Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, it's six o'clock. Um, we're going to get started. Uh, city of Caldwell planning and zoning meeting. Um, do roll call. Stand by. Lost my minutes. Okay. Zamora Harmon here. Bros here. Larson here. Whitbeck here. All right. So, this is a quasi judicial hearing involves the consideration of land use requests such as annexation, reszone, classification, or approval of a subdivision preliminary plat. The public hearing procedure as required by the Idaho code are as followed. Oral and written testimony will be accepted from those who have signed in to speak prior to hearing prior to the hearing being declared open. When providing testimony, please come to the podium. State your name, address, which will be included in the record. Staff will first present a report regarding the application being considered. Public testimony. The applicant or the application applicant's representatives will present a summary of the request. uh 10 minutes testimony of those in support will take will be taken followed by those in a neutral position and finally those in an opposition to the request. Note all public testimony be limited to 3 minutes or less. The applicant will be offered the opportunity to provide rebuttal testimony. After the rebuttal testimony is given, the public testimony portion of the public hearing will be closed and a new oral or written test to test testimony will be allowed. And seeing that there's no old business, um do we need to approve the minutes? Yeah, we need to approve the minutes

from from the last meeting. So moved. Second. All in favor? I All opposed. Okay. All right. So, we'll get on to our first uh new business action item. Public hearing quasi judicial case number 25-00001 and we'll have staff. Thank you, commissioners. Katie Wright, associate planner, 205 South 6th Avenue. Before you tonight is the White Annexation, ANN2501. The project location is an 18.62 acre parcel located east of Montana Avenue and just south of Ler Street. The site has frontage along both Montana and LER. The project site's currently surrounded by single family residential to the north, Valley View School District to the south, future Greenmont and Greenmont South, which has residential with commercial along the intersection to the east, and single family residential and Louiswis and Clark Elementary School to the west. There are six developments within a onem radius of the subject site that are either actively under construction or have been approved or have been approved for entitlements. As I mentioned before, Greenmont and Greenmont South and then Sotera to the west, Element Ridge to the south, Hoshaw to the east, and Jay-Hawk to the northeast. The application before you tonight's for an annexation of 18.62 acres of land, shown in yellow, into the Caldwell City limits with the initial zoning of R2 medium density residential. The existing use of the property is residential with farmland which the

property owner wishes to continue to be the use of the property. There is no proposed development at this time as the property owner is requesting an annexation to comply with the municipal services agreement instrument number 2024035794 on the site. In 2024, the house on the south side of the property, circled in orange, had to connect to city water due to the failure of the well. This required a municipal services agreement on the property, which required the owner to request annexation of the property within 60 days. The property owner and the applicant have been working closely with the city since connecting to water to submit for this annexation. Tonight's request consists of the applicant's proposal for annexation with the initial zone of R2. The purpose of R2 medium-density residential zone is to provide areas by zoning procedures in accordance with the comprehensive plan that provide medium-density residential development areas at a density consistent with the comprehensive plan. Such zones are primarily located in older neighborhoods and adjacent to shopping, recreational or cultural facilities. Such zones should be placed in areas that have a full range of urban services available or projected to be established. The proposed development surrounded by lowdensity residential to the north, south, and west with medium density residential to the east. And staff finds the medium density residential zone is a compatible zoning district next to low and medium density residential. The comp plan place type for this property is neighborhood 2, which is compatible with the current use of the property. This is the prim the primary residential place type and encompasses an array of low and mid density housing options. The existing density is less than suggested in the comprehensive plan due to the fact this property is not being developed at this time. The applicant has no intention of developing this property. They are solely requesting annexation to comply with the recorded municipal services agreement on the property which allowed the house to the south to connect to

city water. If annexed into the city, this property would be permitted non-conforming due to two primary structures on one parcel and the accessory buildings, hayshed, machine shop, and horse stable being on the sideyard of the property rather than in the rear as code requires. The items that are not compliant with code are not concerns to staff because the density identifies here anticipates more than one house for a property this size. and the shops are located in the sidey yard, but the rideway isn't developed. So, it's not visible from public streets. The proposed development will have adequate site access and all utilities are available or will be available if this property were to develop in the future. Public agencies were notified and asked to provide comments, but no agencies had any comments or concerns. There were also no comments submitted by the public regarding this request. The only sight specific condition that staff's requesting is as follows. Should this property develop in the future, it shall be subject to all Caldwell City Code requirements at the time of the application submittal. Staff recommends that if the commission recommends approval of the request that such request is subject to the conditions as specified in the findings of facts, conclusions of law, and order of decision. Thank you. Thank you. I will have the applicant come up now. Good evening. My name is Brett Orton with Orton Engineering. Business address is uh 17338 Sunnydale Place in Caldwell. Um first of all, we want to express appreciation to the city to for allowing uh Beverly's home to be connected to city water. Um I think it's a really cool thing that the city does to allow people to have water. they take care of the emergency and then deal with the paperwork afterwards and we appreciate that. Um so Prime Plumbing uh connected

