be starting the regular council meeting shortly. Does anyone need a quick break? Councelor Stodd register. All right. Well, we're going to move uh right in. I will call tonight uh city council meeting to order and welcome all those in the crowd that are joining us. All right. Just so everyone's aware, items number two and six on the agenda have been postponed. Items number two and six. So, if you're here for those, those will be continued to another meeting. Number two will be March 2nd and then number six will be further on down. And first on the agenda is the invocation which tonight is going to be from Cobbell Fire Department Chaplain Phil Whitbeck. Please stand if you're able and join us in prayer and then we'll continue with the pledge of allegiance. Father, once again we come before you thanksgiving for the day. We always ask Lord for your guidance and leadership as we come before you to do the work of this great city. We ask that each one that has an opportunity to speak tonight would be guided by wisdom and that you would help us to know what is the very best decisions that can be made for the good of all. We thank you Lord that uh we do not have in ourselves the the wisdom that we wish we had but we thank you that you have promised that you would if we seek your wisdom. So we seek that tonight. Thank you for our mayor and this council. Use them I pray for your purpose in Jesus name. Amen.

Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. May be seated. Thank you, chaplain. Um, we were supposed to have another minister tonight, but they were not able to make it. All right. The next item on the agenda is roll cler roll call. Madame clerk, will you please call the role? Councelor Tilmont here. Councelor Static here. Councelor Register here. Councelor Williams here. Councelor Algood here. Councelor Denber here.

All right. All council is present and accounted for. Next is the conflict of interest declaration. Are there any members? We have a conflict of who have a conflict of interest to declare relating to any item on tonight's agenda. Councelor Denber. Mr. Mayor, even though I do not believe it is a conflict of interest as defined by Idaho code, there is an item of business on the consent agenda that has to deal with the company that I work for. So, I will be not voting on the consent calendar.

Thank you, Councelor Denber. Anyone else? All right. Next on the agenda is audience participation. Each person can speak to the council for up to three minutes. And with that, we're going to start with believe the first name is Cutter and I don't want to mispronounce the last name. It's going to be flock cameras and please come forward. Thank you.

Um I wrote a little bit here. Um hello, my name is Cutter Maninus and I'm here to talk about removing the flock cameras here in Caldwell. To start, Caldwell has at least 86 cameras in use, uh, which might increase by two tonight. This is roughly one per 875 residents of Caldwell. This puts us in the running for the most c for the most cameras per capita in the nation. A major issue with these cameras is they infringe on our Fourth Amendment right protecting us from unreasonable search and seizure. According to Idaho law, these cameras cannot be utilized for traffic offenses, but they still have the capability. These cameras also have the capability to use facial recognition and other identifiable information on any and every passer by. There are cameras pointed at Lubie Park, Sakajia Elementary School, as well as many other schools in location. Every child is being recorded and analyzed by the cameras without reason. The data is not safe and is not secure. Data breaches happen all the time. Recently, there was an issue with the parking meters here in Caldwell where the credit card information was stolen from that company. What will happen when people's biometric data is stolen? It is also stated that Flock will not share or sell data with third parties. Their recent partnership with Ring says that they will share our data. That partnership has recently been been cancelled due to national push back after their Super Bowl ad. I urge the city to cancel all flock contracts and remove their cameras. I'd like to end with a quote a quote from Benjamin Franklin. To those who would give up liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions from the council? Appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next up, Dell King on the quiet zone.

Good evening, city council members. I just wanted to step forward and have a quick conversation and try to debunk some uh misinformation that was out there. Uh we had some information saying that the quiet zone was brought forward due to the hotel that was being under consideration which is incorrect information. the quiet zone to make those be established or done takes about a two to threeyear process which you guys can see you've been working on through that whole entire process and I just wanted to make sure that that misinformation was corrected. Second off the reason why quiet zones are brought forward are is for the benefit of the business community to help develop in their core districts and be benefit for the local communities. What that entails is that businesses get to generate commerce between all parties and benefit from each other and especially protect the asset that has been greatly developed in the downtown core which is the creek with the spent the money spent by the city of opening that up and being a tremendous asset. It would help benefit the businesses that are down within the corridor and thus the reason why the consideration for the quiet zone was put into play. The big thing that happens with that is with more business development going on within the particular community, what happens is the taxable base for those businesses property tax- wise increase which offsets I will state that again which will offset individual residential tax commitments. The city will continue to increase its costs of doing business. It happens every day.

You need to be able to grow your business base in order to offset those taxable entities and create the synergy of your downtown core. If that doesn't occur, the citizens will be paying for it and they'll be paying for it as personal property taxes. The big concern that we everybody speaks to is safety concerns at those particular railroad crossings. Crossings are are not the only benefit to that. You've also got to have signals, bells, chimes, all this other good stuff that goes on. But in detail, the other process that needs to occur is there also needs to be pedestrian crossing areas with crossing guards to protect the public too as well. that needs to go into consideration for all protection and safety for all conitizens. Thank you for your time and I stand for questions.

Thank you, councel. Any questions? Thank you, Mr. King. All right, next up didn't get a first name, but it starts with an S in brown and it just said Caldwell.

Thank you. Can I be heard? I guess so. Uh, thank you for the uh invitation to be here this evening. I'm glad to be here uh with each of you and it's nice to put a face with a name. I'm looking all around you uh since the voting took place. So, I I know where my ex's and O's went there, you know. Um, I'm hoping that all of us will be heard tonight, no matter what the decision is on each of our sides of the aisle. Uh, I'm here just about 80. I'm a grandma. I love this state with all my heart. I love this community of Caldwell. I moved out here to just be a little bit more rural. I don't mind smelling cows or walking on poop. I uh can wipe that off outside. But I love the area, the ruralness of it all. And the area that we're talking about that I got invited to is means everything to us. And I know that the couple that were here, I just didn't know what amount of study was done on this specific corner of um

Can you hold on to a second? Um Oscar, I'm I'm so sorry to interrupt, Mr. Mayor. I I just want to make sure um ma'am if if you're if you're here to talk about something that's on the agenda for tonight, we need I thought the agenda was uh that you invited us to for the build uh that you have on Dorman and uh that'll be later tonight, ma'am. So So just so you know, this is just the time when when things are not on the agenda. So we just got you a little bit out of order. So you'll get a chance, but you're I'm sorry. We just have to be able to to follow that. Madam Clerk, can we make sure we So, we'll need you to stop your comment at this time. In just a few in just a few minutes, we'll start we'll open the public hearing for the item that you're discussing and then we'll call you back up. Okie dokie.

Uh, next up, Miss Nancy Roberts.

Mr. Mayor, if I may, while we're waiting for her to come up. Go ahead. Uh, I think that that would be a general thing for everybody here to know tonight. If they're here to talk about the the dorm in development, that that'll be a time to do that and and not at the audience participation moment. And if you're if you're here to talk about that and you're signed up for this one, I'd suggest you come talk to the clerk and she can get you set up to talk at that point. Did everyone under in the crowd understand that? Did anyone have any questions? Thank you, Nancy.

Well, as you know, my name is Nancy Roberts. I'm a resident of Caldwell. I'm here this evening to correct the public record. I wrote it down so I wouldn't get lost. During the February 2nd city council meeting, which I was unable to attend, Councilman Jeff Williams misrepresented me while he was discussing the quiet zone. He said at uh in the transcript, "I recall before I was even on the council years ago, Mrs. Robert stood in front of the council and begged us to consider a quiet zone. I've not authorized Councilman Williams to represent me either in my presence or in my absence and I did not beg. I never beg. I resent the characterization which was added. Um, immediately continuing on from the above begging characteration characterization, Councilman Williams stated, "I've heard from dozens and dozens of people who are in favor of this quiet zone."

Just correct me, Oscar. We're not supposed to name counselors, correct? But you can speak as to the subject. I can hear you. Can you uh We don't normally address individual council members during the meeting, but you're more than welcome to continue on with the subject.

Okay. So, those comments that uh the councilman had heard from dozens and dozens of people who are in favor of the quiet zone immediately following that would tend to indicate that I'm also in favor of the quiet zone. And my questions and concerns regarding the quiet zone have for the most part never been addressed in any detail. And I have talked to several of the mayors as they've come along and other people. Therefore, since they are not addressed, I will state here now that I am opposed to the plan as it has been presented to me. And the bulk of my concerns regard the ability and safety of handicapped persons trying to cross the railroad tracks. Also, the safety of persons in automobiles or any other mode of transportation is a concern. The train horns can be heard by most of us far in advance of any crossing arms and alarms activating, which they usually do, but not always. And if or when my concerns are addressed to my satisfaction, I may once again be interested in the creation of a quiet zone. Uh, Mr. Roger Brooks did uh give me some very good information today in an email, which will help. An additional concern regarding the meeting is that the order was not wellkept. Councilman, well, one councilman said, "This isn't on the agenda tonight." But continued then to talk for some time about the quiet zone and uh then another councilman added his comments and then um Bruce Mills was invited to come up and he talked about it for quite a while as well, none of that being on the agenda and no point of order was called for quite a lengthy period of time. And finally it was saying that um was raised that a pretty robust discussion about an item which is not on the agenda and talking about things that are off the agenda and not set up for the public to be able to know what we're talking about was the point of order that was raised

and I appreciate that it did finally get there. So that about covers it. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Appreciate it. Council mayor uh Miss Roberts, I just want to apologize for my choice of words. I don't script what I say up here, so I didn't mean to intend to say that you begged. Uh I just simply recalled you asking for it at a meeting I was attending and that was that was the only thing I was trying to communicate. Apologize for using that choice of words. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Williams. Anything else? All right. Thank you, Nancy. Next up, Terry and it just lists Caldwell. Terry Roules, is that the correct way to say say that? Not here tonight. Okay. Sorry. And does that go for Alfredo? Yes, too. All right. Madam Clerk, can we make sure we get them both on the other topic? And that would be for

Thank you. All right, we're going to move on to Pamela Williamson. And there was a Brad Krenshaw that scratched our name out. Okay, just want to confirm you're here tonight. And Miss Pamela Williamson didn't list the subject.

Hi, my name is Pamela Williamson. I'm a resident of Caldwell. Um, I'd like to congratulate all of you for winning the election. Yay. we finally have real people in the seat. Um the first thing I'd like to talk about is um all this building that's been going on off of the south tent. All of our f farmlands gone and everything. My sister called me from Tennessee today. She lives in Knoxville, Marville, right out of Knoxville. They had a little bit of problem because all the Californians are moving to te Tennessee because of the low property taxes. And my sister called me and told me that they have a problem with the water filtration plant because they've built so many houses, they don't have enough water filtration. So, they had to shut down the water out of two cities in Tennessee to order bigger filters for the plant. They had no water for two weeks. I'm afraid that that's what's going to happen to Caldwell. You got a you got 3,00 if I'm not mistaken 3,029 houses going up from now to uh 2032 in that area. Has anybody thought about what we're going to do about the water? They keep laying the pipes down, but nobody's doing anything about possibly running into the same situation that Tennessee has ran into. Shutting the water off. They didn't bring any water in for these people. They couldn't take showers, brush their teeth, flush the toilet, nothing for two weeks. So that makes me a little nervous about what's happening up here in Cal Caldwell off of the South Tent where I live. I live on the corner of South Tent, Trailside, and Settlers. I take the whole corner. Okay, that's one of the things that I'm worried about. I'd like to ask the committee and maybe the city attorney, do we have a Senate parliamentarian in

the state of Idaho? Does anybody know? Okay. Well, the Senate paritarian is going to, if I can find one here in Idaho, he's type of senator that steps in and make sure that all the public land is not sold to build build build. Okay, that's one thing. Another thing I have to worry about is the traffic noise. These big trucks start at six o'clock in the morning and I'm right there on South Tent. They wake me up all day long. They go all night almost. The traffic from the people on South Tent, I don't I probably get about two to three hours sleep at night because of all this. Okay. Governor Little at his last year's statement stated that he would not bring allow any contractors to come in from any other state, including California, to build on our land. Well, sorry to say this, but he's lied. He's got Toll Brothers here, ma'am,

building all of the all of the uh uh houses. We just went through the three minutes if you can wrap it up. Okay. But you're more than welcome to come in the next meeting and continue if you would like. But yeah, this this is think about the water, okay? Think about what happened in Tennessee as an example and it might happen here because we didn't have a good winter this year. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your comments. Thank you to all that participated tonight. Uh we appreciate hearing your feedback no matter the subject. Next on the agenda is the economic development report and tonight we hear from Cowell interimm economic development director Robin Collins who's also our community development director and that department of economic development falls under her. Thanks for joining us tonight Robin and we look forward to your report and just so council and um the audience is aware I did ask that we start giving updates much like the urban rural agency updates. So thank you for being here tonight. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Robin Collins, economic development uh department, um presenting for them tonight. I'm the community development director. Um I'm going to start off by just doing a little brief history of what economic development is because I think a lot of people maybe in the public or maybe even on staff doesn't understand everything that is entailed with economic development. It's hard to define. This is the best definition I could come up with is that it's the deliberate effort to improve a community's prosperity and quality of life by helping businesses start and grow, attracting new investment, and expanding job opportunities. And why that matters is because it leads to more jobs, higher wages, a stronger tax base, lower pressure on residential taxes, and better quality of life and community services. So when we look at economic development, there is a lot of programs. A lot of people talk highly of business attraction um because that's the shiny object that is great when you get to do those um you know uh ribbon cutings and those types of things. The most important program in economic development is your business retention and expansion. It's taking care of your existing businesses because they've already invested here. And most of your job growth statistics will show comes from existing businesses, not

