Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Thank you everybody for coming tonight. We are going to start uh the planning and zoning hearing. So, can I get a roll call? Harmon here. Larson here. Guyired here. Whitbeck here. Vance.

So, we have no special presentations, consent calendar. So, I'm going to review the proceedings here. Opening statement. It's a quasi judicial hearing involves a consideration of a land use request such as annexation, reszone, classification, or approval of a subdivision preliminary plat. The public hearing procedure as required by the Idaho code are as follows. Oral and written testimony will be accepted from those who have signed to speak prior to the hearing being declared open. When providing testimony, please come to the podium and state your name, address, which will be included in the record. The applicant or applicant's representative will be given up to 20 minutes to present their land use request. The city planner then will then follow up with their staff report. Public testimony. Testimony of those in support will be taken, followed by those in a neutral position, and finally those in opposition to the request. Note, all public testimony will be limited to 3 minutes or less. The applicant will be offered the opportunity to provide rebuttal testimony and followed up by the planner if necessary. After the rebuttal testimony is given, the public testimony portion of the public hearing will be closed and no new oral or written testimony will be allowed. However, city staff are allowed to discuss any questions or concerns with the commissioners after public testimony has been closed. We don't have any old business.

Oh, yes. So we need to approve the consent calendar. So moved. Second. All in favor? I. Okay.

So So new business. Thank you. Okay. Action item public. Uh so we need to go through these, right? and to pass them down. So we have action item public hearing quasi judicial for case number ANN25-16 SP25-18. It's been asked this project be rescheduled for the Wednesday, April 8th, 2026 hearing. I approve the um excuse me, I make the motion that we continue that hearing until Wednesday, April 8th, 2026. I

have a second. Second. All in favor? I I All right. So, we'll move that action item public hearing quasi judicial for case number 25-10N25-13 an-14 SP25-14. Staff is requesting a continuence to the April 8th, 2026 hearing. Do I have a motion? So moved. Second. All in favor? I I

All right. All right. So, we'll get on to our only one on on our agenda then tonight. So, this is a public hearing quasi judicial for case number ANN25-11 SP25-15 Z25-7. The applicant Bailey Engineering Incorporated on behalf of HPU Investments LLC. The Rama Group LLC is requesting annexation of parcel R3 28-2512000 with a a zoning designation of R2 and a reszone parcel R32825100 from RS2 to R2 where both parcels are identified as neighborhood 2 in the comprehensive plan and R2 is a compatible zoning. designation. Concurrently, the applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat for West Built Estates Subdivision, a single family residential subdivision with 194 buildable lots. The 65.83 acre development is located on the west side of Lake Avenue at the intersection with Cirrus Drive, approximately 1,700 ft south of Carter Road in Caldwell, Idaho. We doing staff report first or

applicant? Sorry, chairman, members of the commission. Hello and good evening. For the record, my name is Sabrina Dery and I am here on behalf of the applicant. My business address is 5179 South Boven Avenue, Boisee, Idaho 83716. And this evening, this evening, I have the honor to present to you our applications for Westbuilt Estates. So, first, let me begin by welcoming you to Westbuilt Estates. This community has been thoughtfully designed as a highquality residential development that blends refined living, elevated modern comfort, and strong neighborhood connections. Here you can see our main entrance into Westfield Estates, which features stone monument signage, a landscape median, layered plantings, and a creating welcoming boulevard style entry. The design emphasizes natural materials, strong landscaping to establish a clear identity and sense of arrival for our community.

Is this working?

Here we go. Okay. The vision for this project is to create a place where families and individuals will feel at home while enjoying access to the community spaces and amenities. The goal is to develop a neighborhood that feels both sophisticated and comfortable while fitting naturally within the surrounding community. With West Belt Estates, we're requesting annexation, a zoning of R2, and a preliminary plat for a total of 194 single family homes and 33 common lots. Our net density will be 2.95 units per acre with our residential lot sizes ranging from 6,000 square feet up to 12,700 square ft. With the newly adopted comp plan and zoning code, this area has been designated as neighborhood 2. The goal for neighborhood 2 is to serve areas near major centers and activity hubs. Given the site's proximity to the rapidly expanding Highway 55 corridor and its growing concentration of commercial employment centers, Westbuilt Estates will help create a critical need for residential housing in this key area of Caldwell. This community will offer a well balanced array of mid density housing options that complements the city's long-term comprehensive plan goals. A portion of the site is already annexed into the city of Caldwell under an older residential zoning designation. Within this site, you can see in lighter cream area the the remaining portion that is in the county to create a more cohesive and unified development pattern across the property. The applicant is requesting an annexation for the remaining portion of the site along with a reszone to R2 for the entire subdivision boundary. So to better understand how the site fits into the broader area, let's look at the surrounding um area in detail. Directly north is the Charles

development which is planned to include commercial uses, a future city of Caldwell Fire Station and three to fourtory apartment buildings. To the east is Paragrin Estates. This is a multi-phase single family subdivision with several phases already built or currently under construction. And we also have Lake View Elementary School that is located east of the site. The properties to the south remain in as unincorporated county parcels. And to the west we have Cedar Crossing, a fully builtout single family residential subdivision with diverse established land use. Westbuilt Estates is designed to provide an appropriate transition within the evolving area while maintaining compatibility with the surrounding development pattern. So this slide highlights the importance of thoughtful site design and how the project transitions to the adjacent developments to the north, east, and west. We intentionally designed the lots along the perimeter to align with and complement the existing development patterns in those neighboring communities. This site will be constructed within five phases. Construction timing will be determined about market conditions. However, we're estimating phase one to start in spring of 2027 and home occupancy anticipated early winter of 2027 or early of 2028. Now, I would like to introduce you to the applicant to Builtmore Homes. Since 2009, Builtmore has been building beautifully crafted homes throughout the Treasure Valley. Owned and led by Kevin and Liz Amar, the company builds approximately a hundred homes annually and is known for thoughtful design, highquality construction, and commitment to creating exceptional communities. Builtmore maintains an A+ rating with