to Beverly and they brought us in the loop. Um we've done a little work with them and served them as a um they've been a customer in the past and so um we are getting to help with this which we're delighted. Um Beverly is a sweet uh lady and she's um been really really enjoyable to work with. Uh, I'm going to try to zoom through pretty quickly because um because Katie's wonderful staff report covered most of this. So, um, you heard Katie mention that was summer of 2024 when the connection to water became necessary. Um, and a municipal services agreement was entered shortly thereafter. Um, and of course it's a requirement if you connect to city services and you're contiguous to the city, you've got to annex. Um, and so we're the intent here is just to comply with that. um right now unannexed. Probably the most important thing to point out is that um outside of what was presented in the excellent staff report was the um that there's a 30-foot rideway on the east side. That's rightway that the city acquired from Beverly White in the past for the Valley View uh pathway. And so the legal description provided for this will annex that in, which is something um that the city would want to have in. Um and then also there's a 40 foot ride ofway on the south uh of this parcel between Beverly's parcel and the Valley View School District's parcel. Um and that's also included in the legal description. So that both will end up annexed into the city um as part of this action should it be completed. Um this is just red box showing that it encompasses the public rights of way that are adjacent. Um and again as Katie mentioned no new development is proposed. Um we just

needed to connect. Um the R2 designation is sought here um simply because at the time that the uh process began, we were under the old comprehensive plan and it called for um R2 and happily the new comprehensive plan uh the N2 comprehensive plan designation also um provides for R1, R2, C1 and and PD. So um other than that, I think this is mostly stuff that Katie covered. So, I'll just finish up and stand for your questions. All right. Thank you. Thank you, commissioners. Thank you. And at this time, we have nobody signed up to speak in neutral or opposed. So, um I get a motion to close public hearing. So, moved. Second. All in favor? I I Any opposed? Okay. All right. Anybody got any questions? So, um, the application states repeatedly that no new development is planned. And where we would normally expect to see many impact statements, there are none because everyone says no new development is planned. Uh, we clearly have to annex this property. Uh, I don't think it's a good idea to do the reszone. I think we should annex it, leave the zoning as it is so that in the future, if they do decide to develop, they will bring a clean package back to the city for a complete assessment staff. Is that possible? Yeah, chair and commissioner. So since they have to since they're requesting the annexation um essentially they request an initial

zone um and that zone that they're requesting is the R2. So it's not necessarily a reszone. It's just them um annexing into the city in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Uh I understand. I'm I'm predisposed to say leave it as agriculture uh so that in the future if they do decide to develop we get a full impact statement from all the relevant agencies. Commissioner, uh unfortunately we do not have an agricultural zone within the city of Caldwell's boundaries. Um so at this time that that wouldn't be an option necessarily. So what are our options? um that are compatible with the comp plan. Total total uh R1 R2 um public um C1. Thank you. Um, I'm still very uncomfortable with the idea that uh if we approve an R2 reszone, what are the consequences for further review? Commissioner, uh, thank you. they they would have to come back if they were to want to do a subdivision, apartments, anything like that. They would um have to come back for a type of either a plat or sup something along those lines to be able to do those developments. Would the coming back necessarily include the planning and zoning or would they only possibly see the hearing examiner or would it fall under the rules for director discretion? Um most of the ones that I just um explained those would have to come back here and then to city

council ultimately. So if they were to plat and want to do a subdivision, they would ultimately have to have a decision made by city council and come before you or the hearing examiner first before that for planning and zoning or the hearing examiner. Commissioner or the hearing examiner. Correct. So, commissioners, it is um the risk that is taken is if an R2 is approved at this time, it means that there is a shortcut to the process as we understand it. So, we go into it with eyes wide open. I don't I don't see it as a shortcut. I mean, I see it as just being zoned for what the comprehensive plan is already. Um, and like Katie said, you have to come back, right? they have to come back go through all the process anyways. So all the all the entities all the municipalities are going to have to look at it and sign off on it too. So I mean there's still checks and balances to it. Okay. And with an understanding that under the new code uh if I'm not mistaken the R2 includes three-story apartment buildings. Commissioner threetory. I don't know if that's necessarily the case. Um I I don't know exactly if that's accurate. Uh yeah, we don't regulate how the stories of the apartments or of the buildings. We just have the height requirements. Um so is the R2 also known as the neighborhood 2? because the neighborhood 2 allows three-story apartment buildings to be put in. It's just an allowable use. So neighborhood 2 is the place type in the comp plan. Um so that doesn't regulate land use of any kind. Uh, so that would all be under the code

as allowable depending on what they were wanting to do that we would have to cross reference with the land use schedule at this time. They're not um wanting to do that, but they could. But I don't know if I necessarily can answer that um based on we don't know what they would be proposing at this time. Okay. So, I think the safe thing to do hypotheticals. Yeah. Yes, they are. Um, and it it's it's a problem in the way the new municipal code was configured and I didn't think it would come before us so quickly after the code was approved. But, uh, so the situation has been laid out adequately and each of you gets to make your decision. Anybody else? I I think it's fine to me. I'm I'm all in favor of it. Yeah, I'm sorry. Can cla can staff clarify really quickly? Code has not changed. So, while we did adopt a comp plan in February and that did provide a vision that was modified from the past vision and while you guys have seen proposed code amendments, they have not been adopted by the city yet. So, all the regulations are still the same regarding where multifamily is and isn't allowed. The same height requirements are in place today that they were six months ago. No new codes have been adopted. Oh, thank you for the clarification. I assume that after because the planning and zoning commission approved the new code. I assumed it was going to go to city council right away and be approved. There was a workshop on those draft codes. I'm sorry. There was a workshop last month with the public or an open house. There was a workshop with council this week on the 7th and they will be going before council on the 21st 1st for consideration for adoption. Yeah, probably fair to assume it will be adopted. And just per your question in