necessarily the new ones. And we'll talk about why that is. And so with a new team member um on Brian Kaida, we are going to have a more robust business retention and expansion program now that we are going to have three people in economic development. Um he is going to begin going out and meeting with local employers not just in the downtown but citywide and he'll talk with them establish relationships find out what challenges they're having and see if he can connect them to resources to help solve those problems whether it's workforce or you know getting through the permitting process and not understanding it or they're looking to expand. The next one would be the business attraction. Um, this needs to be very intentional. You need to you need to proactively target certain industry sectors and you need to recruit companies that fit into your community. If they don't fit with your vision and your long-term goals, it's not going to work. You also have to look at assets that your community has to support those companies. Some companies just don't work in a local community depending on what type of company it is. Um, so with part of that they look to recruit companies that fit. They do site selection incentives. They market available land and buildings. They sell the community. And we often compete with other cities and states. And I will tell you that one person told me a long time ago that business attraction is not a race, it's a journey because you can sometimes be trying to attract a company for five or six years and it never happens. And so there's a lot of stuff that goes on behind the scenes that nobody actually sees. The next program is workforce development and job training. This is where we partner with our schools, our colleges and universities. It's twofold. It's for students that are in high school for their career technical training to coordinate with the schools to make sure that they're providing that

career technical training in jobs that fit our industry sectors. It's also working with colleges and universities on customized training programs for companies but also for residents that want to upskill um and go into a new career. Small business and entrep entrepreneurial development. This is kind of helping businesses start with a home occupation and then kind of expand out into incubators or those types of things. How to start a business until they can get a brickandmortar building. That's part of economic development as well. and then of course downtown revitalization and urban renewal. So some of the numbers when we look at growth trends we know that the population has continued to increase over the years and the population from 2024 to 2025 increased at 5.7%. Which is equivalent to about 4,100 persons. Along with that, our housing trends have increased as well. Um, between 2024 and 2025, our housing went up by 5.3%. When we look at business industry growth over the last year from 2024 to 2025, you can see the top growth was in our information sector. Those are your uh wireless communication, radio, TV, bookstores, anything that provides information. The next highest growth was in our manufacturing industry sector, followed by educational services, um leisure and hospitality, warehouse and transportation. Those were all kind of about equal as far as other services, public administration, leisure and hospitality warehouse. Other services is your personal services. So that's your locksmiths, your barber shops, your beauty salons, um all of those types of personal services that's not listed here.

For your employment growth, when we look at employment, you can see information far exceeds most of the other employment growth that we've had at a little over 18%. And then next was in our financial industry sector. So those are your banks, your credit unions, your insurance agencies. And then next was our professional and business services. Um those are anything from architects, engineers, um management companies, all of that type of stuff. When we look at our top employment sectors in Caldwell, manufacturing is leading by 23% um along with construction in second place, which is not surprising considering all the growth in construction that's happening. Um next is actually health care, I'm sorry, educational services and then healthc care and retail is kind of tied at 14%. And then professional services. So those are our top industry sectors which are actually really good industry sectors to be recruiting and targeting into our community. The with the exception of retail which the jobs are a little bit lower paying most of the other ones are pretty high paying. So, a new investment snapshot. As you can see, there's quite a lot of new businesses that have come to Caldwell U with the Fred Meyer recently announcing, um, Home Depot, uh, Mobettas, the Marriott, Maverick, um, Nara Ramen, and so on. With that, we've also had some other ones that I did not have logos for, so we're just going to put them on the spreadsheet here. We got Rivera's Market Restaurant, which just recently opened, which is, I heard, is fantastic. Their tacos are great. um a few uh industrial businesses, the Gladen Equipment, um the EKS Thermal Systems, Uing Kesler, and then we've got the 44 Iron Steel Fabrication Company, Iron Eagle Industrial Condos. Those are all

industrial facilities along with CTOU, Inc., that's an industrial business as well. So, there's been a lot happening. Um new investment that's coming that our economic development team is working on. I cannot disclose who these are. These are all confidential at the moment. But we are working with four large retailers, five restaurant or fen food and drink establishment projects. And when I did this, it was one industrial project and now it's two. Um so we will continue to work with uh site selectors and the companies to help land these here in Caldwell. New commercial land availability. Home Depot has a whole bunch of commercial pads. They've had a lot of interest in it. Um, Canyon Village, which is right in front of the

Jackson, the Jackson Apartments off the boulevard, has commercial pads. We also have 17 other developments that council has approved over the last couple years that has commercial pads coming online in the very near future. They're going through construction drawings and getting ready to build those out. So, we're going to have a lot of open land and this goes everywhere from north to south, east to west. They're all over the place. Um, and that's all I have for you tonight. And I'll stand for questions. Thank you, Robin. We appreciate all the work you do. Um, anything from council. Thank you. Okay. You're welcome.

Hopefully next time we'll have a new economic development director hired and we'll be up here to present. So, thank you. All right. Next on the agenda is the consent calendar. Just so everyone's aware, these are routine items that are grouped together to be approved in one motion, unless a counselor moves for one or more of the items to be removed from the consent calendar and considered separately. I would entertain a motion to move the consent calendar as presented. Have a question for clerk. Our packet had 23 items. The agenda has 25. Which one are we approving?

25. The final version of the packet had 25. Okay. Because I brought up the packet that was out there and it still only has 23. Okay. We can approve the 23 and I can figure it out. The Okay. I just want I wanted to make sure that everybody that it was public. So the notice agenda has the 25 items on it. That's what we should be going forward with. Okay. Yeah. I just wanted to make sure. Mr. Mayor. Uh, yes. Council register. What can I just ask what you're comfortable with and then we'll I don't care. I just wanted to make sure we were on the right one. It was the 25 was published, you said. Okay. Yes.

Okay. Um, let's see. I need to find the right Oh, I'm just going to make a motion that we approve the consent calendar as presented. I have a motion to approve the consent calendar as presented. Is there a second?

Second. Motion in a second. Um, now we'll call for roll call vote and the counselors can cast their votes on the motion. Madam Clair. All right, that motion is approved. We have one abstination to councelor Denber. All right, we're going to move on. Next on the agenda is an action item for the council to consider bill number four, ordinance number 3738, amending chapter 2, article 15, section 215 01 of Calbell city code pertaining to the planning and zoning commission with a request to move for passage by title only and approve the summary for publication. And back up, Robin, would you be willing to discuss this item on the agenda and why we are choosing to amend this?

Yes, thank you, mayor and councel. This item is on there to bring our ordinance in compliance with state statutes. State statute says that when a city has an approved impact area, they have to have a proportionate share of people on the commission from the impact area. Um so we are revising our city code because currently our city code only um allows uh people that are within the city limits to be on the commission. So this will open it up to that proportionate share to serve on the commission from the impact area. Now stand for any questions. Any questions from councel? Councelor Williams.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a thought because recently in the hearings the county had, they were taking uh back area impact from cities. How would that impact us when our area of impact is is coming and going so to speak? Uh if there are people from the current area of impact on the commission and then it's not. It's just a random thought but you're standing there so I'll ask you.

Yes. Um mayor and councelor Williams that's a great question and there is something in the statute that talks about that that they can continue um their term on there um until um they're finished they're completed. So even if the county took back part of our area of impact, I think our proportionate share right now is probably only going to be one anyways. So even if it decreases, we'll still just keep that one person on there. Does that did that answer your question? Kind of in a roundabout way. Thank you for that. And if it they were to fall out of that area, then we can re I'll bring it back before council for revisit if we need to move to have someone else put on there. Yeah.

It falls within that. And so, um, just one more thing, mayor and council, um, because we will be adding one from the from the impact area, it'll bring us to six, which is an even number. So, we have discussed internally broadening that to seven so that we don't have um an even number because that poses problems when there's motions and stuff because there's nobody to break the tie. Council

all good. Touche. Uh, anyone else on the right side here? I guess the left from your vantage point. All right. Um, thank you for that. Uh, council members don't have any further questions what it looks like. Um, I would entertain a motion to approve the ordinance and action item. This is an action item. Consider bill number four, ordinance number 3738 amending chapter 2, article 15, section 2-15-01 of Cwell city code pertaining to the planning zoning commission with request to move for passage of title only and approve the summary for publication. Mr. Mayor, yes.

I'll sponsor bill 04 ordinance number 3738. Move for it passage. We have a sponsor. Do we have a second? Second. All right. has been moved to appeal uh approve bill number four, ordinance number 3738 with request to move for passage by title and approve the summer publication. The council members may now cast their votes electronically.

It's a unanimous vote. Um thank you. All right, the next action item public hearing on the reszone development agreement for T-Mod homes has been correction um they requested continues to March 2nd 2026. So with that um do I have a motion to continue that application March 2nd? So moved. All right. Motion and a second. A second. All right. And since obviously the applicant's not here, can we go ahead and call the call the vote? Stoic, yes. Tilont, yes. Register, yes. Williams, yes. All good, yes. Denber,

yes. All right. Just be aware that did pass and we are going to move that to March 2nd. And if there's any other changes, we'll notify everyone. All right. So now we're going to move on to the next agenda item. This an action item with public hearing on a proposed vacation case VAC25-0000004 petition for vac vacating rightway. A request by the property owner base layer Cwell LLC to vacate a portion of Green Road where it connects to Highway 2026 between Spring Lake and Gravel Lane. This portion of Green Road is planned to no longer be utilized as a public road. Further transportation master plan is proposed to be utilized for future development land for base layer LLC. Would the applicant please come up?

Go ahead. Sorry.

Okay. Elizabeth Allen, 1330 Williams Lane, Nampa, Idaho 83686. And I'm before you this evening to present the green road vacation of rightway. And the uh request is located near the interchange of Highway 2026 and Interstate 84. Next slide. And so we're requesting approval of a vacation of a section of redundant green road rightway as it no longer serves a public road function under transportation master plan. Um and that's shown in yellow in the image. Um, and as part of this project, we have dedicated a new public rideway uh for Spring Lake Drive, which is shown in the dash white line on the picture, and that's right next to the new Maverick gas station, and you'll see that in the images on the next slides. Um, so the vacation of rightway of this green road um section creates a direct and properly aligned roadway connection and it illuminates the offset intersection and improves sight distance and turning movements. Next slide. Um so the previous access point which is shown where the X is on the image was the the previous access point. So you could see there that it wasn't a safe access point because of the curve of highway 2026 which create created visibility issues um for people using that access point and also had a really tight turn radius as you can see where they would have to turn in and then immediately turn um to the east. and the vacation of rightaway and the dedicated rightaway improves traffic flow, safety and visibility. And next slide. And so this image is just a visual overview of the vacation of rightaway. Um so no properties lose access and the applicant is the only property owner that would be adjacent to this rightway that we're requesting to to vacate. Um next slide. And then this is a visual overview of the Spring Lake Drive the dedication that has already occurred. So you can see that that access point has been approved and it creates a safer access

point of users in the areas um and it shows a safe access. Next slide. And to sum it up, we're requesting approval of the unused green road um right away to provide safer access and roadway for roadway and better alignment in accordance with the transportation master plan. And I'll stand for questions. Any question for the applicant? All right. Hearing none. Thank you. Now we will move on to the staff report. Mr. Mayor, council, good evening. That looks really fun. I don't know how that happened. Um, bear with me. I'm do not feel good at all, so I'm probably going to speak a little slower than normal and I won't be as spunky as I usually am. Um, if you guys have questions, I'm definitely here to answer them nonetheless. And as well as Robin and her wonderful experience that she has. So, this does say Green Road vacation in that weird hieroglyphic language. Um, it is VAC25- I think 04. Wow. Uh this is the vacation area as noted by the applicant. It's just a a section of Green Road that is no longer going to be used. ITD from my understanding has already closed that access even before the rightway was dedicated for the new road because of how unsafe it was and they knew that it was paved and so they just closed that access where Green Road connects to 2026. So the applicant is requesting this area be absorbed by they their parcels. They own all the parcels to the north and all the parcels on the south side of this vacation. I stole this from their narrative. So, it's about 1.4 acres. It's also what

that says on the left. Um, a vacation area and then they have dedicated additional right of way as well as Maverick to have the full Spring Lake Drive right away in the appropriate location that will align with the Spring Lake Drive on the west side of 2026 to have just better turning movements in general. As far as comments were concerned, there were uh multiple utility companies reached out to that we always we go and ask them for their comments. Everybody said that there were no utilities in there. There was one late correspondence from Century Link and their letter is unclear as to whether they have utilities currently. Nonetheless, they did ask that they just get an easement in this area if they do not already have one, which they were also unfortunately unclear about. All those things uh should be handled within the ordinance if council so wishes to vacate this rightway that the ordinance says that the any utility easements will be required. There were no written responses from the public. There was one phone call received from Mr. Caldwell who I believe operates the RV park to the west southwest and he just wanted to understand what was going to happen to access around his site because obviously that's important to him and I just had to explain to him what was happening with Spring Lake Drive and everything worked out fine. Uh this did go to traffic commission in January and traffic commission reviewed it according to the master plan. They had no additional comments or conditions of approval and did recommend approval to city council for this vacation.

So in conclusion again it's just a vacation of rightway to meet the master plan and I will stand for any last questions that council may have. I want to apologize for the graphics. Obviously, we're not able to see that, but if anyone would like a copy, luckily, it's not a big um thing on the agenda tonight as as some of the other topics. That being said, council council. Yeah, Joe. Um question. I don't This is probably a silly question, but vacation of that piece of road is totally understandable. Mhm.

What gives us or anybody else the authority to give that to the property owner that owns all the round property? I mean, is that property owned by the city, by the county? Um, how do we how do we transfer ownership or is there is there a a mechanism that happens or we don't own it anyway? I mean, what how does that work, Joe?