the Better Business Bureau and is widely recognized for exceptional craftsmanship and attention to detail. The company is particularly known for its in-house design service and outstanding customer experience, earning the 2025's Boiseey's best customer service award among all businesses in the Treasure Valley. Builtmore Homes has received many awards and accolades over the years. Most recently, they've earned the Boisee Parade of Homes People Choice Award for 2023, 2024, and 2025, and recognized as a 2025 Builder Contractors Association of Southwestern Idaho Builder of the Year. These recognitions are welld deserved. As you can see from these example, their homes feature beautiful exteriors and thoughtfully designed interiors with each home carefully curated to prioritize both quality and livability. Builtmore will be one of the builder teams for this development. In every community, usable open space is a top priority for it sets the foundation for our community's amenities, pathway, and interconnectivity that really makes this community special. In Westfield Estates, we have thoughtfully designed nearly 10 acres of qualified open space, which represents 15.16% of the site. Pathway connectivity and walkability is also a priority within Westbuild Estates as seen in our pathway exhibit. Purple depicts our community sidewalks. Orange depicts our micro pathways that fan out throughout the site and red illustrates our 8-oot regional pathway that provides connection to the east and west of the site. We're in full agreement with the staff report with the exception of one condition. Condition five requires the applicant to provide updated plans prior to city council showing a pedestrian crossing across the Solomon drain to connect to Cougar Pathway to lot 23 block 5 subject to approval of irrigation district. This location is highlighted in the red circle. In lie of

this condition, we are proposing an alternative pathway and crosswalk connection highlighted in purple. We believe this location provides a more centralized and more practical connection point between the development phases and will seamlessly be a perfect connection point for our community. Westbuilt um has been designed with two main central parks with several pocket parks scattered around the site. Our first park will serve as the focal point for Westfield Estates. Thoughtfully designed, the space encourages connection, activity, and outdoor engagement among residents of all ages. Key features include a community pool, playground, and picnic shelter. This park will be constructed in the first phase of the development so residents can enjoy these amenities right away. In addition to the pool area, the park includes open green space, playground design to give children a safe and engaging place to play. Walking paths that connect the different areas of the park, allowing residents to move comfortably through the space while also creating opportunities for neighbors to gather, relax, and enjoy the outdoors. Here is a view of our beautiful pool that residents will love to use. This pool will serve as a central amenity for Westfield Estates, offering a place for residents to relax, gather, and enjoy the outdoors. The design includes lounge seating, shaded gathering area, and a pool house, creating a welcoming space for families and neighbors to connect. In addition to the primary amenity area, Westbuilt Estates will include a second neighborhood park designed to provide additional recreational opportunities and open space for its residents. This park features a pickle ball court, picnic shelter, and walking paths, offering a place for both active recreation and the opportunity to enjoy the outdoors close to home. And finally, this pocket park is in our northwestern corner of and is designed

for more of a passive space is visioned as a peaceful wildflower pollinator garden providing residents with a tranquil sanctuary to connect with nature. And just to summarize, um, Westbuilt Estates is a thoughtfully planned quality community designed to offer a balanced blend of sophistication and modern livability. Situated near major commercial employment hubs, it provides a well-rounded selection of mid-density housing options to meet the growing population. Westbuilt Estates is designed to promote connectivity and quality of life with open spaces, thoughtfully designed amenities, and inviting gathering areas for residents. The neighborhood is carefully planned to create a vibrant and welcoming community for families and residents of all ages. Overall, Westbuilt supports Caldwell's long-term vision of thoughtful growth, highquality housing, and livable neighborhoods. And with that, I'd like to extend our sincere thanks to city staff for their guidance and support throughout this process. And on that great note, I would like to thank you all for the pleasure of your time, your thoughtful consideration, and respectfully request a recommendation of approval to city council. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Commissioners will hold questions till after staff. Thank you, chair and commissioners. Katie Wright, Planner 3, 205 South 6th Avenue. Bailey Engineering, Inc. on behalf of HBU Investments LLC and Rama Group is requesting inexation of par parcel R32825012 with zoning designation of R2 and a reszone of parcel R32825011 with from RS2 to R2. The applicant's also requesting approval of a preliminary plat for West Estates subdivision, a single family residential subdivision containing 194 buildable lots. Uh for the record, the parcel numbers for this application are, as I mentioned earlier, R32825012 and R32825011 totaling a gross acreage of 66.25 as there was a clerical error on the fourth page of the staff report. Uh the 51.09 09 acres listed for the plat is an approximation uh for acreage without the right of way. The subject site is 65.91 acres located at zero zero lake avenue about 1,800 ft south of Carter on the west side of Lake. The subject parcel is currently being utilized as farmland. The property is surrounded by Cedar Crossing subdivision, which is a single family development to the west, Paragan Estate subdivision, also containing single family homes, and a school to the east, multifamily to the north as part of the Charles subdivision, and county farmland to the south.