the R2, it is proposed that you could do up to a sixplex, but anything over a sixplex would have to come in for a special use permit. Any other questions? Yeah. No, no questions. I kind of I do like the idea, but I don't think it's possible that you would leave the zoning the same and let them be part of the city without having to worry about the annexation portion because if we approve this then theoretically everything under R2 is approved already. So there is a little concern with that but we're going on the goodwill here. So I'm I'm going to lean towards yes but there is that concern is very real. Commissioner I think I think everything's still in place and it's going to come back. Any development is going to come back for approval no matter what. Can we get a motion? I'll make the motion. Motion's made by Commissioner Webeck. Have a second. I'll second. Second it. Second by Commissioner Larson. All in favor called roll call. Oh, sorry. He's got I gota read jumping in there. It's all right. We're all working through this, right? So, I forgot where it starts. I think it's right here. Start on the first page. Yeah, that's what I thought. Goes on. But based upon the testimony and evidence and record in this matter and upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth herein, I do hereby determine and move that case number AN25-01 for the annexation of parcel R27834 0000 with a zoning designation of R2 medium density residential is recommended for approval subject to the

conditions of of approval as presented and amend. Amended. Second. Second by Commissioner Larson. Roll call. Harmon. Yes. Whitbeck. Yes. Bros. No. Larson. Yes. Okay. So, we'll move on to the second action item. case number uh Z24-0000005. Um staff report. Thank you, commissioners. Um Galen Davis, um address 205 South 6 Avenue. Um before you today is the application for the airport reszone. um application number Z224-5. The subject parcels are located approximately half a quarter of a mile west of the east London Street and South KCID road intersections. The site has frontages on two side on East London Street to the north and on South Kig road to the east. In 20 in 2006, this site was annexed into the city with the M1 light industrial zoning district with the um airport overlay designation. And the site currently houses the Hubler um terminal and the remainder of the land is undeveloped and owned by the city.

Um the subject site is surrounded by airport parcels to the northwest, the west and the southwest and by light industrial industrial parcels to the north, northeast, the east and the south. Um the parcels directly adjacent to the site on the northeast was recently approved by the city um council for a an industrial subdivision. And the application before you tonight is for the reszoning of these eight parcels uh totaling a approximately 32.3 Yes. 32.34 acres of land from M1 light industrial to AD airport district. Um the comprehensive plan designate the subject site and surrounding parcels as special purpose highlighting their unique function within the city. These areas, including the airport, the cultural municipal airport, are essential to the city's planning strategy to enhance economic and job growth. Um, the proposed resoning of these parcels, which are designated for airport use in the airport master plan, uh, is consistent with the comprehensive plan and its policies. Um and it will support the airport's viability and economic benefits. Um the airport district zone aims to ensure that um safe and efficient airport operations uh providing necessary facilities and services while protecting public interest and investment. Um the

applicant's proposal to reszone these parcels from um M1 to AD aligns with the FAA directives to protect the area surrounding the airport and as a reason um staff finds that the resoning is compliant with the city code as well as the comprehensive plan. Um the notification were sent to agencies as um as well as public notification. We have not received any comments and we staff does not have any specific conditions of concern for this application and we recommend that if the commission uh recommends approval that the request be subject to the conditions as specified in the findings of fact, conclusions of law and order of decisions. And with that, I will stand for questions. Thank you. Uh would the applicant would Mr. Swanson want to say something? Uh good evening. Scott Swanson, director of aviation for the city of Caldwell and 4814 East Lynen Street. And so this application was submitted just uh pretty much deep diving on kind of the history of the airport, how it's grown over the years and things that have played into kind of the uh situations the airport finds ourselves in now. Um, so this, as Garene had stated, the uh 32 acres was u essentially I'm sorry, lost of words real quick. The city gained a 32 acres of that airport property in 2006 and it was just left zoned M1 instead of being dragged into the airport district as the rest of the surrounding property. So there's going to be uh really any changes that come with this zoning

request change. It's just making that property more restrictive to be able to build on and develop. And I'm just looking to one protect the airport to maintain the safety of the pilots that use the airport and then also the surrounding areas as well. Um, and that this is just going to give myself more direct control over that property outside of uh leaving it as M1 where it's going to need to go through a little more routing and more research on my end until I allow developers to develop it. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Um, so we have nobody signed up uh to speak neutral or opposed. Um, commissioners, do you have any questions for staff for the applicant? No. No. No questions. Okay. I may make a motion to close public testimony. So moved. Second. All in favor? I. So now we can discuss. I'm ready to vote for the recommendation for approval. Okay. Go ahead. If if unless you have Yeah, I don't care. No, you can do it. Okay. Based upon the testimony and evidence and record in this matter and upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth herein do to hereby determine and move as follows. The request for reszoning of eight parcels. R 35849130 0 R 3584912 0 R 358491 1 0 0 R 3584950 R 3585150 R 35851 01 0 0 R 358520