Right. Great question, councelor. All good. Um, so in any vacation of rightway, rightway is obviously owned by the public entity. Anytime an adjacent property owner, whether it's the same or two different ones, requests that vacation, through this vacation process, it gets consolidated or separated into those adjacent parcels. And so through this vacation process, city council says, "Yes, that's okay. We're going to give that land that was a road back to those adjacent parcels, assuming theoretically that they had given that right of way at some point anyways." So through this process, they do get that land back. Gotcha. And since the property owner owns all the property around the whole thing, there's not really a way to got you. Correct. Thank you. I appreciate that.

You're welcome. Anything else from council? Councelor Denver. Mr. Mayor Joe, thank you. Uh because you're sick, I want to make sure I keep you up here a little bit longer. I want you to answer a question about the applicant slide.

So, can you pull the applicant slide up and let's go to page number three with the big X. And Santiago, are you in the room somewhere? There you are. Maybe you guys can both tag team and answer this question. One more. One. Okay. So, uh, right there. So, I'm saying this because of experience. I've worked out there in that area for 20 years. And I drive down that road four times a day. Ever since they put the traffic mitigation in and ever since they put the uh the Maverick station in, there is a terrible misalignment of the road just left of that big X on the road that will cause a traffic accident one day. It is uh 45 going into a 60 mph zone there and there is probably six or eight feet less of road in that alignment. When will that road be aligned? I will defer to the city engineer on that.

Um, Councilman Dintenber, so you're talking about where where when will the road be aligned at the location of the X or where will the road be aligned along the highway where the pavement is in line rather than having that I can see that little curve. The misalignment starts right where that X is, which would be just west of the vacation.

Okay. So, the property owner will be required to complete frontage improvements as they build out the development. Um, now this is an ITD highway. It isn't a city-owned road. So, the city doesn't have the jurisdiction to require the improvements along Highway 2026, but certainly would be a conversation with ITD when this project develops to see if we can have the developer fix that alignment. If not, I would I am happy to reach out to ITD tomorrow and see if that's something that they can repair promptly. Would you please do me a favor and drive it once? Yes. So that you see the misalignment and drive safe when you do so. I'll I'll take that route on my way home.

Thank you, Councelor Denber. Uh Haley, can we make sure that we reach out tomorrow just to get on top of that? We'll get back to you, Councelor Denber, with that. Mr.

All right, councelor Tilma. Um Joe, real quick. Just for land value issues, the vacated part of Green Road, is that going to be roughly the same value as what they're vacating to us in Spring Lake Drive? Mr. Mayor, Councelor Tilman, um, Tamont. Uh, I honestly do not know just because there's not a way that we appraise these when we do vacations. As discussed in previous vacation requests, we don't have that mechanism currently. Um, I don't know if it's the same. My assumption is that the width that they gave for Spring Lake is going to be wider than what the actual roadway was at the time for Green Road, but full right ofway I I couldn't tell you. Sorry.

Ballpark, it's probably a a swap, right? Probably very close. Okay. Just for public knowledge, I wanted to make sure that we weren't giving away land. Sure. Understood. Anything else from council? All right. Thank you. So, now with that, we're going to open up public hearing. If anyone is signed up, which it looks like they are not, uh, we're going to have them testify for up to three minutes. But, um, now that we've completed the public hearing, I will declare the hearing closed and the council can discuss the application for making any motions and voting. Mr. Mr. Mayor, Council DMA,

I move that we approve the petition for vacation of rightway the request by the property owner um base layer Caldwell LLC to vacate the portion of Green Road where it connects to Highway 2026 between Spring Lakes Drive and Gravel Lane.

All right, we have a motion and do we have a second? Motion in a second for action item. The petition for vacation rightway is requested by the property owner of base layer LLC. All right. Uh the council members can now cast their votes electronically. All votes are in. All right. The motion passes for the vacation the rightway. The next item on the agenda is an action item with a public hearing to consider proposed annexation case number AN25-0000009 and SP25-000012. The applicant Taylor Schmidt of SI construction. Correct. Yeah, here. All right. um LLC is requesting annexation of one parcel R2799800000000 with a proposed zoning of R2 where the current comprehensive plan future land use map place type is neighborhood 2. Additionally, the applicant is requesting approval of preliminary plat for Summit Grove subdivision, a residential subdivision with 32 total building lots with 31 single family attached building lots and one single family detached building lot for the existing home. The 4.3 acre development is located on the east side of Dormund Avenue approximately 325 ft south of the intersection with West Lynon Road. The applicant was recommended for approval by the plan Caldwell Planning Zoning Commission on Wednesday, January 4th, 2026. And with that, we will first hear from the applicant. You can go ahead when you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, council members. My name is Jeff Bower. My address is 601 West Banic in Boisey. Here tonight on behalf of the applicant, SI Construction, the owner and development director, Taylor Schmidt, is also here uh from SI Construction and he's available for any questions if you have any as well. Uh we are here tonight seeking your approval of the Summit Grove community. Summit Grove is an infill development. that that will provide the city with 31 new uh town home units that will be age restricted to 55 and over residents. We have two applications before the council tonight. Uh the first is annexation and zoning. The second is a preliminary plat to subdivide the property. We've reviewed the staff report and all the conditions of approval. We agree with staff's analysis of this project and we also agree with all of the conditions of approval. save one, which was the planning and zoning commission's recommendation that this project be zoned R1 instead of the requested R2. First, briefly touch on the property. Uh, this project is on the west side of the city on the southeast corner of of Lynen and Farmway. The project area is 4.63 acres. You can see the subject property highlighted in red on the slide here. There's one existing single family residence on the property in that southwest corner. That that home will remain and be included as part of this project. Caldwell has annexed land on all four sides of this project. The area that's been annexed into the city is shown in blue on this slide and the uses surrounding the property are primarily detached single family residential.

Our application as I mentioned does include an annexation request. In this case annexation does meet all of the applicable standards from both Idaho code and the city's zoning ordinance. Uh first the property is contiguous as I mentioned we have city limits on the north south east and west of this property and second the property is also within your uh comprehensive plan future land use map. So for these reasons the property is legally inexible and we would also submit to the council that this annexation constitutes orderly development and we believe that's the case because this is an enclave property. It's an infill development. Um we're surrounded by the city and all of the utilities needed to serve this property are already stubbed to the property. That includes pressurized irrigation, sewer, water, and we also have local roadways available to serve this property. So for all these reasons, uh we would submit that this uh property should be annexed by the city to fulfill the housing needs of the city. This property is designated on the city's future land use map as neighborhood 2. This slide shows a portion of the future land use map, the southwest section. The property is identified by the red star. Uh you can see we are neighborhood two as is all of the property surrounding the uh all the land surrounding this property. This slide is from the city's comprehensive plan. It shows the uses and zones that are appropriate for land designated as neighborhood 2. So with respect to uses down there with the purple circles you have low to mid density residential. Those are the uses that should be uh applied in this designation. And then up in the right hand corner top right you have identified what zones are compatible uh

with neighborhood 2. and that includes R2 which is the zoning that we have requested. Also from the city's comp plan uh the neighborhood 2 land use uh cut sheet uh again it requests or encourages a mix of housing types. So not just single family detached in neighborhood 2. The city's indicated that you want multiple housing types including town homes which this project is. And it also indicates that density should be in the range of two to eight units per acre. This slide shows uh again the property highlighted in red and you see the enclaved area there that isn't annexed and it also shows the surrounding zoning. So the zoning surrounding this project uh kind of the light green is all R1. Um, in this case, we are asking for R2, which is compatible with the with the neighborhood 2 designation. But I just wanted to highlight the criteria that the council evaluates when looking at zoning. Those are the four criteria on this slide. So, is the zoning consistent with the comp plan? Uh, is the zoning consist is the project consistent with the statement of purpose for the R2 zone? Uh, will the zoning create significant adverse impacts on surrounding properties? And lastly, can the project be served by uh existing uh facilities such as sewer, water, etc. I think at the end of my presentation uh I will submit to you that all four of those criteria are met and that R2 zoning is appropriate. Just to highlight a couple important comprehensive plan uh provisions that we want to uh submit for your consideration tonight. One is that in the R2 designation, you have a growth strategy and this is from the comp plan and it it submits that where land is designated as

R2 and it's also near a major roadway, that's an area where we should have increased density. So, this property is very close to Farmway. Farmway is designated as a principal arterial that connects to State Highways. That'd be State Highway 55 and 16. So, because this property is so close to Farmway, which will be built out to five lanes and include a roundabout here at um Lynden and Farmway, we think this is an appropriate place for some increased density. And lastly, um you do have some mobility standards in the comp plan and the city is always encouraging local roads to be connected and we're doing that here. So where Manchester currently deadends into this property on our eastern boundary, we will be connecting that through the property and out to Dorman. This is the site plan for the project. Uh again, it's a 55 plus age restricted town home project. There was some confusion at our PNZ hearing about restricted uh versus marketed. Um this will be restricted in our covenants and there is a condition of approval that requires that to be the case. Um it is 31 uh single family attached town home units. Uh we do have a density of 6.6 units per acre. Our average lot size is 4,247 square ft. And the town homes will be in a mix of building sizes. So we have buildings with two, three and four uh unit town homes. So you can see the lot lines on this slide are the are the solid lines and the buildings are shown in the dashed lines. All structures will be singlestory and approximately 18 ft tall. Each unit will have a driveway as well as a garage and will will either comply with or exceed parking standards. And access to all these units will be via a public street

uh Manchester Drive. The project has been laid out to minimize impacts on surrounding property while still providing housing uh that meets the goals of the city's comp plan. Some of these uh design features include the open space on our southern boundary. That's where we have uh the most neighboring residences. We placed that to create a buffer that'll be 47 feet wide and it's approximately uh half acre total open space. Uh also this project has again been designed with single story which helps mitigate any impacts. Here are some elevations for the project. Again uh the two town home buildings, three town home buildings and four town home buildings. SI construction has uh built this product in other communities. Um this is Gddard Creek which is a Meridian 55 plus community. Um again a very similar product type. Um age restricted and and sold very well very quickly and is in high demand in the Treasure Valley. So written comments on this project have largely been about um and testimony R1 versus R2. And my next couple slides are to tell you why we should be R2. So under the city's current code, there is no density difference between R1 and R2. This table from your code says, okay, if you're designated as neighborhood 2, any of these zones, including R1 and R2 are appropriate, and you should have a density between eight, I'm sorry, two and eight units per acre. So under the new ordinance, density is dictated by land use map, not the zoning. Therefore, uh zoning the property R1 does not impact the density. Zoning the property R1 does impact two

things in this case. One, it will reduce our rear setbacks from 20T to 15 ft. And it will also mean that we can't build units uh sorry, buildings with four units. And we're asking for R2 tonight because this community has been designed with the R2 dimensional standards for an age in place, age restricted community. Um I don't want to go over my time, but um I thought I had a minute or two left and then it went to seven hours. Go ahead and hurry and finish.

All right. Thank you. Um, so again, we're asking for R2 and we think that better supports this project for a couple reasons. So having an increased rear setback allows these homes to be sized appropriately for our residents. These will be 900 to,400 foot homes. And with only single stories, having a a ground level with that increased setback is important. Um, and again, we want to have these fourunit um, buildings because we help we think that helps break up the community so that all the buildings aren't the same size. So, we we believe that that's a benefit um, to both our residents and our surrounding residents. And lastly, just want to highlight the need for housing um, that this fulfills from the comp plan. Per the comp plan, 8,800 housing units needed by 4045 and we want to help support that. So, thank you, Mr. mayor for the extra time and I'll stand for any questions.

Uh thank you from the applicant. Um council questions for the applicant. Seeing none. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Next we'll hear the staff report.

Thank you Mr. Mayor Council. Again, Joe Dodson, principal planner here at the city. This one looks good. Yay. All right. So, we have two applications before you tonight by the applicant. SI Construction LLC has noted the annexation and then a preliminary plat with the annexation is the initial request for zoning or say the request for the initial zoning of R2. Subject site is located as noted. I'll try to go through some of these fast just because the applicant already noted it. It's 4.63 acre parcel near Dorman and Lynon. Um, it's addresses 2615 Dorman. The existing site is just a single family home with some vacant land. Nearby uses include, as noted, detached single family residential homes uh to the northeast, west, etc. However, there's also some places of worship to the north. And then as noted, farmway is expected to be further improved and widened in the coming years to be the major corridor that it is uh north south through Caldwell and Canyon County. Now, also to note, the vacant parcel to the west is zoned R1. It's undeveloped. It does have previous entitlements. It was approved as Covington Square. That preliminary plat has since expired, but it is zoned R1. As far as the comprehensive plan, as noted, this subject parcel is within the neighborhood 2 designation. As are all parcels adjacent to it. Applicant did a good job of analyzing and reviewing what the anticipated uses are here, so I won't beat a dead horse there. Um, but in general, this place type does provide an array of low and medium density housing options. The neighborhoods are supposed to be located outside of major commercial centers, but should still be connected. Uh, neighborhood 2 is the most prevalent place type throughout the city and covers areas between all of our major commercial centers. In general, less dense housing is found in areas

