Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Uh this is planning and zoning commission regular meeting uh Wednesday May 14th 2025. Uh go ahead and call this meeting to order. Roll call please. Zamora here. Harmon here. Utrus here. Larson here. Whitbeck we have a quorum. U moving on with the agenda. Any conflict of interest declarations from any of the commissioners? No. Seeing none, moving on. There are no special presentations. So, that moves us to item five on our agenda, which is the consent calendar. Um, any motions here. Motion to approve. Uh, Commissioner Bos, I made a motion to approve. Second. Second for Commissioner uh Larson. Sorry. Any discussion? No. Seeing none, all those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? All right. moves us on to review of proceedings. So this um sorry this is a regular schedule meeting for the CO planning and zoning commission. We serve both in a decision-making capacity and an advisory capacity to the mayor and city council. Uh there are two types of public hearings that this commission conducts. The first is the legislative hearing whereby we formulate a recommendation on land use requests. Our recommendations are then forwarded on to the city council who makes decisions on legislative matters. Um the second is a quasi judicial hearing which involves a consideration of a land use request such as an annexation, reszone classification or approval of subdivision preliminary plat. The public hearing procedures that's required by IDO code are as follows. Oral and written testimony will be accepted for those who have signed in to speak prior to the hearing being declared open. When providing testimony, please come to the podium and state your name and address which will be included into the record. Staff will first present a report regarding the application um being considered. This is followed by public testimony which begins with the applicant or the applicant's representative who will present a summary of the request for no longer than 10 minutes. Testimony uh of those in support will be taken followed

by those in a neutral position and finally those in opposition in opposition to the request. Um please note that all public testimony will be limited to u three minutes or less. The applicant will be offered the opportunity to provide rebuttal following that. 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. So with that we'll move on. There's no old business. So that takes us to uh section 8 of our agenda which is new business. So I'll declare this me uh hearing open. This is um case number ANN25-2, PUD25-2, SP25-3. Um with that, staff report, please. Thank you, commissioners. Katie Wright, associate planner, 205 South 6th Street. Before you, Springhouse Towns, ANN2502, PUB2502, and SP2503. This application was submitted in February and is being reviewed under the code at the time of submittal. The project location is 8.7 acre parcel located west side of Midway Road, south of Homedale Road. The site has a small amount of frontage along Midway. The project site's currently surrounded by single family residential to the north, south, and west, and there's an approved future residential development to the east. There are five developments within a onem radius of the subject site that are either actively under construction or have been approved for entitlements. The applications before you tonight are for an annexation of 8.7 acres of land into the Caldwell city limits and a planned unit development with a preliminary plat for a subdivision as outlined in red. The applicant is proposing the zone of the parcel to be R2. The purpose of the R2 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. And the proposed development is surrounded by county land to the north, R1 and county to the south, R2 and county to the east, and R1 to the west. There's also some R3 to the northeast and southwest, as well as service commercial to the northeast. The comp plan place type and development is neighborhood three and is consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan. The proposed densities are in compliance with the comprehensive plan. The proposed land use of single family attached units is permitted within the R2 zone. The applicant's proposing a development consisting of 77 town homes with 1.88 acres of qualified open space with several amenities with the allowable planned unit development flexibilities. The proposed development project has been analyzed for compliance with city codes and policies and staff finds the proposed development is in compliance with the Caldwell city code as of February 6th, 2025. Code section 10307 states that standards are allowed to be modified to better suit the site and project. The applicants proposing the following setbacks in lot dimension requests for their front load town homes. Lot minimum size being 16 square ft. Lot frontage being 28 ft. Front setback 18 ft. Rear setback 12 feet. Interior side zero. And then the detached side 5t. And then for the alley loaded town homes, a lot minimum of 940 square f feet, lot frontage of 20 ft, front setback of five. The rear setback, which would be the alley in this case, would be 5 ft, and the attached interior side zero. The detached interior side one and street

side zero. The proposed development will have adequate site access and all utilities are available or will be available as outlined in the engineering staff report. Public agencies were notified and asked to provide comments. The only agencies that had concerns, Black Canyon Irrigation District has comments to consider and Valley View School District mentioned the continued growth of the school district and urged the city consider this growth. And then staff received eight public comments all in opposition stating concerns of traffic, infrastructure, and the development not being compatible with the surrounding developments. Oh, I apologize. Okay. Staff suggests the following sight specific conditions and modifications. All units shall have fire sprinklers. All mechanical units shall be screened with submittal of the final plat application. The applicant shall submit a copy of the CCNRs requiring that all garages be used for parking of vehicles. And staff recommends that condition 4A be removed as the landscape plan was a late exhibit. Um addresses the burm that was not there initially. Um, and then staff also recommends the condition that prior to city council, the applicant shall submit a new landscape plan that shows a 4-foot openstyle metal fence along the notice feeder canal easement along the south side of the pathway per BCID and then the landscape parking islands along the endcaps at Berina Lane and Belgian Blue Lane. Staff recommends that if the commission recommends approval for the request that such request is subject to the conditions as specified in findings of facts, conclusions of law and order of decision. Thank you. Thank uh all right, that was the staff report. Um, and as we've done for the past while, we'll uh hold our questions till after the applicant can come on up, provide their um presentation for no longer than 10 minutes, and then we'll um open it up