20110 0 0 R 3585350 with a zoning designation of AD Airport District is recommended for approval subject to the conditions of approval as presented or amended. Second at a recommendation by Commissioner Bros and a second by Commissioner Larson. Roll call. Harmon. Yes. Whitbeck here. Yes. Here. Yes. Larson. Yes. Okay. So, let's move on to our third and last action item. Case numbern 24- [Music] 00000016 and SP24-00007. Staff report. Thank you. Commissioners Katy Wright, associate planner, 205 South 6th Avenue. The planner for this project is Joe Dodson, but I will be presenting in his absence tonight. Uh before you is Highpine Ridge Subdivision, ANN 2416 and SP 2407. The project encompasses approximately 19.5 acres north of Carter, fronting on Moss Street to the north and Celeste Avenue to the west. The subject parcels are located within Canyon County and have never been annexed into the city of Caldwell. According to the available aerial image, both properties appear to include residential dwellings with with accessory buildings, including those capable of housing horses. It is surrounded by undeveloped county land to the east and south with City of Caldwell R1 and R3 zoning to the west and to the north. As shown on the slide, there are a number of developments within a mile of this project area as this area of the

city has been growing for some time. The applicant's request for an annexation of 19.5 acres with a request for the R2 zoning district and a preliminary plaque consisting of 77 single family detached residential lots. The proposed preliminary plat and landscape plans depict conformance with all dimensional standards, off- streetet parking, landscaping, and internal pathway requirements. Staff included no specific conditions to correct anything with the proposed development as it shows complete code compliance. Proposed zoning is compatible with the existing and planned development in this area. Proposed zoning is compatible with the old and recently adopted comp plan. The comp plan states that the R2 zone is compatible zoning district within the neighborhood 2 place type and that the density allowed would be 2 to eight dwelling units per acre where this development is proposed at 3.94 dwelling units per acre. Overall staff finds the proposed project is and can be compatible with existing and planned development in this area so long as the provisions outlined in the proposed DA regarding landscaping buffering and use limitations are maintained. The proposed development has adequate site access and the public utility act utility access water and sewer to the subject sites per the engineering staff report. engineering nor Caldwell Fire noted any issues with the proposed development. Uh agencies were properly notified by the city and the site uh was posted in accordance with code requirements. Valley View School District responded noting that current capacity is available but there are still concerns about the rate of development within the district. ITD responded stating they have no concerns with this proposal. There was one public comment received from Amanda McNut in

support of the project believing that the density, amenities, and building design fits the surrounding area. And staff recommends that if commission recommends approval of the requested annexation and preliminary plot that such recommendation is subject to the conditions as specified in findings of facts, conclusions of law, and order of decision. Thank you. Thank you. Can we have the applicant come up and speak? Good evening, Matthew Adams, Summit 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle, Idaho. Um, thank you. I'm gonna get the clicker. All right. Thanks for having us here tonight. Thank you to Katie and Joe for um the process of getting the staff report together. It was um it was great. It was seamless. Um and we feel like we got an A+ when we get a staff report that's so clean. Um, of course she mentioned we're requesting annexation, zoning, and pre-platap. Um, and we're very pleased to submit to you a project that is code compliant and is compliant with the comprehensive plan. Um, the one thing we do want to mention is that this project was brought in 2022 to planning and zoning and was recommended for a denial. It wasn't the same project. That project was a 40acre project. it was much much bigger and at the time we all know we were enduring um major school crowding um which thank goodness that has been um satisfied really really well with the new school that'll be opening this fall um at Falcon Ridge Elementary. So, we're very pleased that we could bring back a smaller project where the density is very very um conducive to what's going on around it and we have school um capacity available to us. So, uh Katie already said

this. This is our project location. So, our project again 77 housing units which we believe brings in uh is a critical supply issue of housing to the city of Caldwell. and this is an effort to meet those uh community needs. The project is efficient, it's predictable, and it's it's consistent with current development patterns. Um the project helps the city of Caldwell meet the goals of the comprehensive plan. And this applicant bringing this project does make a significant investment in the city of Caldwell with roads, streets, utilities, um and open space. I want to point out also one thing that was not shown on our plan that staff put in the staff report that we do want to comply with. They asked that we construct a right turn lane on Celeste at Moss. Our application did not show that. We're in full agreement that that is good thing to do and we want to comply and add that um when we go into our construction documents. This is just to give some context um of where this project is. The project is the orange dot in the center of the screen and each circle uh the the circle is a mile um from the center. So within two miles there's tremendous number of resources um available to these communities um schools and uh retail, medical, entertainment. This is a really great development area in the city of Caldwell. This is the context of this project um within the neighboring developments. And I think what it demonstrates is that we have a really significant open space, but our density is very consistent with the neighbors, which we think is important. The neighbors get to see exactly what's going to happen here, and it's not a dramatic change um in their neighborhood, so to speak.