further from major roadways and then increases in density as you get closer to those roadways. That would be Lynden and Farmway as are considered major roadways by being arterial roadways. The requested R2 zone is compatible with neighborhood 2, just for clarity there. Staff also notes that the requested R2 zoning does not mean uh two units per acre which I hear often unfortunately and does not mean twice the density of R1. So I just wanted to make that clear. It is at the end of the day just a way to identify the different zoning district. We could theoretically number them anything we wanted. So I just wanted to make that clear. Ultimately, the zoning district will dictate the types of housing permitted, the type of land use is permitted and that is per the land use schedule and it also dictate the required dimensional standards. So, lot size, setbacks, building height, etc. As far as design characteristics outlined within the comp plan, there's two different types of scale buildings that it discusses. It discusses house scale, which would be your typical detach single family, and it also uh discusses block scale, which it does call out as town homes. However, singlestory town homes are typically not considered block scale. Block scale, they if you look at the imagery throughout the comp plan, it's really anticipating two, three stories or more within larger blocks of typical town homes. Nonetheless, when block scale buildings are proposed, they're supposed to provide stepbacks in height and/or setbacks when transitioning to areas with detached single family. Neighborhood 2 does contain a and should contain a diverse mix of uses. Where the uses or intensities change, efforts to blend the building scales should be made to avoid abrupt changes in height and building size. The applicant and according to staff's analysis met this design characteristic by providing singlestory structures where the max height is 40 ft and most if not all of the adjacent single family homes are taller than what is being proposed

tonight. In addition to the proposed open space around the southern boundary for residential projects within the neighborhood police type, the gross density shall be within 28 units per acre. As noted, the applicing 32 units on 4.63 acres, which equates to approximately 6.9 units per acre, which is considered medium density residential. uh as reference to the adjacent subdivisions, the uh they've been I took pieces of them, but the Quail Meadows to the south is about three units per acre. Manchester to the east is about 4 and a half and then Coington Square that was approved to the west was approximately 2 acres, two units per acre. As far as zoning is concerned, the parcel is currently located in the county. They are requesting annexation. As noted, they do have multiple touches for this request. It's located in a predominantly developed area as defined by the city's code and because of that this by definition this is considered an infill project. The applicant is proposing a mixture of single family attached homes which are also known as town homes conforms with the purpose statement as specified with in the city code for R2 community residential zone which states that the purpose of this zone is to private areas that accommodate a larger variety of lot sizes and housing types. This includes single family residential including ADUs, accessory dwelling units, and missing middle housing types such as town homes, duplexes, triplexes, forplexes, cottage courts, and mansion homes. Um, supporting or secondary land uses may include smallcale mixeduse or live work housing types. Um, could also include commercial activities and services that are generally only found at major intersections. Again, the proposed density of 6.9 units acres is compliant with code that does allow up to eight and the proposed town home use is an allowed use within the requested R2 zone. As far as the subdivision layout, again,

the applicants requesting 32 total dwelling units. That's 31 new single family attached lots within 11 structures and then one detached lot for the existing single family home. The project also proposes approximately a half acre of qualified open space where that would just be this buffer on the south. The other areas are landscape but do not technically qualify as qualified open space. The development will take access internally to a new local street that's extending Manchester from Manchester to Dormund as noted. And due to the size and scope of this project being 32 units, the traffic impact study was not required per um our standards. As far as other site and development standards that are reviewed and analyzed, this is not all, but it's most. This is outlined within the staff report too, but they are compliant with all of these. Just want to touch on that. As far as the availability of public utilities, all utilities are available or will be made available. My understanding is they already are available for the subject site. That's water, sewer, irrigation, fire flow for the water, etc. Public comments, multiple public comments were received uh prior to the commission hearing both from the public as well as the agency comments. As far as the agency um comments go, Calwell School District was notified. They did not respond. Highway District 4 noted that Dorman should be 60 feet of rightway rather than 53 feet of rightway. The applicant has and engineering have coordinated on that and that should be accommodated without any issue. And ITD's comment was that they had no comment. Again, there was a number of opposition letters submitted prior to the PNZ commission hearing as well as a petition with a lot of the nearby neighbors requesting that this project be denied. They noted concerns with an increase of traffic by adding more homes that are

denser than the area. Had issues with the proposed R2 zoning versus the existing R1 zoning. And they were concerns about the proposal of the 55 and older community and how is that enforced. I'm sure they will also comment other things that I missed within that. But then the between public sorry between planning and zoning commission and city council only two additional comments were provided and they echoed those previous comments. At the PNZ hearing on January 14th, they did recommend approval but added two conditions of approval. Those are noted in the first two bullet points. One, future development of the site shall comply with R1 instead of R2 and then amend the plat to match that. And then uh future covenants C and conditions and restrictions CCNRs uh for the summit group subdivision should include a stipulation that all property owners within the subdivision shall be 55 years of age or older. So there's a couple things I wanted to touch on here. Um the applicant as presented tonight is not compliant with that first condition of approval. They've proposed to take forward their original request which is R2 versus R1. within um the motion. I do want to note that they thought that it the R1 was more compatible with the existing zoning, but again the applicant has chosen to request R2. Uh based upon the allowances within the zoning code though, specifically 10-05, which is for the residential zoning districts, there are only two differences between R1 and R2, and that would again the rear setback and then the number of units attached. So it would go from the four that they have to three, but they could still have the same exact density and the same exact layout. It would just change the massing of those two structures and that's it. Um just checking my notes here.

In addition, the 55 and older question. Um, this request tonight does involve age restricted 55 and older housing that has been proposed, right? Federal law normally prohibits discrimination based upon age. This law allows 55 sorry but federal law has carved out multiple sorry wow I am not doing well here. There is a specific federal carveout called the Housing for Older Persons Act and I would like to point out that one of our residents pointed that out to me and so I did some heavy research on that and reminded me that this existed. So thank you Miss Shannon for that. It does allow the 55 plus communities as long as they meet certain conditions can restrict the housing. Those are 80% of the occupied units have someone 55 or older. One, two, the community clearly holds itself out as senior housing versus market rate or market housing. And three, that it has written policies that they restricting that access, which is the CCNRs. Time's up. Let's go ahead and Oh, staff has a time limit. I did not know this. Um, as far as the conclusion goes, I just wanted to note that they are compliant with the uh all of our codes and policies. And then as far as the annexations go, just note for this is for council's benefit that the owner requested annexations do not require any stipulation or reason for approval or denial. And then as far as subdivision plat, these are the findings to be considered. And I will stand for any questions.

Uh blay my last sorry on that. All right. Council, do you have any questions? And just for information, staff does not have a time limit. The clock threw me off. councelor register.

Um I just have one question. So if uh we approved this for a 55 and older community and then there's not a market for it or they can't find people to buy, then do we have any fail safes in place? Because we did approve one off of Carter and then they came back and said, "Oh, there's not a market for this." So, it's almost like it's a kind of a marketing tool or a tool to get into council to change the zoning or approve the project and then they come back and say, "Oh, we couldn't do it." So, how do we protect ourselves from that happening?

Great, great question, Council Register. Um, one, when I heard that they were requesting to remove that and that there was no market, that blew my mind and planning's mind because that is the opposite of everything else that we hear regarding this market. Um I don't know why they said that both ways when they proposed it and when they asked to change it. However, with our annexation ordinance with this condition as written, they would have to come back in order to change that with us. So if they wanted to turn around, like I believe it was West Haven at that time, and say, "Okay, we don't want to do 55 and older anymore," they'd have to come back to city council and basically do a a plat mod to remove that condition of approval for the project. That is not something that they can just change willy-nilly. Now, to your other point about how do we enforce this, that is more difficult and that is for any jurisdiction, it does become more difficult. The city is not in an enforcement position of we're not sitting down with mortgage signing docs and making people prove to the city that they're 55 and older. So what we have to do is require certain stipulations provisions within the CCNRs, make sure that we receive and review those CCNRs prior to the plat being signed and then hope that they are continuing with that. Again, that's also part of the Fair Housing Act and how the federal regulations would regulate those and maintain that type of thing for the for any project that is representing itself as 55 and older.

Yeah, I realize we can't enforce who they allow to move in basically. Um my concern is um that it gets approved as a 55 and over because we know we have issues, you know, with schools and all those kinds of things that we talk about at every meeting. And then when they come back later and say there's not a market for this, then the council's in a position where we're like, well, we already approved

whatever it is that we approved and so we might as well just go ahead with it. It's just I don't like that is what I'm getting at. So I would rather just have it up front say we don't know. Um and then my other question I think for this one is you said that if I understood correctly that the only difference with this be besides or changing the zone to R2 versus R1 is they can have the bank of four town homes. They can do everything else with under the R1, right? Yes, ma'am. So, how many banks of four are in this? Do we can we I didn't count.

Great question. There's two and it's just the two of the three on the south wall. Two of the four on the south side. Okay. So, we're having Okay. So, and I understand this is an annexation first. Sure. If I get it right. Um, but the conversation about the way that it's being built out is really we're talking about two units. Council register, council, not necessarily. They could still recoup those same two units on site. It's just a matter of how many would be attached in one building visually, but that's the only thing that changes is if they can have three or four.

Yes. So what is the point I guess in my mind of reszoning it just to have a bank two two banks of four instead of putting them somewhere else? It seems like to because anytime that we reszone right we're changing something that we already have forever. So why would we do that for two units? Council register, I just want to clarify asking why we would reszone from R1 to R2. Well, yeah, because it's an annexation. So, there's not a zone currently zoning. Okay. Why would we not do an R1 then? Instead, why would we jump to an R2 instead of an R1? Sure.

For two units, right? If I'm understanding that correctly, to be linked up with a bank of units instead of somewhere else on the property. Um, functionally, visually, yes. However, uh there's also the rear setback issue and again that's not planning. It's not us presenting that. That is the applicant proposing that and feel free to I would ask them that as part of their rebuttal too just to get clarification on why they would prefer R2 versus R1.

So um in the past and this is going to be just a learning place for me because of the change in the comp plan. Sure. But previously when we changed zones, it meant that then they were entitled to do something else, right? Like so they could come in and get an approval for one thing, but then they could put apartments there if they wanted to or whatever. Are we Is that something like where they can change it or now they have to go through another process to get something approved that like a design review?

Um, mayor and council register, I'm I'm going to give you the legal answer. It depends. No, no, it really does. It depends on the application, right? It depends on the conditions that are attached to that application. Um, we can always be very specific in our conditions. um particularly when it's an annexation or a reszone, we can always require a development agreement to be with those and that the development agreement is very specific on it's only for this project, this type of use and nothing else and that if they wanted to do something different, they'd have to come back to council. Yeah. Yes.

Well, that's another concern of mine, too, is those loopholes. So, I don't for me personally, and I guess I'll ask the applicant about this, I don't see why we would have to go in as an R2. Um, if if it were annexed, I don't even know if it's going to be annexed, but if it were annexed, why we would have to go straight to an R2 instead of an R1 for for basically two units. Thank you. Thank you, councelor Register. Counselor Tilmont. Joe, quick question. Mhm. So I just want to be clear the development agreement on the lot to the west is no longer valid. Correct.

Mr. Mayor, councelor Tmont, the prelim preliminary plat is expired to the west. I do not believe that they had a development agreement. I'd have to verify that. So basically, but that's already been annexed in. So that's land that's in the in the city. Yes. that they can then come in and basically do whatever they want with within an R1 within neighborhood two. Correct. Yeah, it's neighborhood too. Yes. And we basically just have to check off whether or not they meet all the criteria because there is not an annexation with that one. Correct. So whatever happens here, they can turn around and say that happened there, so we want to change.

Mr. T I won't speculate exactly on what the applicant would or wouldn't do. However, theoretically asking if that's possible. They because the plat expired, but they have the zoning. There's two avenues. If there is no DA, then yes, they can come in with the a plat that's clean, meets code, not asking for anything. As long as it meets R1, then it meets R1. And it is difficult for any city to deny a plat based upon that. Period. If there is a development agreement, that changes things because typically if that's a complete change like let's I think it was approved for like 30 lots or so. They doubled that. That is a significant change from what is in the development agreement. Therefore, we would make them do a DA mod with the preliminary plat and then council would have that leeway to say yes or no.

But that one does not have a DA. Correct. I'd have to do some research. I do not remember seeing one, but I'll have to So, more than likely probably not then. I would. It's a 5050 shot to be honest. Okay. Coington Square. Cington. Cington Square. Yes. Just to confirm, you're talking about west of Dorman between the lot to the west. Yes. The field. Yeah. Yeah. Just for clarification for the crowd. Just for annexation reasons of do we need this if we have a large lot sitting there that has not built yet. Sure.

Well, and to that point, mayor and council register, this might be something that you're interested in as well. This is something that and legal can correct me if I'm wrong. Not a lawyer here, but I've been in the game a little bit. There's what's before you tonight. You can you any council can approve it. I did we did not propose a DA with this. The applicant did not propose a DA. However, you can approve the annexation

with the R2 or R1, whichever you would want. And and also say we're not going to approve your annexation. basically add a condition of approval that says you will bring back a development agreement before us at the next council hearing or in the next whatever the noticing window is to make sure that we have the DA and you have your quote unquote butts covered that is possible it doesn't always have to be a full yes and a full no so I do want to make that very clear that is always an avenue that council has to require that development agreement and you can continue the project you can approve it preliminarily However you want to do that, council register.

So, and then the other option if the I just want to confirm with legal because we're still learning all this stuff, but the other option with the annexation is to deny it and we don't have to have a cause or correct anything. Correct. That's correct.

Okay. So going back to councelor Tilmont's comment and I want to clarify with him actually if I can do that. Am I allowed? Okay. Is that so I just want to be clear. So the lot to the west of this is in the city with no development agreement and the preliminary plat has expired. And so do is it one of your concerns is that if this is approved with an R2 that then they will come back and ask for also an increase and then we're looking at another development with or even an R3 with since it's a bigger lot apartments and all that kind of thing.