The northern parcel is located within the county and has no history within the city. The southern parcel was annexed into the city in 2007 with the initial zoning of RS2 and a planned unit development with preliminary plat for 73 single family residential lots ANN156-07 and SUBP PUB176P-07. There was a development agreement associated with this approval, but it was never recorded, making it null and void. The previous approvals have expired and are no longer active. The applicants requesting the northern parcel that is currently within the county be annexed into the city with the initial zone of R2. This parcel is contiguous to Caldwell city limits. The applicants requesting the southern parcel which is located within the city limits currently as RS2 to be reszoned to R2. The applicant's proposing a single family residential development which conforms with the purpose statements as specified within Caldwell City Code for R2 community residential zone which states that the zone is to provide areas that accommodate a larger variety of lot sizes and housing types. This includes single family residential including accessory dwelling units and missing middle housing types such as town homes, duplexes, triplexes, forplexes, cottage courts, small-cale multif family or mansion house apartments. The proposed density of 2.94 dwelling units per acre is compliant with city code which allows for 2 to eight dwelling units per acre. The subject parcel is located in the neighborhood 2 place type within the comprehensive plan. Neighborhood 2 includes a variety of single family and mid density housing types. Commercial services are low to medium intensity and are generally only found on the major intersections of arterial or collector roadways. Primary land uses within the comprehensive plan uh land use designation is low and mid density residential and the requested R2 zone is compatible zoning district within the

neighborhood to place type. The preliminary plat request is for 194 single family detached homes with 15.1% open space which exceeds the code minimum of 10%. For clarification on the plot shown on the screen, north is to the left. Uh the development will take access off of Lake along the northeast of the plat at the north boundary where Cedar Rapids Drive will be constructed. There will be an access there as well. Uh Sirius Drive will connect through the center of the development going from Lake Avenue to the development to the west along with two connections to streets existing in the development to the west. There's also a proposed stub road to the south to provide future connectivity if that parcel develops in the future. and staff has recommended a condition that a stubbed street lead to the out parcels in the northeast to provide future access if they shall develop. A traffic impact study was required due to the number of lots. This development is in alignment with the public works cats plan. It was not deemed that additional mitigations would be needed at this location. The proposed development meets all code requirements so long all recommended conditions of approval are met and all utilities are available or will be made available to serve the proposed single family development. Political subdivisions including school districts were notified and provided opportunity to comment. Highway district number four, Boise Project Board of Control and Valley View commented. Value did state uh the lack of future capacity and stated the increased challenge to anticipate enrollment levels and public notices were sent to all property owners within 500 foot radius of the property but staff had received no public comments at this time. Staff's initial review found that the project is in conformance with all applicable city codes as amended all applicable or all application approval criteria per city code and Idaho code the adopted comp plan and future land

use map. all other applicable city adopted master plans and city policies. The planning and zoning commission has the authority to recommend approval or denial of applications based on the approval criteria within Caldwell City Code once they've reviewed the record and evidence and heard all public testimony. And I stand for any questions. Thank you,

commissioners. They're all looking this way. Um, Katie, can you give me some idea as to the lot sizes? I thought I heard Sabrina mention that there is a variance of lot sizes with the smallest being 6,000, but of course it's over what the requirement is of 4,000, but what what is the percentage? Can you kind of give me some ideas on that? How many is in what category of sizes?

Yes, chair. Um there I can't give you an exact percentage. I don't have that breakdown unfortunately. Uh the applicant may be able to give you a better idea. Uh based on staff's review, a majority of the lots on the exterior of the site are larger. Um the ones especially to the west, some of them are around 12,000 square feet. Um and then some of the internal ones are some of those more smaller 6,000 square foot um lots, but unfortunately uh we do not have a percentage right now. Okay. And can I go on? Go ahead. Okay.

So, there was some amenities that were mentioned as well, and it sounds like there's a pool house which will be kind of duplicate with a use of a community center at Piers. So, it'll be both. Am I correct in that? It'll be the pool house plus the community center type of a thing. Chair, Commissioner Guyer, that does seem what the the landscape plan showed. Okay, with that in mind, can you tell me what phase that is going to be built into?

Chair and Commissioner Guyire, uh staff is waiting on an updated phasing plan from the applicant. It did look like they had one, I believe, in their presentation, so they might be able to show you. I believe they mentioned it was going to be in phase one. Okay. Um but again they might have a better idea just that that's one of the conditions prior to council that we get an updated phasing plan. That would be great and that is my concern is that when we have these amenities they should be to the forward portion and not to the back. So with that in mind there's another question with that. There's a couple of parks. One of them had a pickle ball court again phasing. So we'll maybe get some information from the developer on that.

Thank you. And then um regional pathways. So this is in compliance that has a good connection point with all the other pathways that are within that area and is that in conjunction even with the one with Montana and all of that through all the way to the Boisee River. I know that's the the big picture of this, but this is definitely lining up with that. Is that correct, Chair and Commissioner Guyer? Yes, that is correct. This is considered the Cougar Pathway, which many um approved projects that may have not been constructed at this time. Um or existing developments do have this installed as well and it does meet the requirements for that. Okay.