This is a zoom in or a more detailed view. Um you can see our landscaping u where we're meeting the requirements there. Um we're really proud of the significant open space that's in this development. Um in the form of a park with a play structure. Um you can also see the quality the high quality well-built and very attractive homes that are proposed with this development. Here's some uh 3D graphics that depict um that common area, that open space for the community. It's very active on the day of this image. Um you know, people move into these homes and um we are this developer believes that they deserve an excellent place to live. So, they want to build a really nice high-quality home and they want to provide an amenities that provide for a long um great place to live. With that, um really want to say thank you and answer any questions that you may have tonight. Okay. Thank you. Staff or staff commissioners, do you have any questions this time? No. Well, we'll move on to the public uh part of testimony. We have one, we have four people signed up in favor. All said they did not want want to speak except uh Paul Cope. You didn't mark. Yeah. Okay. State your name and address for the record. Uh Paul Cope, 12373 Mos Lane, Nampa. Um with the city of Cwell growing. I, you know, I approve of it. It just, uh, I

have no problem with it. It's just moving this way. Um, I think it fits with the character of the area. Um, uh, I just uh that that ground is not farm ground. It's uh generally just kind of maybe some pasture ground which is not you know not producing a lot of you know farm ground. So I have no issues with it. So I'll stand for questions. Commissioners questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you. We had two signed up as neutral but put they didn't wish to speak. Um, one opposed that wants to speak. Um, Terry [Music] Lindberger. State your name and address for the record. My name is Terry Limeberger. My address is 12152 Moss Lane in Nampa. Uh, we live on the road between uh Midway and Celeste down there just uh to the east of the uh subject property there. Um, I guess I'm somewhat opposed to the property mainly because of the traffic situation. Uh, since we moved in there, uh, actually two years ago today, we signed papers for the property that we own. And, uh, since then, at least the Cory Barton and the Hubble, uh, subdivision just to the, uh, north of the property that they're talking about subdividing, uh, there's been at least a hundred plus houses built in there. All that traffic going down Moss Lane. You go up to the corner of Moss and Midway and I know of at least five maybe six wrecks that have occurred there. Uh one of the reasons is if you're going east on Moss, you stop at Midway there, there's a fence on the

property there that kind of blocks the view uh looking to the south and that's there's been several wrecks there. The other issue I have with the traffic um is if you go down Moss Lane on the west just before you get to Celeste, there's about a 200 foot stretch there that's a single lane. Now, I don't know whether the developer, maybe they could answer this, but I don't know whether there's plans to widen that road there, but if they do, it's going to take out the yard of the people that own that property there on that north uh northwest corner of uh um of Moss Lane there. The traffic situation I think is just I don't understand IDT saying that they have no safety concerns because if you go down Celeste and go to Carter because a lot of the people that are going to come out of that subdivision are going to be headed maybe to Carter going south. There's no stoplight there. It's just a stop sign. You got a 55 mph speed limit on Carter Road right there. That's going to present a problem. Uh and and that I don't see in the documents that I reviewed online. And it doesn't look like they're widening Celeste all the way to Carter Road anyway. And that is a pretty narrow road right along there. U so that's a that's my biggest concern is the traffic there. When you bring all that traffic out of that subdivision, because there's going to be one entrance off to onto Moss Lane and Celeste and probably a lot of people, they're going to probably swing around and come down Moss Lane to get to uh Carter because there is a uh stoplight at Midway and Carter. So, they'd come up there, but that corner of Midway and Moss is just a two-way stop. And I think they're just asking for safety concerns. Uh so that is my biggest opposition to the project is uh I mean I'd love to see the development be fine and nice. I don't have a problem but I don't think that the the uh the traffic situations and the Idaho transportation department say they have no safety concerns. It's

probably because they couldn't get to the property because they had to go in circles to get around Homedale all these other roads there. Carter road all the constructions they probably couldn't even get there. you can finish your thought. So, because it is a mess out there in that area. We're trying to get anywhere. Lake Lake Avenue is closed right now, too, because So, that's my biggest concerns. The other issue is uh with the school system, the Valley View District sent a letter and said, "Yeah, we we don't have a problem right now, but there's over 2500 uh units that have been approved or in process of, you know, that are build right now. they can ab absorb that but how much they had the concern with the planning and zoning saying uh I think you've read the letter too you know that uh we have to who's going to build the schools and then usually it's too late infrastructure is usually always uh lags behind development and uh last nobody wants development in their neighborhood but that's not realistic it's going to happen well thank you y appreciate it I thought to speak on that on the neutrals on the neutral Sorry. Did I miss I might have marked it wrong. Let me double check. Oh, nope. I looked at it wrong, so I apologize. Um, uh, Jamie Simons. Sorry. I didn't mean to mislook at that. Sorry. You have three minutes. Name and address, please, for the record. My name is Jamie Simmons. I live at 12498 Moss Lane, Nampa 83651. I live directly across the street from the proposed development. Um I am the northwest corner that the gentleman was talking about that they would have to take my yard to widen that. It's pretty much a single lane through there. Lack of a