Council register they couldn't request an R3. Well, okay, this might they can theoretically request any zoning they want. anybody can does not mean it would comply with the comp plan and therefore council could deny that reszone request. So that's one thing they yes they could ask for R3 but I would assume council would deny that because it doesn't meet the comp plan. They could take the R1 parcel do a single family attached project per our land use schedule and get more units than what the old preliminary plat had. Yes, also true. Unless there's a development agreement that was more specific and had that exact plat in there and then we would say no, you're going to do a DA mod and then council could say no. That's

Thank you. I appreciate that. Yes, council. All good. So, under its current situation, it has reduced setbacks um from an R1 to an R2 that with an R2, they have less setback. Is that correct? Just the five foot on the rear is the difference. Just five foot on the rear. Yes, sir. Does that change the landscaping or fencing requirements or is the landscaping and fencing requirements the same for both? It would be the same for both. So, they're going to they would have to fence the property. Am I accurate?

So, the our planning sorry our zoning code does not require fencing anywhere. Doesn't require it. The applicant if they propose it, which they always end up doing, has to comply with certain code and that's regardless of R1 or R2. It's going to be the same fencing requirements. Okay. So, so they're not required to put a fence, although most most do. Correct. They are proposing a solid fence around the boundary. Okay. Okay. That's where I was. And so, and and just for clarification for the public, the the the property out on Carter where they came in and proposed a 55 and older

and then the property sold to a new developer and they came in and requested it not, the council denied that. It's still 55 and older today. We have the ability to deny that in any circumstance. Is that correct? At that project, absolutely. Yes. And we're still ongoing with what that CCNR looks like for that because council denied that. And we have refused to sign their plat because of that. Correct. Okay. I just want to make it clear that just because they came in and asked for a change doesn't mean they get it. We still have the authority to say no. Exactly. Okay. Um and then um uh well actually I think that gives everything. Thank you, Joe. Absolutely. Thank you, councelor. All good. Councelor Stoic.

Sorry. Uh if the IT person could bring up the map of all the R classifications, all the R. There you go. Zoning map. Yeah. So, when you look at this map again and notwithstanding the property across the road there on Dorman, again, it just baffles me. Why would we put an R2 when we have a surrounding area with single family dwellings in R1? It just defeats our purpose to keep everything as s the same that we can in each of the neighborhoods.

Councelor, is there a question? I just want to make sure I can speculate things, but I don't want to get in trouble. Well, I I uh have a lot of confidence in your speculation because you've been right 99% of the time. Thank you for that vote of confidence. Mayor and council, I think that's a question that needs to go to the applicant. That's fair. Okay. I'm just, you know, for the general public and for the rest of the counselors, you know, we've done too many of these things where we put R2 where R1 should have been or R3 where R2 should have been, and we have a mixture of everything. People are looking down in other people's backyards when there's a single family versus a condo. And we we just need to bring a stop to that. Thank you.

Hi. have order. Thank you. Um, anything else from council? Sorry, councelor Denber. Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Uh, Joy, I kind of a couple questions here. Um, first of all, this is an infill project and it's it's been classified as an infill project uh on a couple different occasions. Infill projects according to the comp plan come with special privileges. Uh, did they request any privileges with this as an infill project?

Mayor, councelor Dentenberg, no. So, there's short answer, no. The infield development requests that are noted in the comp plan have not been codified. So, they cannot request any deviations or any alleviations for infill development. So, they're meeting all the zoning standards. Okay. And then the uh the other one with regard to this density requirement and maybe you can go back to that uh uh that what do you call it the uh the subdivision layout uh that one there. So if I understand this correctly um everything on the top of what I'm looking at is perfectly compliant with R1.

Yes, sir. Is that correct? Okay. And everything on the bottom half of that is not compliant with R1. No, only the two fourunit packs. So, the two packs of lots, the eight lots closest to the detached single family home are not compliant with R1 per the land use schedule. Okay. So, for this to be a completely R1 project, we're talking about separating those four units into either a combination of of four two units or three and a half, two units. That makes I just did the math, right? But you are correct.

So, this could easily be a R1 approval with just four more exterior walls. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. All right. Anything else from council? All right. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Now, we're going to open it up to uh public hearing and we have some folks that are signed up to testify. Now is your opportunity to speak for up to three minutes. And at the end of that, we're going to allow rebuttal from the applicant. With that, we're going to go ahead and start with in favor. I'm just going to confirm Tiffany on us and Tim Makoa do not want to speak tonight and then Jeff Bower signed up for yes uh for in favor. Sorry, Mr. Mayor. Just real quick, a point of order. We had a council member leave and since this is Okay, never mind. I I believe she's returning.

Do we need to take a break? Do you like a fiveminute recess? She would like a fiveminute recess. All right, we're going to go and take a fiveminute recess and we will be All right.

All right, we're going to go ahead and calls back in order from the recess and we're going to move to neutral. Uh, Barbara Pike, did you want to speak? No. No. Just want to make sure. And then All right. Now, we're going to move to oppose. Miss Brown. Yes. Just keep in mind we have three minutes for each um speaker. Yes, sir. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you. Thank you for your uh questions. Um, Miss Brown, bring your microphone a little closer to you there. That's the way everybody just live streaming can hear you. I'm

kind of totally confused, ladies and gentlemen. Uh, on the deis. Um, but, um, my problem living in the area, I don't know if y'all have lived in that area. So, the area right now is totally chaotic with the farmway issue. Yes, that will get better, but it is not right now. and it's caused a lot of uh traffic traffic traffic. Lynden Dorman and Dorman is not an airport road right now. It might take the traffic of airport but it's not an airport road and I beseech you to think about that in u trying to cast your vote for us. I do support the R1 uh issue. Uh, I think that should be in R1 with all those houses attached. And I can't figure out why. We just can't move in that uh schematic. Um, I imagine you have good designers there that can move that and get it to where you can fit maybe just maybe one less building to make everything be more copacetic. Put R1 up. And I'm hoping that I don't know what the 55 uh thing is as far as how sturdy that's going to be on the ballot, but uh what um will make that change? Uh you brought up a good question and I was concerned about that. I'm here for the traffic. That's all. I know the Catholic church there, if you've ever seen it on Sunday morning, is a huge overflow. Dormund does not have a proper road as airport all fixed and finished. Um, and who's going to pay for that? Uh, I think about the fire. I think about the police. I think about the school buses. Everybody coming and going on that busy corner and coming out now on Manchester.

Well, that gives me another um that gives me food for thought. But please um think of us uh who are not for this. Uh we want to have a good neighborhood, a solid neighborhood, a safe neighborhood. And uh the influx is going to be dramatic and it will be forever. And I don't know if there's any like housing close around like what they're issuing. And so I'm kind of confused on that. A little bit more with the talking back and forth. I felt like it was a little bit. Now I'm standing in front of my mirror when I got out of the shower and it's all foggy and I have to clean it to figure out what y'all have just said and what you're going to put permanently on that square. And I think it means uh a lot to us to have you really think seriously about demanding what things are. R1 is a good venture. Make it smaller. Help the traffic out. I don't know where you go. Thank you again. God's blessings.

Thank you so much for that. All right, just so everyone's aware, those haven't testified before, we do have a clock right up here. We'll set it each time for the three minutes just so you can keep an eye on that. Next up, Gene Krabbering.

Good evening. My concern, question, or issue is short and sweet. Caldwell celebrated the fact that we supposedly have an award-winning comp plan. I'm truly wondering if it was so amazing why we are repeatedly entertaining reszoning. If it was zoned for a certain build or neighborhood, it should stay as that certain build or neighborhood. By being wishy-washy, the city is showing that they don't stick with a plan. And if that's the case, why did we spend the time, money, and effort on creating this comp plan? This one didn't ask for reasonzoning. the one moved to the next council meeting did, but it appears this one wants annexation where there are different types of neighborhoods surrounding this development. In addition, it looks as though each unit is a singlecar garage with a very short driveway. Where are all the vehicles going to park? Honestly, it looks like the original landowner owner simply sold off their property but kept their house. There are homes on acreage in the area. Now, this one will be crammed with 32 units on a little over four acres. I'm in opposition as it doesn't seem to fit in that neighborhood with the current neighboring type of housing, poor planning for parking or excessive cars, and according to the pictures in your packet, no sidewalks for safety of the residents. Now, I know when they presented the picture they had in Meridian did have sidewalks, but in your packet the pictures they showed didn't have sidewalks. Thank you. Let's go ahead and hold the applause and thank you for your comment, Jean. All right. Dixie Brown and William OD both Mark No. And then Laura Shannon is next.

My name is Laura Shannon and my address is 4707 Middlesborough Way. Good evening, mayor and city council members. Please reject the annexation of this property. Neighborhood 2 offers two residential zoning options here and this established part of town is so overwhelmingly R1 that to assign any other designation to it would effectively be spot zoning. The bigger question is whether this project and especially its density is appropriate in this location. Both planner and developer have made it very clear that this project would move forward with either of these zoning designations. Therefore, please exercise your discretion to deny this development by denying annexation altogether until such time as an acceptable project is proposed for this property. In childhood, I caught the school bus at the corner of Lynon and Dorman Streets. The closest school was and still is Wilson School nearly a mile away. At the PNZ meeting, I was surprised when this site was presented as walkable and with a neighborhood school. There are no stores in the area. There are no businesses. There are no parks. And Zillow gives 2615 Dormund Avenue a walkability score of three out of 100. Another misrepresentation has been the identification of this proposal as part of the Farmway corridor. This project is not adjacent to nor does it have access to Farmway. Rather, it would be called um and this is important to note a part of the Dorman Avenue corridor. It's a semi-ural road suitable for low volume traffic. The comprehensive plan says less dense housing is found in such areas away from major roadways.

Um, at the PNZ meeting, uh, it was suggested that rentals, uh, that these could turn into rentals and be rented out to people that were under age 55 and that children, um, that could include children as well. And I think Joe addressed that um, by saying that it would be 55 age restrict restricted. He also said the city um has a hard time enforcing these 55 plus units, which means they really have to be able to enforce themselves. They have to be someplace that is appealing to a 55 plus person. Um 55 plus communities do receive special zoning, I believe, um in Caldwell, but is this really a 55 plus community? There are no real amenities for this age group. There is an outdoor picnic table that you can use parts of the year, but um there's no clubhouse, no ADA uh features, no proximity to essential services, insufficient parking where residents will need cars, and safety concerns on once Manchester Drive becomes a through street. Um I just want to say quickly that the rubber's meeting the road with our comprehensive plan and we need to revisit it. Uh, please vote no to the annexation and preliminary plat of Summit Grove subdivision. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Next, we have Eric Shannon signed up a no. And just so you know, if you did sign up for yes and you agree with everyone else, you also can just acknowledge that um if you don't want to speak any further. Um, moving on down. Russell Russell Snow. Thank you,

Mr. President of the Council, member, ladies and gentlemen of the council. It's my pleasure to speak to you. I'm live at uh 11:04 Stallidge Street in Caldwell, just down the street from uh this uh proposal uh proposed area. I would like to begin by saying that I we're not in opposition to new housing or or new neighbors, uh, new kids in the area, but we would propose that developments be planned, that they be compatible, that they be consistent with appropriate infrastructure, and uh, that they be uh, in consideration of the neighboring areas and that they fit in with that. And that's been pointed out I think fairly well. This uh proposal would be placing a uh density of housing four times or more the surrounding area uh and is incompatible. And so I propose that we uh not allow the the proposal with the jump from a to R2. This land was purchased by the developer under an agg zoning and so this is a quite a a quantum leap from the single family housing that is there now to this high density and and other measures other items have been pointed out which I don't need to repeat. Um the uh I do want to reemphasize the importance of consideration of all the traffic that will be uh flowing onto Dorman Street. Um in addition to that in the proposal of Summit subdivision, there is the addition of new flow from um from Manchester Park. And in addition, we need to have a longer view of what's going to happen when the development

across the street is finally complete. It initially was uh envisioned with a similar density to this one. Uh I believe that u the initial proposal was for single family homes or for homes that would allow for 7 to eight per acre. The current proposal is 31 town homes on 3.7 acres, excuse me, seven to eight homes on 3.7 acres. Now it's 31. the um the if the development across the street once that is uh finalized is uh allowed to follow a same similar pattern as this one then um it will be uh add an additional uh 68 town homes on 14.5 acres. So, in my last 20 seconds, I'd like to point out that the uh the development the 55 or older, I got nothing against 55 year olds. I crossed that threshold myself, but it only requires, as I understand it, one 55 year old person per home in at 80% of the homes. So, we understand that there'll be quite a few other age people in those units. And not to go too far over, there's been no comment by the school district about the impact of this project on the schools or the other one across the street. This one will be a toe in the door if it's allowed for the one across the street which would be much larger. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions? Any questions? Thank you. All right. Next. Uh, they did not write very well on this, so I apologize for not being able to read this, but it looks like a possibly a Gail. Is there a Gail? Gail Gordon.

Yes, Gail Gordon, 2510 Marshall Place, Caldwell, Idaho. Uh, I'd like to say, but I that I am not against development. However, I do believe development needs to be compatible with existing homes. To put the proposed town houses into an established developed area where individual homes are on 1/3 to two plus acres would be disrespectful to existing homeowners. Even though the proposed development is compatible with the Caldwell development plan, it does not fit the existing established homes. I question if you would want or accept this proposed development in your backyard to believe that the additional vehicles entering and using Dorman will not increase the potential for serious accidents involving residents who walk or ride bikes is a complete disregard to safety. I would hope that you consider, respect, and support the current residents and their desires over the developer plan to maximize profit over the quality of life and homes. Their plan would put a total of 32 homes on 4 whatever acres. Most of us have approximately 75 or greater acres per thing. I've not with due respect to those elected to that represent the citizens of Caldwell Canyon County to support this development is wrong. Please support our views and concerns and vote no. Please support us by keeping parcel R2799840 as a rural R1 designation to be

developed as single family homes at a density of approximately three homes per acre. Thank you. Thank you G. I appreciate that your comments and uh keeping it short. Bill Pike, would you come forward? Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Bill Pike. I live at 2722 Quail Meadow Loop. I have some photos here uh of a project that this company put together in Nampa. I'd like to bring them forward, let you take a picture of them or take a look at them.