Uh Cedar Crossing right adjacent to this property has it existing right now. So, so it'll tie into that. Excuse me. Definitely there. Okay. Um tell me about the R2 zoning. Yes. Um, obviously from everything that we've read here, it's single family detached housing, but is there any allowance somewhere down the line

that multif family could be proposed in this development and somehow could be altered or does the development agreement definitely state it is detached housing only? Chair and Commissioner Guyire, there is no development agreement with this project as of now. Of course, if that's something you desired, we could do that. Um, but if this were to get approved, um, they would have to come through and do a modification to get any change of housing, um, any additional density, um, anything like that. Any product change that's not single family detached, that would be something that they would come through and have to submit a modification for.

Okay, let's backtrack on that one then. Why is there not a development agreement proposed with this? Since it is an annexation, we that would qualify for a development agreement. And why was that not selected?

Chair and Commissioner Guyire, uh, typically we'll do development agreements specifically if there are any waiverss or any thing that they're deviating from the code. Uh, this development does not have any deviations so long as they meet all of their conditions that staff has recommended. Uh so so staff felt that there was no need for a development agreement. However, there is one proposal that's already been brought forth for a change from staff's recommendation that has to deal with the pathway. Am I right? In the relocation of what the pathway connection is. Am I correct?

Commissioner Guyer, that was simply just staff recommendation. That's not actually anything that's in code or anything that they would be deviating from. So, if you were to remove that condition, we would maybe uh propose a a counter condition, but it wouldn't be um against the code or anything like that if that were to be removed as a condition.

Okay. And then um the stub um accesses that there's a lake, Lake Avenue is the main ingress, egress. Am I correct in that? And but there is stub proposals for the south and to the northeast and we might have to go with the engineering on that one. But is there any concerns that there is sufficient access points or is there need to be review of that in any way?

Chair and commissioner guy staff has found that what they're proposing does provide connectivity along with the condition to add the stub street to the northeast to those lots. uh engineering may be able to touch on that a little bit more, but at this time we do feel that with the addition of that condition and what they're proposing right now, they do provide future connectivity for those those parcels to develop as much as this development can. So, has there been any concerns with the neighboring or budding subdivisions with any additional traffic concerns with this one coming in and then maybe using their streets? um in conjunction with this development.

Chair and Commissioner Guyire, uh staff has not received anything from um any members of the public. So, we would not be aware if if they do have concerns. Uh those roads again do have existing stub points to this to this property. So, it would be natural that these would be kind of continued in through this development. Um but again, maybe maybe some members of the public who are here may be able to touch on their opinions. Okay. And then my last question is Value School District. I read their condition that or their comment that it would put somewhat of a strain on them as this grows. Um they already have a new

school in that area that is almost close to capacity right now. So has there been and again we might be able to go back to the developer to ask this. Are you aware of any agreement that has been put in place with a developer talking to the Valley View School District as to any type of additional allowance per door for school growth? Chair and Commissioner Guyire staff has not been a made aware of any agreement that the developer may have made with the school district. They may be able to touch on that a little if they've had any conversations. We'll go back to that. Okay. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Anybody else? Okay,

chair. Just one for the the city engineer. Um, just the crash report. Uh, I feel like this is new and just kind of perspective on um from your guys' perspective, is eight crashes in this radius a normal expectation of human error, or are we expecting that to be higher or lower within a three-month time span? Just trying to interpret the data so I understand if that's good, bad, or or just it is what it is. Um, excuse me, Commissioner Larson. Um, uh, Commissioners, I will pull up the traffic data that you're looking at specifically so that I can speak very specifically to that. Um, it it's going to be dependent on the the type of crash that you observe at that a location. You know, there's um property damage crashes. There's crashes that don't cause property damage. There's fatal crashes. So, if they were something where it was a fatal crash at eight times in three months, I would say that's incredibly concerning. If it's a small fender bender where somebody's just rearending somebody, that would be a little bit less concerning as those happens at happens at stop control intersections more frequently than I would love, but um let me look at that data that you're referencing specifically so that I can speak more confidently to the specific matter.

Thanks. Thank you. and Chair and Commissioner Larson, that information was provided to us from the police department. Okay. So, we may be able to get additional information from them if that's Yeah. Just some perspective because I feel like this is the first time we've seen it. So, just for us to know, is it um something or Yeah. Thanks. Yeah. Katie, I just have one question for you. Um and I think the applicant stated 2.9 homes per acre. 2.95. 2.95. Okay. So, Isn't it standard about five to eight? So this this would be considered pretty much moderate growth.

Chair, so for neighborhood 2, which is the place type that this is located within, um the comp plan calls out for two dwelling units per acre to eight dwelling units per acre. So they are towards the lower end of of that uh range. Okay. Thanks for the clarification. And there was a question about uh the pathway 8 foot or 10 foot in width. Is that established as far as which way that goes?

Yeah, chair and commissioner whip back. Um our our new code or the current code now uh it's been a year so I guess I can stop saying new code. Um calls out for regional pathways to be 10 feet. Um staff found that since the neighboring pathways all are 8 ft connecting to this which would be an 8ft pathway is what they're proposing. Uh doesn't seem outrageous to staff if the commission wants to condition that that be made 8 feet. Uh the applicant may may want to touch on that a little more on feasibility, but that is something you you could I just wondered if it needed to be clarified.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? Um, yes. My question is going to be probably for Morgan.