better term. It gets to be a show. Um, last weekend we had a car that did not navigate that single lane very well and wound up in the ditch. It's not the first time it's happened. It's not the second time it's happened. It's not the third time it's happened. It won't be the last time. Um, if we give up that property, it takes out my well. I don't want to be on city water. I don't want to be on city services. We bought that house 16 years ago on a dead-end street and then all the development started and we're no longer on a dead end street. Our road's busy. Like it's insane trying to get in and out of our parking lot, out of our driveway. I'm not here to contest the the project itself. Um I've been to different things. I've watched all the developments go. I've contested all of them. It's going to get rubber stamped irregardless of community what the community has to say. My concern whenever the subdivision behind us was plotted, they didn't account for our wastewater. When we irrigate, they were supposed to take that waste water and put it into a plot. Um, I think per the engineer that developed it, he's like, "Oh, well, I looked at Google Maps and I didn't see the ditch." Um, so whenever we irrigate, it floods Celeste. Then they call out the fire department, they call out the police department, they call out um the irrigation company. State statute says it's their responsibility. Whoever owns the property bordering us takes the wastewater. So, we flood the roads. It

fills up their little pond and then they bring trucks in from the city and they have to haul out the water. It's ridiculous. I get my irrigation water by a pipe that runs along the front side of where that development is. I would like something, you know, planned so that there are not issues with me getting irrigation water. And I'd like something maybe in writing from the developer stating that they'll cover any issues that arise for like three years after the development. Um because if they complete something in the middle of winter, we don't have irrigation. I have no idea if it's going to work or not. So that's my that's my biggest concern on stuff. Thank you. Appreciate it. Bruce Wink. Once again, sorry I missed that on your day, too. So, my name is Bruce Winker. I'm at 12498 Moss Lane, NAP, Idaho 83651. Um, I'm neutral because I honestly believe you guys are going to approve it. That's what's getting built out there. Um, again, I live at that northwest or northeast corner of Celeste and Moss. Um, we've had the irrigation problems with wastewater. The 12-in pipe that comes from the stone lateral, which is approximately 200 yards from where this development is going to be. That's where we get our water. Um, I personally haven't been able to find where the developer is going to run our water or how they're going to run our water. Um, so that's my biggest concern. We run a half a little over a half acre of pasture that I got to water. The other big concern I have is traffic. If you look at the just the intersection of Celeste and Moss, there is not a single

north, southou, east, west road that is 100% complete collector road as what the city wants. Everyone's one lane, one and a half lane or two and a half lane. There's no true threelane collector road. Go in any direction 150 yards from the the intersection. There's nothing. Go down. Go south. You go to 55. It at the intersections it's three lanes. It drops down to 2 and a half. It drops down to two. Moss is a two-lane country road. 35 until about 250 yards from where it drops down to one lane. It's a 10 mph zone. cars that end up in the ditch multiple times. It's not the first time, not the last. Nobody does the speed limit in there. Um going north to like um or Homedale, it's same thing. It starts out at three, drops down. We have a development the souththeast or southwest corner. I believe it's like 85 apartments that are supposed to be started. It's already pre-approved. Everything they're supposed to be breaking ground this year. So if we have 77, you figure two cars, 144 plus almost another 100 people. I mean, you're adding almost 500 vehicles to that intersection a day. And that's my biggest concern. The roads can't handle it. Do I care? I mean, that's my biggest concern. The property, it from what it looks like, it's going to be great for the people that live in the subdivision, but we can't handle it roadwise. So those are my concerns. irrigation, water, roadways, schools like everybody else has, but my big two ones. It's all I got. Okay. Well, thank you. Yep. Um, what we have a rebuttal from applicant.

Yes, thank you for the opportunity. Um, okay. So, the neighbors bring up valid points. They live there. They know this better than me because because I don't live there. Um, so I want to make sure we acknowledge that their comments um are important to listen to. Uh, traffic, that's a real thing. We, um, I got all nervous and I left Eagle at 5 scared and then I got here in 32 minutes. So, I don't know what happened there. Um, down Chindon, but traffic is a real thing. The um the one thing that we are doing on this project is we are connecting the sidewalk on the south side of Moss to Celeste. Even though that goes beyond our frontage, that was something that the city had asked for in our pre meeting. Um and that that is going to help with walkers. That does not address every traffic issue that was brought up here today. Um but that is something that is planned to do. We are not intending to do any roadway improvements onto this neighbor's property that would impact their current situation. Um until the city were to work out purchase of rideway that would be inappropriate for us to impact them. Um we we have in our documents that we we understand how important surface water delivery is. Our documents do at this time show the pre-plat shows that that delivery pipe from the stone lateral it we have to relocate it. We have to move it back of the rideway but it is shown as infrastructure we are going to construct to ensure that their delivery is protected um and that it is uh problem free and not impacted. And I want to make sure we'll talk to our developer client to work with that neighbor to make sure that they're satisfied with how that delivery is working. Um, typical with all development, um, we are improving the roadways at our frontage and we're making that multi-million dollar investment to build all that infrastructure. We're extending