Oscar, anybody? Mr. Mr. Mayor, I I don't I don't believe that those will be helpful for the application here. That's a different project. The council hasn't done what's before the council right now.

I think it would help quite a bit. But anyway, that's why I'm here. Uh I voted for you guys and you're not listening to the people. No one off Dorman wants to have 31 crammed in units in their neighborhood. We don't need 31 units adding more traffic to the narrow street that Dormund is narrow. If anyone of the 31 units has visitors or birthday parties or gatherings, all the extra cars will be parked on Dorman. You cannot see around the parked cars and get out into the street safely. This puts my life and the lives of all the neighbors at risk of some serious accident. And I really don't think that I couldn't believe that planning and zoning even approved this without researching or doing traffic studies, which they say they're not required to do. But anyway, all the properties off of Dorman should be residential with front yards and beautiful landscaping so we can all be proud of our community. Please deny this request to build 31 sardine can units in our neighborhood. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, sir. Um, next up is going to be Jennifer Merritt as a question mark. Yes or no? Would you like to speak? Please come forward. Just remember three minutes. Thank you. Okay. So, did any of you guys get this? Please. Did anybody guys get this from the council?

I don't know who made it, but please get them a copy. It's got a ton of information. So, first of all, I used to sell real estate. My name is Jennifer Merritt. I live on Dorman Avenue. And my understanding between R1 and R2, which is why they are fighting us tooth and nail on this, is one, R1 is a single family home with four detached walls. R2 means connected walls. So single H, they're calling them town houses or apartments. And when they go bad or fall apart, then they'll just be section 8. By approving this R2 on our street, it's just setting precedence for what's going to happen across the street and then continue probably on the other side of Farmway where the other half of the plot is. But we are an N1 neighborhood, not an R2 neighborhood, and not within miles. But if you change this to R2, it will change everything and set a very unwanted president. Um, we bought our homes because we like the country feel. I'm not in Boise because I hate the city and we invested in Caldwell because this is where we want to be. That was it. Oh no. Um, I bought my home over 20 years ago. The property across the street was egg one. It was corn fields. I loved it. I know it's going to be developed sometime, but from the beginning, they had promised us to match our one large nice houses that would keep the value of our properties and that it would not be a problem. Since then, it's sold and sold and now S1 wants to throw up a bunch of box apartments and that's just wrong. It's going to

have problems with the fire department, the police department, the schools, crime, taxes are going to go up. It's just not cohesive to what we're trying to do. So, I just don't want to be another crappy city with a bunch of problems and they are apartments, not town houses. And try to get this, please. I'll copy it for you. Thank you, Jennifer. Next up, Brad Brad Krenshaw.

Nice touch having my pastor do the prayer. Keep me straight. Uh Brad Krenshaw, 2909 Dorman. Um, I just want to say, and nobody said this yet, but uh, the gentleman with the broken wing over there that was talking for SI, it it sounds like a humanitarian effort to help old people, and that's awesome, but reality is it's about maximizing profits by stuffing as many bodies as they can on as small a piece of property as they can. That's a weird piece of property there. Anyway, but we are uh the lady here was talking about the lot across the street. Yes, we are worried about what's going in there. I live right across the street from that. That is a big concern for everybody. So, I would encourage you guys to either not annex it or keep it R1. I mean, if they want to build there, we don't have a problem. But put in homes that are single family homes, not what they're trying to do. Thank you very much. Thank you, Brad. Next up, Teresa Waterman.

Just reminder, three minutes and your clock is up here. Thank you,

Mr. Mayor, city councilman, thank you for taking time to listen to our neighborhood's concern. I just wanted to have them throw this slide up really quick. Um because uh Councilman Scott Tilman asked a question. So, the property to the left um of this proposal Covington borders our house and my mother-in-law sold it to a a really nice developer and they had put together a beautiful subdivision 29 homes and Sai Construction Taylor have purchased that and they want to put 68 homes on that on top of the 31. And so this is why our neighborhood is up in arms about it. Um, if you could put my presentation up, Mayor Phillips and um, city council members, I would like to draw your attention to your packets where you will notice over a hundred petition signatures, add another 20 to it um, from our neighborhood asking the city council to deny the request to annex the Summit Grove subdivision. As you can see on the slide, um this area in Caldwell where we live, where the developer is proposing his housing project is defined by the Caldwell Planning and Zoning is R1 neighborhood residential, single family residential. You can see every area for a half a mile is low density R1 single family residents. There are no town homes, condominiums, or R2 houses um projects in this area. You can see um that the Caldwell City Planning Staff recommends the property to be zoned R2 community residential which allows for maximum density. You can see R1 interior is um designated as 8,000 square ft. Our two interior lot is 4,000 square square square feet, but the city is providing bulk zoning standards to allow Summit Grove Town Homes to be uh two uh 2,600 feet, which is how the developer has achieved a very generous 31 units on 3.6

acres. Please note that um uh you uh the the develop uh planner had already gone over this. So I'm just going to skip to the main point that I want you to realize that the R1 zone would change the overall massing but the same number of units would still be present if not more. And this came from the principal planner Joe. So, what this is saying is that they can build this at R1 and put 31 units and more. City planners made it clear to Taylor Schmidt that can get 31 and additional units with an R1 designation. I just want to say really quickly that um our neighborhood areas designated single family residential low density. That is up until last year when the city redesated most of Caldwell to neighborhood 2. Every individual homeowner in this rural neck of Caldwell bought their properties before the city redesated our neighborhood. We are respectfully asking the city council to honor our lowdensity single family housing design um designation that we bought into and we're asking for your support to protect and maintain our low density. And um just really quickly note that the city council does not have to vote for this, that you guys have the option um to deny it and there's not any judicial review and we're asking that you deny the annexation and honor the um people of this um community. Thank you.

Thank you. Can you I don't believe we can Can you hold on just a second, Oscar? Are we okay? Ma'am, would you uh councelor register has a question? Yes. I just a quick question for you. Um so what were you saying in the beginning again real quick? You said that you're in-laws sold this propert 14 14 acres.

It's 14 acres. Um, it's this piece right here. It's on the left side of it. And Sai Construction, Taylor Schmidt, bought it from the other developer who had a beautiful 29 29 homes. Your in-laws sold it to a developer who had a plan for 29 homes that the city has that the city has passed. Okay. And then and the neighbors did not argue with it because they were nice developers. And then the same developer that's wanting to develop this lot that we're looking at right now Are we good to continue offering? I I think we should probably move on. Yeah. To to keep to keep focused on the application at hand.

Okay. Well, I think it's important to know if the same developer is buying both properties. So, is that that it is okay. And there mayor Phillips council register that's not a criteria that you'll be able to select on or do. So to to have that in the record would would only only confuse it because the decision is in front of what's on the application now, not who owns other land around the application. Okay. Well, somebody may make my decision about the answer. Is that a question that would come up in rebuttal for the applicant or I mean the Mayor Phillips and and just to clarify, Robin, you're free to come in on this if you want, but I I no this this is an application for a specific

Yes. property and the what the other properties around it surrounding it and who owns it are not part of what the decision-making criteria is by law by by our city code.

Wait, but so I have a question about that then so that just so we're all on the same page. Councelor Tilmont brought up earlier about his concern about what was going to happen across the street now that that preliminary plant plat had expired. So my only question at this point is if the developer owns both lands and gets the approval on or annexation and approval on the one we're talking about tonight, what's going to happen with the one across the street? And that was his question. So now I had no idea that they owned the one across the street, too. So anyway, that's answered. Now,

m Mr. Mr. Mayor, council register. Uh I plan to I plan to give an instruction to the council about those questions to clarify before we go into a deliberation or into a vote on that. But that that's clear that what the surrounding properties what might be speculated about the surrounding properties, what might be done with surrounding properties are not something for the council to consider tonight on this application. Mr. Mayor, may I Mr. Mayor? May we're gonna have to move on to the next speaker. I apologize. Absolutely. We'll have to move on to the next one. Thank you. Thank you for your question. All right. Next up, Chris and it's B U R D T A Vette. Verdette. Okay. Sorry.

Thank you. I work for Calwell School District and we just closed two years ago Lincoln Elementary and that's where now our school district off main office is. We are low with uh teachers staffing and now if we have this other development and this new development we're talking about children come in where are they going to go to school? We have no new schools. We have no teachers. We have no staff to hire. So that's another consideration I'd like you to take in. Thank you. Thank you ma'am. All right. Next we're going to move on to Randy Seawward. Randy, please come forward.

Mr. Mayor, before too, I I at the fear of interjecting, we did have Caldwell School District did not submit anything as far as the impact on schools. Thank you for that update. Just confirm, you're saying that was a private citizen comment made just now versus the school district. Correct. For the record. Thank you, mayor. But thank you for your comment, though. Um, go ahead. Sorry, I have three minutes. Can we start the clock?

Well, I have the benefit of going later. So, almost everything's been said and very well. And of course, I agree with everything. I don't want this approved. I moved to Caldwell because I was trying to get away from this stuff. And it's like to start seeing it happen in my backyard again was it it's like here we go starting all over again. Just watching all those socioeconomic problems just tear the place apart. And that's what happened where I came from. So, I'm really hoping that doesn't happen here. The other thing that I'm seeing is the unsustained growth in our infrastructure. It's amazing to just watch all these places go up and think that we have enough water in the water tables, that we have enough irrigation water, that we have the sewer systems for this stuff, that we even have the fire hydrants to support all this. Everybody's talking about responsible development, and that's not what we're seeing. These zoning laws that changed in April are like permutations. I thought I was back doing quantitative analysis trying to figure out how the hell are you gonna see how many houses fit on a lot size or an acre. It's so jumbled to me. Detached single family residences are R1. Always have been. And so that's where part of this confusion is. We keep going back to R1 thinking that it's a detached house, but we've made these these changes that they're so confusing it gives people the latitude to do whatever they want. So, enough's enough. I don't need to say anymore, but thank you.

Thank you, Randy. All right, Jennifer Graham, please come forward. And you have three minutes.

Sorry. Um, thank you council. Um, I hadn't planned on talking tonight, but here I am. Sorry I don't. Anyway, u, my name is Jennifer Graham. I live at 2908 Dormund, which is directly across the street to the proposed covington development that we're not directly talking about at the moment. But, um, without trying to repeat everything that said before me, I would like to state that I am not for the res the resoning of Summit. Um, I would like for the annex to be denied. My concerns are extra vehicles, uh, traffic safety, overcrowding of schools, um, overcrowding of hospitals, trying to get my kids into doctor's appointments is months out. Um, and it's it's concerning thinking about the amount of homes that could be added to our environment. Um, I'm concerned with losing the rural environment that I'm raising my children in. Excuse me. I moved to Caldwell. I moved to Calwell to have that. So, thank you. Thank you, Jennifer. Tyler, um, would you like to come up? All right. That's going to be a no. Uh, Christopher Altur, please come forward. You have three minutes.

Good evening. Thank you for hearing me. My name is Christopher Alter. I live at 3308 Dormund Avenue. As once said by a member of this council, when we look at the growth across Treasure Valley, each area gets to decide what works best for them. We and Codwell are unique and draw on agricultural as a bedrock of our community. We add we add all in sorry we add in all the great small businesses and commercial that is here and is coming and that makes us unique in our own aspect. Our community doesn't want to be a metropolis. When when when in comes an uncontrolled residential growth that is leading to the pains we see today. With that being said, did any of you physically see the signatures that were brought in on January 10th? Over 100 plus signatures. That means over 100 Cwell residents who feel the same. Bless you. The same as what you quoted about the growth of Codwell. As you can see, the number opposed greatly outweighs those for it. Everyone here, like myself, bought into this neighborhood for the tranquility and the safe environment. Building this development and reszoning the area will motivate future developers to buy the houses along Dorman Avenue with the acreage only to divide it up divide up the parcels to overfill it with more housing which is exactly what is being attempted today. This is the exact opposite of what we as Codwell residents want in our neighborhoods. Have any of you personally driven down Dorman Avenue and the surrounding neighborhoods affected by this proposal? The particular lot is a home on 4 acres, one of the largest in our neighborhood. Each lot runs from a half to two acres plus. The developer is taking the 4 acre home and wanting to create 31 homes on less than that. The actual size is smaller than 4 acres. He is maximizing his profit at the expense of our community.

This simply would not keep our neighborhood consistent with the existing infrastructure. With the development being considered, we ask for the zoning to be kept as it was originally purchased by the developer or developers who purchased it from that party. Building each house within the lot, sorry, building each house within the lot size that fits our neighborhood, our concerns for the build would tremendously be reduced. The safety, the traffic, and all the other valid points that were brought to you brought to your attention today. I'm asking to deny the annexation of this development. Simply I I hope the council would understand that this is not something that the community wants or needs today. It's it's an overcrowding of an already overcrowded small community. So I hope that's considered before anyone takes a final decision. Thank you. Any questions? All right. Thank you for that. We are going to move on to Anita McNeil. Anita, are you all here?

Thank you. Just reminder, three minutes and uh couldn't see your clock is right there.