Morgan, is there because there was a development agreement on the neighboring parcel or part of this hole now at one point that for some reason was never recorded. Um, are you concerned that we're not putting a development agreement with it with this aspect of new development there as a whole? uh planning and zoning Morgan Visa. I am not concerned about not having a development agreement with this property. The city has gone through different periods. Some periods where they didn't require them, some where they required them on everything. Um and because like Katie mentioned, this project conforms with code. They're not asking for any deviations. Um the city has been moving toward the direction of no DAS unless they're asking for waiverss um from the code that need to specifically be in that contract for applications that meet every aspect of code. We have been not not been requiring them. If the previous development agreement had been recorded, we would have been asking for a termination or a modification. Um but because that was was never signed um we we have no issues with that at this time.

And chair, could I ask one more then? Yep. Sure. So um city engineer Haley, do you see any concerns in with traffic impact with this with um well we've got Carter Road there and I know there's going to be some kind of roundabout it sounds like with in conjunction with this area as well. Am I correct in that? So, do you have any concerns with traffic flow, overcrowding in the area, that type of thing?

Um, Commissioner Guyer and Commissioners, no, I do not have a concern with the traffic flow on this area based on the TIS report that was review and reviewed and approved. Um, they did not indicate that any intersections or road segments would go over. I think level C was the worst um that they would trigger at peak peak hour. And so I'm not seeing any areas of concern based on the traffic report. Okay. Thank you. Is that it? Okay. We're good. Yep. Do we have any questions for the applicant? Should we bring

Yes. Maybe some just some clarification in regards to the phasing and if there's any more information on that at this point. Would that be okay? Yep. Can we get the applicant come to come back up and answer some questions? Oh, I'm sorry. Everyone was talking to me. Nope, you're good. So, I'm Do you want me a rebuttal right now or No, I'm not. Uh, I think we have a couple clarification. Okay. Do I? Yeah. So, the clarification about the phasing with uh some of the amenities. Could I um could we bring up my PowerPoint one more time? Thank you.

Um um chairman um council member um Guyire. Yes. Let's take a look at the um phasing plan and I can answer some of your questions now. I can wait till rebuttal time. Whatever um you guys are comfortable with. So, well, let's just start with this one.

Okay, sounds great. Sorry. There we go. So, um, as you can see, phase one is in pink, and that is where our pool, um, and it's not a clubhouse. It's basically going to be an entry point with, um, bathrooms and area to store, um, the pump house for the pool for the pool items for winterization and the pool, um, so the and, um, also the picnic shelter. So, that will all be in phase one.

Um, phase two will be on the other side as you can see in yellow. Phase three is in purple and then phase um four and five, phase five is where the pickle ball court is and that will be our last phase. So we'll have some amenities in the very first phase and then the remaining pickle ball court and picnic shelter in our last phase. Okay. So there is no community center. Basically what it is is that park is serving as your gathering space. Am I correct in that? The park and the pool, right? And the pool. Yes. and um the um tot lot. So yes, that's great. And can we clarify a couple other things and if we could um let's talk about Valley View School District. Yes. Yes.

What what's been done there? Um chairman um councilwoman. So we will be in discussion with um Valley View before um city council. I know that it has been a topic of conversation and we'll be reaching out to Joey Palmer to discuss things with him. So Okay. So there is something already set up to to discuss. Yes, we'll be discussing with him. Yes. And then the pathway, are you amanable to increase the width of that because I know that was discussed tonight from 10 to 12 rather than I think that your proposal was 10, excuse me, 8 to 10. Okay.

So would is that something that you guys are amanable to rather than the eight and to increase that to a width of 10? Um, chairman, councilwoman, um, I think we looked at it and we feel that the eight feet really provides that right connection point. It's it, you know, seamlessly com for both projects on both ends and then we have 10 feet of landscape on both sides. So, we're are meeting portion of it. If the two extra additional feet is a deal breaker, we're happy to add the two additional feet. But we feel like the 8T with both projects on both ends meeting the same 8T width is appropriate.

Okay. Then I'm I'm going to ask Commissioner Whitbeck. Yes. If you are amanable to that, if that sounds like something that you would like to pursue more with the actual width of it or is the landscaping a totality bringing that up, is that something that you would have concerns with in consideration of the existing pathways on both ends of it to remain consistent? I would have no problem with the 8 foot. Thank you. Those are my questions. I just uh have one question. Sabrina, could you kind of give us the timeline of all five phases? Like,

you know, is it going to be five years? Is it going to be six years? Is it going to be 10 years? Typically, um, as I said, I know this is rough. Yes. Yes. Yes. And it's hard, it's hard to estimate. Again, it's very, it's all based on market conditions. It's always a caveat of mine, I have to mention. But typically, they're always usually about a year out. So the first home occupancy, we're thinking late 2027, 1st of 2028 and then usually depending on the absorption rate, a year out is usually the timeline. I will Oh, I'm getting I'm getting some nods. So I'm correct. Yes. So it it would just consecutively be a year. So five, six years, seven at probably the um longest depending on the market. So perfect.

Yes. Thank you. Um,

a few few things real quick. Um, you asked um, Councilwoman Guyer um, about percentage and we saw 60 40% of the site has 6,000 square foot lots and 60% has 8,000 square foot lots. And really, we're kind of I we're kind of in that midpoint from the R1 and the R2. So, the R1 the minimum density um, minimum lot size is 8,000. The R2 is 6,000. So, or 4,000. So, we're kind of meeting right in the middle between both those zones. That's why we're a little bit of lower density, but again, looking at their product and housing product, we need a little bit larger lots to um fit their homes on. And then pathway detail, Valley View, Regional Pathway. Oh, I think that covers everything unless you have any other questions for me at this time.