water lines, building sewer lines as well. Um, unfortunately is not the standard practice to improve roadways beyond your frontage. That becomes very problematic and challenging um because you can't just take everybody's uh frontage and build roads. people need to be participating. So, we're excited to participate in what we're required to do um and invest to help with the traffic situation. Um the last thing I do want to say um well, we this project is going to be phased. So I think you saw in that application that the south half is the first phase um and there is no the second phase is what would feed out to moss and that is a future phase that would occur later. Now the what that means is is kind of hard to tell like does that delay an additional year? I don't know exactly but um the first half of those 77 homes a little over half is to the southside. everyone exits to Celeste. Then we come in after that uh phase is completed and do the north phase. So that's a little bit of relief, maybe a one-year additional relief to the folks to the north there. Um you know, the school comment I think is really important. I do a lot of consulting for the school district. Schools are important. Um, this is a really tricky question now with the state investing quite a bit of money into um, school capital improvements and the recent passage of the tax credit voucher bill. I don't know if that's the right phrase. Um, and school choice. And I don't know that we really know how full schools will be. We kind of have to see how that plays out. What we do know today is that the new Falcon Ridge Elementary is going to open this year and provide tremendous relief to Lake View and West Canyon or excuse me, um, East Canyon, I believe. Um, but I just want to make sure we acknowledge those

comments. We're going to do everything possible that we can to uh make sure we do a good job out there for these neighbors. Thank you. Commissioners, any questions for the applicant? I actually have a question for I actually have a question for staff related to the road issue that was brought up. So, engineering, do you have the capital improvement plan handy? And does this area appear on the capital improvement plan? And you may not be able to answer that if you don't have the capital improvement plan. Uh, Commissioner, sorry, I was just opening the capital improvement plan. So I could verify my answer. Moss is not included on our CIP. However, we do include Lake and Midway at these locations. So Lake and Midway will be included with our CIP where we can use our traffic impact funds. Do you know how far down the list those are? One moment. Lake is currently programmed for the year 30 years sometime between 31 and 35 2020 20 31 and 2035 and Midway is scheduled for between 2036 and 2041. So they're further down on the list. However, for we do continue to

re-evaluate our CIP and so if those areas become of a concern and we need to bump them up, the city does have the opportunity to move those further uh or more closely to the current. I I understand. Thank you. I have a question for staff and then the applicant. um on the irrigation concerns. Um is that something that they do sign off of that that'll all be done? I mean for the for the homeowners that are concerned about that that make sure that that's going to be good and yes ab so uh any irrigation work that is completed um Idaho has very strict statutes that protect um water delivery and so the applicant will be required by Idaho law to continue delivery to um a property if an applicant is changing a delivery point that's certainly something that is coordinated with a property owner. Um all of this irrigation work is required to happen during an irrigation off season. So it won't affect um property owners during the during the time in which the irrigation water is turned on. So I will let the applicant it looks like um applicant has come up to speak to this as well. But so long as the applicant is not changing the delivery point, they are typically not required to coordinate directly with a property owner. Okay. I I agree completely. So the head gate is at the stone lateral and it delivers in currently on a a pipe that runs on the surface to several neighbors. And so we're not changing the headgate location because that's not on our project. We're going to intercept that pipe, shift it so it's out of the road right away and extend it and then reconnect it at the west end of our property. Um and we understand state statute as well and that's important to us. But I think what we we commit to is meeting with the neighbor, showing them on the drawing how this is being

addressed and getting their input because um engineering is great, but the people who use the water understand really clearly how it functions and I think we can probably get a better understanding of that and make sure we do a good job for them. I have I have two more quick questions. Um and I think as far as traffic goes, I know it's not nearly what has been talked about, but didn't you say you are adding a turn lane? Yes. Did I or Okay. Yes. We are the staff report indicated that we needed to add a uh northbound right turn lane on Celeste if you're going to turn and travel eastward on Moss. So the intersection of Celeste south of Moss will be widened to the east to include that right turn lane. Okay. And then um if you can just talk real quick because I think I think this every I think when developments come in everybody thinks they're going to snap a finger and 77 houses are going to be built in two months. How long will this development take? I mean generalized. I mean is this a two three fouryear project? Probably a two three. I would say it's it's at least in the threeear range. So, if we if we're able to get um a recommendation for approval and then we go to council, let's say that's four to six weeks and then we obtain approval there, we would then go through construction document phase, which would take our office probably four to six months to complete and then we would submit for permits on that. Um so, construction could uh conceivably start this fall winter. Um much more likely a year from now is when you'd see construction starting. Um that probably gets you final plat on the first phase fall of 26 which is when you would start to see homes uh start to be constructed. So maybe first homes occupied spring of 27 and then um the absorption rate is what

the developers like to call it. I think um boy it varies a lot. Maybe it's four to six houses a month or four to 10 a month. Now it seems like more than that because you have multiple developers around you. So you it feels like a hundred a month but and I understand that but um yeah so we'd be starting homes occupied in 27 and it would probably take a couple year a year to two to build it out fully. So it would be 28 29 completion. Thank you. And I I I just like that to be brought up because a lot can change in schools, roads, all kinds of things can change in the next two years too. So, thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from commissioners? I had one more question for staff. Um, do you know what the loss rating is of Celeste? Uh, I don't have that readily available for Celeste. Um, I don't know if that would be included in our Caldwell area transportation system plan because that was completed prior to I think that this portion of Celeste was completed. I can do some digging really quick if you would like me to double check, but this applicant was not required to do a TIS because it was too little of home. So, I don't have that readily available. I'm happy to if you give me a couple minutes to look for it though, I'd be happy to see if I can find it. That would be great. Go ahead. I I'll wait. Anybody else? No. If we can make a motion to close public testimony. I didn't sign up. I didn't realize you had to sign up for a comment. Are you Sarah? Can we let him? Okay. Go ahead. State your name and address for the record, please. Joe Sariva,