I've been here before, Marin, and we're doing this again. My argument and everybody else that seems to be here is that you guys do not realize the traffic that we have. And I'm not talking about cars or trucks or hay wagons or anything else. I'm talking about seniors, children that up go up and down Dorman. We have bus stops for kids. They wait till the bus is gone and then proceed either across the street or down the street. There's no sidewalks. On my side, there's an irrigation ditch. On the other side, all it is is dirt. Somebody with additional cars coming. We've seen this now because Farmway is shut down that you don't take in effect. Yes, there's a Catholic church on the corner and they have parking lot in the front and in the back and also have to park on the street. on Sunday the residents don't use that dormant turn off on Lynden. The point is what I'm trying to say is my house face is dormant and you are using an excuse that you haven't actually seen the traffic or studied the traffic. You don't have to. You can come directly to my front door and I have pictures of all the vehicles that are going up and down Dorman and I'm afraid somebody's going to get hurt. I'm afraid somebody's going to get hit and not come back. And number two, we haven't even started again with spring or summer. There are so many kids that have now entered this area and they play ball. They run scooters. It doesn't make any

difference if they live in a little culdeac. Dogs are running out there. Somebody's going to get their house disrupted. And if you don't, like I said, you have an open invitation to come to my house and see all the traffic that's there. Whether it's truck, whether it's people walking, I have a camera on all of them. Thank you. Thank you, Anita. Um, Brian Flowers, you had a question mark. Phillips, I defer to my neighbors. They said it all, sir.

Thank you. All right. And there's a Carrie and David Munoz. Are you both a no? Are you in attendance tonight? All right, next page. Looks like we're just about through. Um, Wayne, I can't see how you spelled your last name. It's Wayne here. Just because you can't read doesn't mean I'm not a doctor. Sorry. Is it Hunter? I'm not. Hunter. Is it Hunter?

It is. Thank you, sir. I'm Wayne Hunter. I live at 3323 Dorman Avenue. I just want you to know that I oppose this annexation development. Um, all the homes surrounding that area are about four homes per acre at at the max and you're and you're trying to put four times that in that little little area. I moved to Caldwell because of the rural rural environment. I have horses. I used to be able to ride my horses down dormant and not have to worry about being run over. I can't hardly do that anymore. Even before Farmway was reconstructed and inverted all that traffic down Dorman, it is a raceway. I have seen cars go down Dorman 60 plus miles an hour, sometimes even closer to 100. They some people think that is a raceway. If we put that many more homes that close to Dorman, increase that much more traffic, people walking, somebody's going to get hurt. I oppose annexing this into the city basically on because of the amount of homes that they want to put on those lots. Let's keep it agriculture. That's what we bought. That's what we want. And as council members, I would hope you would support your public comment as to what we the people that live there want. Thank you.

Thank you. Next will be Robert Yes. Sorry, a lot of uh doctor type signatures on here.

That's okay. That's okay. Mayor, city council. Thank you. I appreciate this opportunity to speak and I would like to speak against uh the annexation and the development that they're proposing tonight. I live at uh 103 Lanahan Place, which is about a sixth of a mile up Dorman. They're not even talking about to the where their proposed um annexation and development is going right now. Just to the north of that is a single dwelling home of 6,800 square foot with one family living in it on several acres. That's right next door to that. So it does and it doesn't fit anything in the Quail Meadow that is to the immediate south of that Lanahan Place. We are all 1.5 or bigger. all eight of us on our in that by God's grace we are still in the county we're surrounded by city on three sides. What putting in a development like this will do will definitely impact not just the traffic flow but it's going to impact property values of the people that have invested in more of a rural setting. Even if it is a 55 and older community, you can't control who moves in or out with that person. If they they fall on hard times, they do. And there is no pressurized irrigation that I know of there because everything that flows down dormant is passive. We have to pump it. So that would have to come in from Manchester and over in that development. Right now we only have three different egresses off of besides Lynen and Eustic. We have three different egresses to get off of Dorman. They're going to add another one in which is already turned into a raceway in the morning. I cannot even speak of how many times I've had to dynamite my brakes because somebody blows the stop sign at Qual

Meadows to get out on Dorman. Sidewalk proposals. There's not enough room without widening the streets. I just feel that this is not appropriate for the surrounding areas and for the general people that live in our community and why we bought there. I mean, I've been there 19 years and I love the community. I love the setting and this is just not quite the right fit. And I thank you for your time. Thank you, Robert. And last up will be Lynn Waterman. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and City Council. My name is Lynn Waterman. I live at 1215 West Lynon, and I'm don't usually like to read things, but since I'm on limited time, um the question about R1 and R2, um the uh the planner said there really isn't any difference except for the color on a map. And if that's true, then the question is, why is the developer so intent on getting an R2 designation? At the January 13 meeting, I requested that the zoning commission limit the designation to R1 because I understood that the surrounding homes are R1, which is typically two to four houses per acre. I've come to understand in the meantime that the meaning u although I'm sorry, uh the main def definition of R1 is 8,000 square feet, but the average development applications between 2024 and 2026 was 2.4 to 2.7 units per acre. So, this would allow nine or 10 houses on the 3.6 acre parcel that Summit Grove currently has. The R2 fine print, however, can allow density bonuses up to 25 per acre. This would allow 90 homes on this parcel. given density bonuses and variances that are common. The fact that an R two designation, if it were allowed, we don't really know what we're

going to get. Somewhere between 31 and 90 houses. We're told that a traffic study is not required on Dormund because it's just considered a country road and therefore needs no study. Uh furthermore, we're told that we only can consider the Summit Grove um subdivision but not the Coventry subdivision. But that one with 68 houses would bring the total to 100 houses and that would mean probably two to 300 new cars on Dorman. The traffic study should be mandatory. The fine print of the zoning definitions aside, the Summit Grove does just not fit this area. Everyone who purchased their home within half a mile of the proposed Summit Grove subdivision bought their uh home on large lots and they had good faith that the city would maintain the character of the neighborhood. SI purchased the land in the middle of our neighborhood is asking what no other neighbor has asked to develop homes at 5 to 20 times the density of the existing area. If this is granted, the council will be allowing SI to enrich themselves at the expense of all neighbors in the form of more congested streets, lower water tables, more noise, ultimately higher taxes to pay for more school, police, and fire capacity. I believe this application violates the comprehensive plan because it does not sufficiently regard the impacts that the development will have on neighbors. The rezone request is not merely a question of property rights for the applicant, but is a um request by the applicant for a reasonzone that would grant more property rights than the applicant already has on the land to allow for more property uses than currently exist. Given the nature and density of the proposal, the applicant seeks approval for a use that will violate existing property owners free use and enjoyment of existing properties and neighbors. I do not believe that the council can um mitigate the impacts that this development will have and uh therefore I think the council should deny this application because the planners have

made it clear that even an R1 designation will allow the 31 requested homes. I'm asking the city council to deny the request for annexation and for R1 and R2 designations. Thank you. Thank you. All right, that's the end of the Can I submit this?

In favor, neutral and opposition. Now we are going to move to the applicant for a threeminut rebuttal period. Applicant would like to come forward. Mr. Planner, could I have my slide deck, please?

Mr. Mayor, uh, council, I'll do my best in three minutes, but that was a lot to respond to, so maybe a little bit of leeway if we get to the end and I'm not through. Uh, first touching on the age restriction 55 plus. Uh, this will be uh, age restricted per our CCNRs. No minors whatsoever will be allowed in this community. So the federal law does allow us to restrict minors based on the the act that Joe mentioned. There will be no minors here. So no impacts on schools. Uh we do not anticipate nor do we think it's feasible that we would come back to ask for uh that condition to be lifted. But if we did, it's ultimately in your discretion to decide to lift it. As council member Dittenberg noted, um, SI has a lot of age restricted projects in the Treasure Valley. They've all sold uh very well and have been a a high demand product type. Um, I want to touch on uh council members uh Stoddock's question about why would we do R2 here? Um, all the all the land around here is R1. And and the reason why is because the the city made a policy decision in 2025 to adopt the new comprehensive plan and and designated all this land neighborhood 2. So on the left side of the screen is your old comp plan, the 20 2045 and everything in this area is in the light green, the low density residential designation. So under LDR, what the city provided was that you could have one to three units per acre or up to six with a PUD. That was taken away when you changed the designation here to neighborhood 2 and you said, "Hey, we want 2 to eight and we also want infill and we want to increase density because we have a housing shortage. We have an affordability problem and we have a an inability to provide services to green field development. So that's why R2

makes sense here. That being said, we're not going to die on that hill. We we're happy with R1, too, because ultimately this project works either way. It's the exact same number of units. U we do think it lays out better as an R2 um with better plans for our future residents, your citizens. Um and it does not set a precedence. I want to touch on that. Um, if we come back to the city to change the zoning on an adjacent parcel, ultimately up to you guys to decide if that's appropriate or not. Does it meet the criteria? Does it mitigate its impacts? That will be decided in the future. We are proposing a project that fits the comp plan to a te. This is infill development next to a major transportation corridor that's within the zoning range. Um, Manchester Road, the new road we construct, will be a public road, 53 feet of rideway with sidewalks on both sides. We'll also be constructing sidewalk on our frontage of Dorman and providing ride ofway for widening. These will be for sale single family units, so each each home is on its own lot and can be sold. Um, we are not density 4x surrounding as planning staff mentioned. Density to the to the west is four four and a half. Density to the south is um two twoish. Um there are projects on Dorman uh down south the Windong Court property. You see the little finger there very similar density. I I believe it's five five and a half units per acre. So we're not out of the realm of what's what's appropriate in this area. No agencies have provided any comment that this project is not meeting their standards. Fire was the only commenting agency. They noted that we're within a very rapid response time. Another reason that more density is warranted.

Um comments that taxes would be increased. Again, the reason that I believe the city adopted your new comp plan is is to keep taxes lower and projects like this do that. We we're adding housing without the need for extension of city services. Um it's not unsustained growth, it's infill growth. Um I have a few more things I'd like to address, Mr. Mayor, but I'll be respectful of the council's time and I'll answer any questions.

All right. Thank you for your statement. Um all right. Any questions for the applicant? See no questions. Thank you. Um, since we've completed the public hearing, I'll declare a hearing closed and the council can discuss the proposal before making any motions and voting. Councelor Denber,

Mr. Mayor, thank you. I'm going to take a couple minutes of everyone's time and I want to be able to chat with you and let you know that I've heard you. I've listened to you and uh and uh I am compelled by what you have to say. And so I hope though you you will give me a couple minutes to hear what I have to say and uh and then my council members will will kind of let the chips fall where they may. When we took this office, we stood right down here and we put our arm to the square and we made an oath to abide by the constitution of the state of Idaho and the laws of the city of Caldwell. and uh you would want us to live by that oath. And so we have an obligation to follow the law and that's what we do. We don't have any obligation to do anything but follow the law. And and uh in the end it will come down to what we do. Is it legal or is it illegal? And I'm going to check some things off my notes here because I want to uh to to let everybody know that as we are chatting today, as of last week, the Idaho legislature, our legislature, who represents all of us, is considering legislation that would prohibit us from denying this property, would prohibit us. And as a matter of fact, if the applicant is denied today and the legislature gets their way, he can come back in July, July 1st with an application and put 80 units on that lot probably or 60 units on that lot. So the legislature that we have today is trying to give people more property rights. And so let me go back to the property rights of the state of Idaho. The state of Idaho grants everybody who owns property the right to develop their property and prohibits

government, no matter if it's state government or municipal government, from taking property and taking those rights away from people. So here we have a person who has property rights who is before us today and we as council members have an obligation to follow the law and the law says if we abide by the property rights and we follow the property rights and we follow what the state has put together under law under the Idaho planning law which is I think the land use planning act 197076 somewhere around that time And if the applicant comes forward with a legal application means it follows all the requirements of the state law and it follows the requirements of what the legislature put together. And if it follows the requirements of what is in city code, we cannot legally turn that down. We can't. Even though I I agree with you, this is our rural communities that are being turned into houses. These were our we used to uh ride horses down the road. uh this fundamental property right is something that has been granted in our state from the beginning and it still exists today. In addition to what the legislature is considering in and making it illegal for us to turn down a project like this, uh they're also stating that the cities and their new legislation cannot limit lot sizes. That means we cannot say it has to be an 8,000 foot lot. It cannot be a 10,000. They we have to allow smaller lots. And that's what the legislature is looking at today. In addition to that, if any of you live near a church, the law that is being proposed also says that anybody can build upon a church without permission. If you own a religious piece of property, you can build without

permission. So our legislature is moving in a direction that is reaffirming the property rights of of this state. So as we move forward, we have a a difficult decision to make. We all believe what you have to say. We all believe that you love your rural community. Uh but we have this uh this tremendous obligation to follow the law. And so as we move forward uh with this uh I I will tell you like I've told every other uh body that's come before me in situations like this, my obligation will be to follow the law and to observe those property rights. My fellow council members may choose to do differently. Um but uh just so you know that uh I think my fellow council members also want to follow the law. We also want to do what's right for the city. We also want to do what's right for the uh for the property rights uh in the state. And so uh having said that, I understand how you feel. We just have this uh this uh tremendous responsibility to uh to follow the law. And from way I see it, nothing that uh has been provided here tonight would indicate that this was an illegal application. That this application is inconsistent with the law or this application is even inconsistent with the conservative values of the state of Idaho in recognizing property rights. So that's all I have to say and uh at some point we will uh we'll get to a point where we'll uh we'll decide how to dis dispense with this matter.

Councelor Williams. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, questions for staff more than anything, clarification for me here. Um, but, um, I I appreciate what you do. Uh, I appreciate the effort that you put into it and, uh, the integrity that you have in the process. Uh, first of all, just for clarification for everybody, and Haley, this is more for you. I just want I just since we're talking about it on the record, 2027 is when that roundabout will be done at Farmway. Is that right?