No. Thank you so much. Nope. Any other questions? No. Okay. Okay. All right. So,

um, uh, Commissioner, sorry, Commissioner Harmon. Um, I just wanted to follow up with Commissioner Larson, I was able to look at some of the crash data, um, the that the police department had put together. I just want to clarify, this isn't information that the engineering department puts together. So, um, we'll probably want to clarify with police specifically in the future. Okay. But um considering that the majority of the crashes were reported property damage, they there was only one that was reported as a possible injury. Um this doesn't seem like an alarming rate to me. The the property damage could be some you know somebody driving in someone's grass and it causes property damage, somebody hitting a sign and it causes property damage or a fence. So because of the type of crash crashes reported, this did not seem like a concerning number.

Okay. Thank you. Any more questions for applicant or staff?

Okay. All right. So, we're going to get on to public testimony. So, um, in favor of this project, we have Sam Johnson does not wish to speak. Okay. Jeremy Amar does not wish to speak. Nancy Henry wishes to speak. Okay. If you want to come up to the podium and uh, state your name and address for the record. and you have three minutes.

My name is Nancy Henry and I'm on 1349 Agape Way. I'm one of the houses in the triangle. My I wasn't really planning to speak, but as I look at that driveway that's coming out and into the new subdivision planned um on Cirrus, it looks like it's going to be right by my house. Um I'm wondering what kind of buffers and fencing and stuff and is planned around that.

Um Let's see. There was something else. Um, will the will the fences and and the the bridge and all that stuff be put in before the houses or will that be going in after the bridge over the canal behind me? Do you know? Okay. I I couldn't hear hardly anything that was said. I'm having problems with my ears right now. So, if I'm being redundant, I'm sorry. No, you're good.

Um, I think that I think that was that was my main thing. Um, oh, are are the is the speed limit going to be brought down? Because with that school, it is that road is so congested, it's unbelievable. And then when the school's not going on the speed, they speed so fast. It's 50 And it's already along a school and a and a pretty full subdivision. I think it's the second biggest subdivision in the state of Idaho from what I've been told. But we don't have very good speed control in there and part of the road is still pretty narrow. So I think that I think that's all I had.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. All right, we have one signed up in neutral. Rick Reed, wish to speak?

Okay. State your name and address for the record. You have three minutes. Rick Reed, REAT. Like you read a book. 15 386 Roseman Way, Caldwell, Idaho 83607. I have concerns about traffic. Cirrus once it gets through will go from Lake, excuse me, to Florida. Is there any means that we can have some kind of stop sign between the two divisions, something to prevent speeding from one end to the other? I've just come from a uh Idaho transportation committee. There will not be any of those proposed Uturns. no U-turn that they proposed in the middle between Lake and Florida. So, it'll be one straight uh island, which means Cedar Crossing community people will either come in off Lake through this new development or down to Indiana, come down service Cirrus into our community. So, um the community will have much more traffic. the stub uh roads that they're talking will come into Cedar Crossing community also. Uh so I'm very concerned about the traffic pattern there. Uh we do have kids. Cedar Crossing has a big three acre lot that has kids especially during the summer playing. So uh my other question is why annexation? Is it for uh better use of Caldwell city services like water, sewer, um all that stuff? Um and let's see, there was a mention in

the application of the um builder of 194 homes, but they mentioned 33 common lots. I would like to know what they meant by 33 common lots. That's that's what I have to say. Main concern is traffic uh uh from one end to another. Something in between the two developments. The a stop sign be nice for a roundabout or blockade where they couldn't come through.

Thank you. That's it, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. We got three opposed. Um Vicky Mains, you did not put down if you wanted to speak or not speak. Do you want to speak though or do I? Yeah. Okay. Okay. Doug Mains. State your name and address for the record and you got three minutes.

Yeah. My name is Doug Mains. I live at 12926 Bullfinch Court right across from the develop right across the lake from the development there and um you know I congratulate him on a nice looking uh development. I'll have to admit I haven't really seen all the architectural plans or presentations. It looks very nice, but my biggest concern is for the traffic uh on lake especially uh you know driving back and forth especially during school you know school times work times I don't work so I'm fortunate but a time sometimes I get out that time and uh it just people are you know always in a hurry and I'd like to see at least a center lane along lake so that at least we can turn into our subdivision not have to worry about you know backing up the cars on the other side etc. U I think that would just be you know really wise planning in the long run plus maybe a circle at Orchard Lake is also a main thorough fair to go to Lake Lou as well and so that you know you get a lot of traffic off there. Um overall I voted kind of against a subdivision. U I kind of hate to see this area grow up the way it is. you know, it's we got here right before it exploded, you know, and and I understand I understand all the the reasons why, but uh anyway, I'd like to see low density housing, low density residential be the norm. So, anyway, that's about it. Thank you. And I had one more opposed. Uh Ron Dylan, wish to speak, state your name and address for the record. and you got three minutes.

Ron Dylan, 410 West, Hazel Caldwell. First of all, I want to say um thank you, Miss Guyire. I'm one of the leaders of team Caldwell. We've tossed a few rocks at you lately. You've thrown a few back, but I'm getting texts right now from some people that are not necessarily on your side that are commending you for asking good questions. Excuse me. Can we We need to stick to the Well, I'm getting there right now. So, we're going to talk about numbers.