16185 Meander Creek Way, Napa. You have three minutes. Um, my only concern is the developer stating that they're going to do a right turn lane, but is Moss going to be open two lanes? And I'm not oppo I I don't agree with trying to take any of the homeowners property. I think the developer needs to, you know, to make that section there two lanes because otherwise it's already a huge bottleneck because it's only one lane for 200 yards and you get cars instead of giving the ride away, they both try to come on at the same time and it's just a real mess. So, my only concern is if the subdivision gets approved, I think they need to, you know, the road will have to be a little bit of a bend, but I think the developer needs to use some of their property to make that uh a two-lane road with all the con congestion now. It's really bad. then adding, you know, 77 more houses is only going to be, you know, so I think it would be up to developer to to donate that property to the city to make that a two-lane road. Thank you. You want to respond to that? Yes. Thank you again. Appreciate the comment. Um, is it possible to put a plan up even your zoning map maybe. Okay. So imagine if you will. Um so yes so on our frontage on Moss we are widening we are dedicating rightaway we

are widening the road to the south to our side to create the necessary roadway improvements um for this project. Um I don't want to say unfortunately. So uh yeah that's that's perfect. So you can see on the left side of your screen where the white box with the red line around it, Celeste curves away to the west very slightly and there is more property owners south of Moss east of Celeste. Our project, we do not own that corner, so we don't have control over that property. If we did, we would in fact widen uh moss all the way across. So, at this time, because that's not our property and that's someone's private property, um other than constructing the sidewalk across, we are unable to um guarantee or commit to any widening um as this gentleman just brought up. So, thank you very much. Thank you. I I think your time's up. Sorry. I just had one question for him about the sidewalk. Oh, you want Perfect. All right. If there's no other questions, make a motion to close public testimony. So moved. Second. All in favor? I. All right. So, commissioners, let's talk. I just have one statement that I want to read, but you guys go ahead and say what you have to say. Okay. Well, I I I think it's good. I don't necessarily think the road thing's going to be a problem anywhere we go. And um and I I get the developers, they can only do to their section of it. They can't continue on past what they're developing on the road improvements and stuff like that. Um, I think I would just be more concerned and hope that all

it all gets worked out uh between the developer and these people folks with the irrigation part. I think that's my want to make sure they're getting their water and and all that. So, um, but I think it meets all the requirements. The ground is not usable for much of anything else. So yeah, I think I I just as long as they're expanding Celeste and Moss as much as legally and as much as they can financially, that's what I would be looking for. Um I think the density looks similar to the surrounding. Um the last one that went to city council that was shot down, not this one, but one similar further south was also shot down because the road was the same situation. It is it's very similar. So, um, yeah, it's it's mostly yes for me, but at the Celeste situation is very, at least last time they were here and there were public testimonies, they were concerned about vandalism and stuff with people parking on the side of the roads and struggles. So, um, if they can expand the road, I think that will help for at least their portion of Celeste. That's, uh, that's my only recommendation if we approve is that they improve Celeste as much as financially feasible for them to get through. Um, because it, yeah, it just seems tough. Okay. So, I'm going to start with um a statement that Katie included in her presentation. So, it sounds like repetitive, but it it it has it there's relevance. So, this is about Valley View School District. Although the district currently has capacity to accommodate new students with two new elementary schools opening in the fall of 2025, Valley View is still concerned about the rate of developments being approved in relation to space in our schools. Valley View addresses an important issue that there are cumulative effects as developments are approved, a point which

is missed in the application preparation. Similarly, even though this development doesn't meet the threshold for a traffic impact study, there is still a cumulative effect as traffic is added. As we saw in the staff capital improvement plan, the list of necessary projects is long, but the funding is drastically short and applicant impact fees are very small compared to the need. Even the letter of support that we received points out the traffic problem. It appears that Caldwell has already passed the point of no return and will suffer increasingly bad traffic with no end in sight and no finances to fix the problem. The situation appears to be that bad. Therefore, I can't vote to approve this project and I'm sad about that because it looks like it's a wellplanned project, but at this point Caldwell is just past the point of no return. Thank you. Do we uh have a motion? I'll make a motion for denial. Based upon the uh testimony and evidence and record in this matter and upon the finding of facts and conclusions of the law set forth herein, I do by hereby determine and move that case number AN24-16 for the annexation of two parcels R3276412 A0 and R327641100 with a zoning designation of R2 medium density residential with case number SP24-07, a preliminary plat for high High Pine Ridge is recommended for denial uh based on existing conditions

and density concerns. Second. We have a second. Oh, it's me. I think Phil did by Whip. I did second. Okay. Roll call. Larson. Yes. Whitbeck. Yes. Harmon. No. Bros. Yes. Okay. We have a motion to adjurnn. Some moved. Second. All in favor? Hi. Hi.