Um, Councilman Williams, the round, the Ustick roundabout, I assume, is the roundabout that you're Yes. Yeah, that roundabout will be done, I'm expecting, this spring. It should be wrapping up very soon. the highway district is taking the lead on that project and they tell me that it's moving along very well

and and and it is creating all kinds of complications and and challenges and because it's been brought up I just thought might as well uh give you that detail one more time. I'm I'm sorry if that's um well um Robin I I'm hearing this isn't a fit or it's not compatible. Uh, Councilman Dittenberg brings up a question for me. Are we allowed by law to deny something because it's not a fit or not compatible should this annexation be approved?

Um, Mayor Councelor Williams, the council has the purview of denying an annexation for any reason they see fit. I'm sorry. My question is, should the annexation be approved, can we deny this project simply because we don't deem it a fit?

Uh, mayor and councelor Williams, but no, not necess not under the subdivision plat requirements. Um, you can deny the R2 zoning based on you don't think it's a compatible zoning. There's specific criteria in the code for the zoning itself. Okay. So, even if I agree with all of these folks here, should the annexation be approved, I can't deny an R1 because I don't believe it's compatible with the area. Is that what you're telling me?

Um, let me rephrase this. So, they're requesting an annexation with an R2 zone. If you approve the annexation, council has the choice to approve it with the R2 zoning that's being proposed or council could say we're not going to appro we don't like the R2 zone and so we're going to deny the annexation. You could ask the applicant to you could continue it to a future meeting date and have the applicant go back and design the plat for an R1 zone and bring it back to you. Um you can you can require a development agreement. There's all kinds of things that you could do with this project. If you're not wanting to approve the annexation with the R2 zone, staff's recommendation would be that you make a motion if you're wanting the R1 zone to continue it to give the applicant time to work with staff to bring back the plat for an R1 zone. So then council could consider the annexation with an R1 zone.

Okay. And I I'm not trying to be a dead horse. This is difficult because I I like councelor Denberg don't want people to think we're not hearing you. My integrity demands that I answer this question. On what basis can I deny this? And what I'm hearing you tell me is as long as it fits the comprehensive plan and the zoning, then we wouldn't be able to under the uh opinion that we just don't like this fit for that community. Even if even if I personally don't like that fit for this community, my personal feeling can't come into the finding of fact. Is that accurate?

Um, mayor and council Williams, that's correct. When it comes to the zoning portion of the annexation, absolutely. Um there is criteria in there that you that um it can't I can't remember exact wording but significantly Yes, I do. I have it in front of me. I lied. Let me look. So there's a criteria that says the intensity of the development in the new zoning district is not expected to create significantly adverse impacts to surrounding properties or the neighborhood or has proposed efforts to mitigate or minimize such adverse impacts. So, if the council wanted to deny the zoning based on that statement, you would have to read the statement, but you would also have to tell them why you feel that they're creating significantly adverse impacts, and you'd have to provide them how they can fix that to then bring it back for consideration in the future.

Thank you, Robin. All right, councelor Tak. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to remind everybody on the council that according to the legislative proceedings that the city council didn't approve or deny any annexation without articulating or justifying its decision. Yes. I mean that's up to us to do. That's following the law. Okay.

Thank you foration councelor Stoic. That that was not my question. I've denied I've moved to deny annexations without cause. I understand that very well. my question perhaps wasn't clear. If this annexation is approved, then all of my other questions come into play. So, I hope that clears it up for you. Robin, just confirm. Yes, that's absolutely correct. You can deny annexation for any reason. You do not have to state why, but like councelor Williams question, if the annexation is approved and then you want to deny the rest of it, like the zoning or the subdivision plat, you'd have to base it on the approval criteria.

Thank you, Robin, and thank you, Councelor Stoic. Did you have anything further, Councelor Stodd, since you got cut off? Yeah, maybe I do. Uh I think just for the audience, one of the biggest problems we've had here on the council and sometimes we agree, sometimes we disagree, but we don't solicit annexing any property. That's up to the county to release that. So I think that if there is a problem, maybe you should attend some of the county meetings and help them out a little bit, understand when they do that, the kind of effect it has here on the on the city council and you as taxpayers. So that's all, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Councelor Stok. Uh, council register.

Thank you. I have a couple of questions for uh staff. Um, okay. So, my first question is somebody brought up um that an R1 has detached walls where an R2 has attached walls, I guess, in a in a bank of homes. And I wanted to confirm that or see if that was correct. Um, mayor and council registered that that's not actually true.

Okay. Um, an R1 is is simply just there's different land uses that are allowed in an R1 versus an R2. Um, these are the what they're proposing today are town homes. The difference between um there was somebody that made a statement that these are multifamily or rental units. They're they're not multif family. These these are single family. they they share a commonwall on the property line, but each individual unit is a on its own property and thus will be sold. Now, once it's sold, obviously the owner can rent it out if they choose to, just like any other single family home, but these these are single family homes. Um, to be multifamily, sometimes it looks the same, right? You could have four units attached. The difference is it's all on one property. There is no property lines between. So now that one building is multifamily because if you're going to sell it, you sell the whole building with all the units. Does that help?

Yes. Thank you. And then the other question I had, um, do you have access to the packet? Yes.

Okay. So, I think it's going to be page 659 if that lines up. I just want some clarification on the planning and zoning vote. um from so because it says in the agenda uh this is a requesting annexation of one parcel with a proposed zoning of R2 goes through everything and then at the end of it it says the application was recommended for approval by planning and zoning on page 659 apparently there were only three planning and zoning members there that night and it was a 2 to1 as what it looks like. So, I wanted to confirm that. But then also it said the request is recommended for approval with the condition of changing the zoning designation from R2 to R1 and the CCNRs include 55 plus ownership of property. So, I want to confirm that there were only three planning and zoning members that voted that night, first of all. And then secondly, it's it says that their motion that they voted on was changing the zoning designation from R2 to R1, but now we're looking at annexation with R2. So, I just curious how that works.

Um, mayor and council register, that's correct. There was only three commissioners present um at that meeting. It was a 2 to1 vote and their recommendation was for the city council to consider approval with an R1 zoning. So, but then when they come before us, they can change that to approval with an R2. Even though that's what planning and zoning recommended, you can because the planning and zoning commission is just a recommendation. Okay. But their recommendation was for an R1, right? But you can you can go with their recommendation or you can decide not to go with their recommendation.

Okay. Thank you. So now I just have a couple things to say. Um first of all, I really appreciate you all coming out here today. I think it's very brave to come up here and talk. I don't even like to do it very much. I get a little bit nervous. Um but I really appreciate it and especially when there's so many um emotions that are tied to it and everything else. and I'm very thankful that you've all come here and spoken about your community. Um I guess actually one other question I had for planning and zoning real quick. Um is this is somebody's house that is just uh cutting up their property. There's a house here, right,

Mr. Mayor, Council Register? My understanding is that it's already been sold off to the developer. I don't know if anybody's the house as well. Yes, that's part of the property. Yes.

Okay. All right. Um, thank you. So, anyway, I do appreciate you all coming and I kind I just want to um piggy back on what councelor Denberg was saying. I we did make an oath to follow the law and we also made an oath to represent our community in the best way that we can, right? Um so, when our community comes in here like this and we have an option to deny something without breaking the law, which is the annexation, correct? We don't have to give any opinion of that. I think that that's worth a listen to. We heard a lot about future legislation that we don't even know will pass. We hear about property rights all the time, but when you buy a piece of property, you're buying what it's zoned at. You are not inherently granted another property right just because you bought a piece of property and then can claim property rights on it. Otherwise, I'm going to claim that my house is a park. I mean, we just you can't do that. Um there is absolutely nothing in the law that says that we have to annex this property or that we have to have a reason for it. We were counseledled on that before we even walked in the door. Um I feel like people put our their trust in us to make the best decisions for them. I I like the project someplace else. I think 55 and older is great. Um, I get disheartened when we try to put projects in the middle of communities and neighborhoods that don't fit. And I realize I've I've heard it a million times, you can't deny something um based on your own feelings. Um, however, I think that if we continue to do what we've always done, we are just going to continue to ruin this city. And we can't I'm not I am not going to take any chance of doing that. So, with that, I'm going to make a motion to deny court uh bill number 66, ordinance 3718

associated with ANN25 009 with a request to I guess deny. I don't know if I have to continue on there. It looks like that's just a bunch of other words. So, I'm going to Sorry about that. You can just finish with deny, madam clerk. Okay. So, I'm just moving to deny this annexation. All right. We have a motion from council register to deny. Do we have a second? Second. Motion is second for denial of the annexation. Mr. Mayor. Time for comment or are we going to vote? Yeah, I was just getting ready to get to that. Is there any further comment on the motion at hand? Yes,

Council Williams. Um, the only comment I want to say is the more we continue to deny annexing infill, the more we will be tempted to have urban sprawl and infringing on our uh agricultural land. And those are those are difficult things to balance and to weigh. And where we have a growing community, like it or not, uh, infield properties are what I would like to fill up first. I'd like to answer that. Yeah. Um, can I answer that, Council Register? Yeah. Go ahead.

All due respect, but we hear this all the time and the fear-mongering is just getting old. I We don't have to do that. We don't have to annex property from the county. We don't have to continue to sprawl. We don't have to continue to build up. I understand that that would not be the best thing for us budget-wise, but can we just stop with the fear-mongering and say this doesn't fit here? This if they want to come back and ask for an annexation with single family homes, maybe that's something that the council could take up. I'm tired of threatening this idea that all this bad stuff is going to happen if we take care of our communities.

All right. Thank you, Council Register. Council Tilma, any other counselors? All right, councelor Stoddock. Yeah, Mr. Mayor, I just want to make sure we know what we're voting on. So, if we vote yes, that's to deny the annexation. Is that correct? Yes. The motion was for a denial of the annexation. Thank you. And a vote no would be opposite. All right, it's been moved to deny the annexation. Um, council members may now cast their votes electronically. Stand by till we get the TV on. Sorry, we timed out.

All right. Is everyone able to see? So, it's a five to one. Thank you. All right. Let's go and keep the applause down. All right. All right, just so everyone's aware, that was a approval of the denial of the annexation for that agenda item. So, move on to the next agenda item. Um, that will be the finance report and I'll Yes.

Yeah. Just just as a reminder, item number six was removed from the agenda. So, we're going to move on to the finance report. Can we just hold it down in the uh crowd? We're just We got B business continue. But thank you all for the came out tonight. Council all good.

Mr. Mayor, I move accounts payable in the amount of 2,593,48.87 87 represented by check numbers 1 191442 through 1 191482 and lot electronic payments and payroll in the amount of $92,62012 represented by check numbers 40712 through 40720 and direct deposits be accepted, payments approved and vouchers filed in the office of the city clerk. There's a motion from counselor. All good. Do we have a second? Motion is a second. Um, council members nay now cast their votes electronically. Is that TV still?

Okay, let's make sure we get batteries for those.

All right, votes closed. All right, the motion passes. Um, the next on the agenda is council reports. We're going to start with councelor register. Um to all of you that are left um I don't I don't really think that I have anything at this time still um attending the Golden Gate irrigation meetings and uh I was very impressed that the mayor came to the last one and heard their concerns and we're sort of just trying to brainstorm some ideas that you know will work for everybody. I don't know. We don't know if the city can help at all, but we're just trying to brainstorm some ideas. So, it has not been forgotten.

Thank you, Councelor Williams. Nothing. All right. Thank you, sir. Councelor Algen, Councelor Denber, Councelor Tilmont. Um, real quick, at the latest board meeting from the senior center, they would like to ask if the city has a grant writer that would be willing to teach. They're not looking for somebody to do all the work. They're just looking for somebody that might give them a quick tutorial on how to write a grant, considering they could really use some there. Um, if the mayor would be so kind as to maybe see if somebody on staff with the city could help them, that would be great.

Yeah. Um, thank you for that and we'll definitely follow up with that and we'll make sure we answer that question, Raylin. And I'll get with Raylin tomorrow. Appreciate you bringing that up. And we hold the senior center near and dear to our heart. If you haven't been, they have amazing food. So, uh, check it out if you get a chance. Anything else? Councelor Tilont. Councelor Stoic.

All right, with that, uh, just a little update on the Blaine Bridge. I believe it's been pushed to Tuesday that we're going to have that open. I think it was the last post, so forgive me for saying it was Friday. That's why I said don't hold me to it. Um, other than that, the Kimble Bridge is progressing. And as far as obviously, we know we have the um, public input period for the quiet zone. So, that'll be coming up at the end of this month. So, make sure you look out for that. Additionally, last meeting we had asked about Roger Brooks. I'm working with Chamber of Commerce. Right now, there's some contractual stuff that uh had not been completed. So, we're going to make sure that we tighten that up before we bring it forward. So, we have all the um tees crossed and the eyes dotted and we have a full presentation and I'll let you guys know when that comes. Other than that, uh thank you all that came out tonight and we appreciate public input and hope you have a wonderful evening. And with that,

Mr. Mayor, sorry. I believe there's an executive session. Yes, that's what I'm going to get to uh next. Thank you. Yes. All right. The last item of business is executive session. Tonight's exe executive session will be pursuant to ite 74-206 paragraphs B and F. And with that, um, to make a motion. Yeah. So, do we have a motion to enter into executive session? So moved. All right. in a second. Second. Yeah, Mr. Mayor, I move that we move we enter executive session.

You're making me read it all. Okay. It's not. It is. Um, Mr. Mayor, I move that we enter executive session pursuant to Idaho Code 74-206. D D and F paragraphs D and F for those out there to be clear. Um that's a motion. Do we have a second for executive session? Second. Motion is a second. All right. All those in favor? Do we just Is it a voice or electron? Electronic. Please vote electronically. That we just Tilmont. Yes. Stoic. Yes. Register. Williams. All good. Denber.

All right. That's unanimous. And we're now in executive session. Thank you.