I went through the numbers. I've got five pages of dissension which I don't have time to cover, but staff I I don't know. Police I I read what the police weighed in with. I read on on the water. I read in on fire. I read in on Highway District 4. Doesn't jive. Don't have time to cover that. So, I'm going to stick with Valley View. Thank you for mentioning them. Our schools are dying. Have you have any of you read the latest maps? How about we stick to the land use? How about we stick to the land use? This is what this hearing is about is land use. The landly affects the schools, sir. So, thank you. Do you know how our schools are dying?

Do you have any idea? Have you read the re the math studies lately? I bet you haven't. Can you stick to what's going on?

I will stick to it. This this and the other and and the heirs. How about I go over some numbers that are wrong here? Verbina Ranch 560 units. Wrong. 1,020 units. Where do you get this stuff? It doesn't even mention Element Ridge 220 units. This is going to add another 194. What's going to happen then? Valley View is going to build another high school. What does that cost? A hundred million. Do any of you live in the Valley View district? Are you going to have to pay that? Good. I'm glad. Good. Any of you live in the Valley District? I doubt it. Now, it's not their fault that, you know, for all the stupid things they do in California, at least they have to pay $5 developers have to pay $5.76 a square foot to their schools. That'd have them writing a check for 1.76 million on this development. You don't even want to know what the check could be for Verbena. We'll be taking this up with city council where I won't get cut off where they're interested in the schools and the fact they're dying. I'll tell you that out of 186 schools, Caldwell's 158th in math scores. Valley View is 119th. Congratulations, Valley View. You're the best in Canyon County. Shameful. Shame on you.

Thank you. So, do we rebuttal now? Yeah, I have a question for staff. Yep, we can do that. Yeah.

Okay. I have just some questions for staff. All right. So, um I think this would be for our city engineer, Haley. There was quite a bit mentioned about the speed limit being reduced in that area and I know that's basically a traffic commission concern, but can that be has that been reviewed and can it be reviewed that maybe we can do something to help out since it appears that this would be impacting the school zone as well and I know that we're really looking to safety areas within the school zone. So, what can we do in that areas? Yeah. Um, Commissioner Guyer, along Lake Avenue, this portion of the road is still a highway district road. It is not yet annexed into the city limits of Caldwell. So, at the moment, um, even if it were brought to the city of Caldwell's traffic commission, we could not reduce the speed limit. Instead, what this uh staff report has done is in working with Valley View School District and other school districts, we are starting to require um the safe crossings

nearby schools. Yeah. Hawk lighting. Okay. Yeah. And so, so that was a discussion that we had today with um the applicant's representative that we would either require a Hawk signal or an RR RFB, excuse me, crossing Lake Avenue. and that that would be determined at time of construction documents through further com conversation and coordination with Joey Palmer. So there was also concern about the road being narrow in that area. Has that been discussed with the Canyon County Highway District? Is there a requirement for the development to widen this area?

Yes, absolutely. So as development comes online, that is how you see these roads widened is they complete their frontage improvement and that includes paving more asphalt to widen the road. So in our Caldwell area transportation system plan and in our CIP lake is shown to be um widened so that we have those left-hand turn lanes at intersections. Um and so you will see widening occur with development. Will they have a turn lane in that widening project? Will there be a median in there that they can focus on?

The medians will not run the entire length of the road, but they will be left there will be left-hand turn lanes at the intersections, but with or without the median constructed constructed, excuse me, the asphalt will still be widened and so you'll still see a wider road section with or without that lefthand median running through the entire length. Okay. And I think Katie, this will be for you. So there was concern about sounds like there's some out parcels in this area. Correct. I saw reference to that in the staff port report as well.

Tell me about what improvements are required with those out parcels about fencing. Um maybe aprons into those driveways if that's if that's direct access to the ingress egress off of that. And will that be done in phase one of the development?

Chair, Commissioner Guyire. Uh the out parcels are all fenced with six foot vinyl um up a budding against those between the development and um those out parcels uh including the ones along the drain. So for those southern ones, there will be the sixoot vinyl and then the drain. Um and then on the other side of that will be the pathway. Um, I do believe it was mentioned for the buffering along Sirius Drive. That'll be 20 foot wide uh landscape buffer with another 6ft vinyl fence on the back side of that abuing those those out parcels as well. Um there there are no other improvements per se that are required uh by staff or by code. Um but that that's what the applicant's proposing. Uh the 20 foot buffer along Sirius is what's required. Uh the fencing is not. We don't require any specific fencing there.

How many out parcels are we talking? I believe five. Let me Yeah. Yeah. Commissioner Guyer, it is five. Five. Okay. Um common lots. There was questions about what that is and would you like to explain that so that there's clarification there?

Chair and Commissioner Guyer. Yes. Thank you. Uh so those common lots are essentially unbuildable. Um no additional house could be built on on those common lots. It's just going to be landscaping either to provide buffering or those amenities and things like that. So no no house could be built on those per se. Okay. And then my last one is back to Haley again. So there was um question about maybe some kind of a roundabout and I know this is again this is out of our city limit area. So this would be probably Canyon Highway but you probably have the compass plan that would tell us the whole regional area. Is there some future plan for any type of roundabout there at Orchard? Um, commissioners, commissioner guy, yes, there is the roundabout at Orchard and Lake is part of our CIP and so we have our CIP in conjunction with the highway district. So, we do plan to put a roundabout at this location and it's possible that the impact fees that will be contributed by the developer could go to that roundabout depending on the timing.

And then I just have one more comment if I could. I know that there was reference given to Valadu and and we're all concerned with the growth and obviously that has been a focus and target of growth in that area and it's not that we're ignoring that. I mean we just know that that is a hot spot as far as as uh growth. But there was reference that there's another state that possibly allows for some revenue back to those schools and that's really an impact fee is what they're referring to. And unfortunately the state of Idaho does not have any type of program in place to allow for impact fees for school purposes. And with that in mind, there isn't anything that this body or council can do to act upon that because it's a state legislative issue. So if there is concern enough by citizens within the Valley View area for sure, I would suggest that you contact your legislative representative and your the Senate uh representative as well in the in the Capitol and let them know that hey, this is an issue that we're concerned about here in Canyon County because of the rapid growth and the impact it's having on the Valley View School District in particular. And that was my comment.

Thank you. I just have one quick question for staff. Um, a public comment came up. Can you just explain or do you want or maybe the um applicant can do this, but um why you would annex this piece of property? I there was a question that said why would you annex it?

And I just wonder if you guys can explain that to them. chair. Um, obviously the property rights you're you're able to request annexation. Um, we we don't not take in an application for annexation for any reason. As you know, the approval denial criteria is is rather vague. Um, so essentially anyone who is within the area of impact, who's contiguous with the city limits would be able to to apply for an annexation that is not currently within the city and most of the properties around it are annexed already into the city. So correct. So utilities are there. Correct.

So would you consider that an kind of an infill because of the fact that there is already development in the area? So, is it kind of considered an infill project, Katie?

Chair and Commissioner, it necessarily wouldn't meet the the definition of an infill. Uh, but but some could certainly see it that way since there is already s this is pretty well surrounded by city developments um and different um I guess city developments and properties that are already within this city. So just to clarify the infrastructure is there for that that for for ease of connection. Am I right in that

chair and commissioner? Yes, that is correct. There's already utilities out at this location or there will be also through future development for um I mean several developments have been improved or approved to be developed out in this area who are making headway um that will also provide infrastructure improvements as well. Okay. Thank you. And thank you. Any other questions for staff or the applicant? If not, I have a motion to close public testimony. Second. All in favor?

I All right. So, time for us to deliberate. I'm just going to say I I think it's a very welllaidout development. Um, sewer, city utilities are right there. I understand some of the traffic concerns on Lake um and Cirrus Drive. Um but Cirrus Drive actually goes from pretty much Montana now will go all the way to Lake. So it's going to affect multiple subdivisions all the way around where Sir Drive already affects multiple subdivisions. Um so I I'm in favor of this development. Anybody else?

I have no further comment on it. Um, it's well, as you said, it's well laid out. Questions have been asked and answered. Yeah. Anybody else? Yeah. No, I think it it's built pretty well. I think the the the loss rating being a C is pretty reasonable and the the 55 being expanded to the two lanes on both sides is a good goal. So, I think there's just a lot of pain of growth. And this one looks like it's met what was old R1. So, it uh is as low as they can go in general. I haven't seen one ever be too since we've been here. So, No, I know. And that's So, something that is at three or less is pretty uh rare. Yeah.

So, I think that they're they're doing their best and the homes look really nice. I would agree with um concur with your comments that I think they've exceeded the requirements and reading through the staff report. They've done a well job of laying it out. The aesthetics of the homes look very very appealing. Nice curb appeal. I'm glad to see single family in that area. It just blends. it actually is something that is complimentary to the abuing um existing parcels that are there that have already been developed. Um I think it I think it is probably one of the nicer ones that I've seen for a while in that area as well. They've thought through anything to deal with traffic. Um I think it's just a well-laidout plan.

I would agree. Well, can I get a motion? I'll make a motion based upon the testimony and evidence in recorded in this matter and upon the finding of facts and conclusions of law set forth herein. I here do hereby determine and move that the request for ANN25-11 SP25-15 and Z25-07 for Westville. Sorry, chairman commissioner you can go ahead. Um it seems like maybe we skipped over the rebuttal. If the applicant wants to speak Number five. Yeah. Recommend. Oh, gotcha. Make sure okay with that relocation.

Which one's condition number five? The location of the we want to exclude pedestrian crossover. If the commission is interested in removing that condition, then staff would be interested in proposing an alternative commission. You want to make that part of your where we want where we relocating it to that was up there. Oh. To to have the bridge be in a different location relocating the bridge.

Yeah. Chair and commissioner. Uh essentially if if you are interested in removing condition number five to remove that pedestrian bridge. Uh the applicant proposed the alternative of having a pedestrian crossing uh located it looks like Laurelwood Avenue um across Sirius Drive. Sorry, I'm squinting. Um uh but staff would recommend that you add a condition to um require that that be installed at that location with um either a pedestrian beacon or hawk, some type of illuminated pedestrian crossing

and aren't you suggesting that's within phase one that that should be done chair and commission? Yes. Thank you for the clarification. Okay, I'll make a motion. Start back from our west of the request for annexation 25-11, SP25-15, and zone 25-07 for West Belt Estate Subdivision is recommended for approval subject to the conditions laid out in the presentation and described by staff around the Laura Wood area with a beacon be recommended for approval for the pedestrian crossing of the bridge.

We have a second. Second. Roll call. Larson, yes. Whitbeck, yes. Guyire, yes. Harmon, yes. All right. Well, now that that's approved and done, um, can I get a motion to close the meeting? So, moved. Second. All in favor? I I Thank you.