for commissioners to ask questions of both applicant and staff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Penelopey Constantikis with Riley Planning Services representing the applicant for Springhouse Towns. It's a planned unit development subdivision application. It's an infill development with two housing types in an area of CWell that has both very new and older existing residential development. The site is just south of Cleveland Boulevard and residents will have easy and close access to many services and retail establishments including the Walmart superstore less than a mile away. As reflected in the new Cowwell future land use map, higher density residential should be in close proximity to major transportation corridors and commercial retail services. This is common to land use and transportation principles for orderly development. The site design is thoughtfully planned in spite of a very awkward geometry to its greatest advantage. The larger lot and resident section is placed next to the north property line and the smaller lots and residences are placed in the center of the site. Using the location next to the notice canal as an attribute, the extensive pathway system that interconnects the enclaved community works very nicely. This neighborhood three site is eligible to up to 20 units per acre or somewhere in the vicinity of 120 residential units taking into consideration the area needed for access and active open space, parking and storm water facilities. What is proposed is much more modest with 77 dwellings on individually platted lots available for home ownership with over 60% of the growth site dedicated to open space and over 20% active open space which is double what is required by code. This is this it is the awkward geometry that

drives the smaller lots in order to fall comfortably within Cwell's desired range of 4 to 20 units per acre. Based on the growth site of 9.30 acres, the proposed density is 8.28 falling towards the lower end of the density range and is consistent with the Cwell current and pending comprehensive plan. At 8.56, the density is nine units per acre. Standard walkup apartments were an option and would have boosted density with taller buildings away from the north property line. Platted town houses seemed a more compatible design that facilitated home ownership. Another benefit of smaller lots is the reduction in overall home cost. Today's families can less afford a traditional lot and home and in many cases it doesn't fit the demands of today's family life. By choosing a home with a small lot, this allows them the financial flexibility to support their children's athletic pursuits that come with a real price tag. Does a family want a mower and a yard or do they want to have their son play baseball? Sometimes it comes down to that. In addition to the very generous amenity package with spring town springhouse towns to balance the smaller lots, the center area is designed with a muse concept. It's an English idea where front doors face each other across the landscape pathway area. Homes on either side of the micro paths face each other with 15 ft of landscaping and 5t of front setback. This design fosters a community vibe. The front doors are connected to the guest parking via the micro path and it creates a very pleasant environment. These are homes intended for the missing middle. The workmen and work women entry and recently hired fire firemen and

women, police officers, medical workers, school teachers, and bus drivers, just to name a few. Small platted lots make these homes more affordable, and the enclave nature of the site makes it a great place for families with children. With a narrow entry onto Midway and no other roads to connect to, traffic will all be local. Using the flexibility allow with the plan unit development standards. This proposed townhouse community requests reduced frontage setback and lot areas to accommodate the city's desired density and navigate the awkward site geometry. Meeting the PUD criteria, the site is an area with more than 50% developed within 300 ft of the exterior boundary with municipal services available. Lot sizes are balanced with a high level of amenities. These amenities in include the four required amenities. Micro path, major path connecting the residential area with double double the active open space standard at 20 point 21.96% and the midway road front B frontage BM for the options that are provided for the additional amenities are as follows. outdoor gym with five different exercise stations, a half basketball court, children's play area with generously landscaped, including bench seating and a convenient sidewalk location design. Fire sprinklers are provided in each residence. In addition, more amenities were included in the site design. We have rear loaded garages. We have a dog park with an act attractive rod iron style gate and fence with a p excuse me pet waste station. Two community gathering areas are provided. One near the entrance with a plaza shade structure and tables and seating in

close proximity to the anticipated bus stop. The second is located at the west end of Milkhouse Drive near the outdoor gym with the concrete plaza tables and seating. Recycling containers were also added next to the cluster mailboxes to keep debris down, someplace to put it when you don't want to keep it. Early on, I met with the bus company to discuss a bus stop. A final location will be determined. Final platting site actually has about 200 parking spaces. All of the larger units have driveway aprons that are long enough to accommodate vehicles. So, I came up with that. I went methodically through all the space on the site. I went and researched all the different lengths of all the different kinds of vehicles, and most vehicles will fit on those aprons. So, we have uh plenty of parking. Each unit has a twocar garage, and the CCNRs will include uh the requirement that resident vehicles are parked in the garage. They're not used as storage. The good news is there's a storage self- storage facility just north of the site if they have extra stuff. The project team is not asking for flexibility in density, parking, or relief of amenity standards. Nor are they asking for a reduction in landscaping. The flexibility requested is to keep these homes affordable for the missing middle and starter families. This housing type complements and balances the dominance of single family detached residential in this area of Caldwell. Based on the standards for measuring building height in Cwell code, these residences will be less than 25 ft tall, about 22 feet 9 in. Fencing is not required, but will be provided along the

north property line with a six- foot tall vinyl privacy fence. Open vision fencing along the major pathway adjacent to the notice canal is a great idea and the developer happy to comply with that. And the dog park will be fenced with an attractive open vision fence as well with a gate to manage pets appropriately. CCNRs will be provided to the city as required to preserve garages exclusively for homeowner vehicle parking maintenance of common areas and amenities. The ends of guest park the guest parking area were not designated as parking spaces but to avoid anyone parking in a non designated space that again the developers happy to add those landscape buffers along both ends. Children are especially important in today's society. They're the future of Caldwell and the Springhouse Towns is a great place for children and their families to live an active life. I did check with engineering. It appears that the utility crossing is done where it crossed over the Elijah drain and the notice canal. A roundabout is planned in the uh CIP for Homedale and Midway and the traffic impact fees paid by this project will help fund that. The proposed residences are attractive and nicely designed with a blend of traditional and modern architecture. Landscaping is welld designigned with the residents of the community in mind. All the agency comment letters and the approved TIS and staff report have been reviewed. The property owner and developer agrees with the recommended conditions of approval. The project team believes that Springhouse Towns is an appropriate use for this site and will add positively to the area and the greater city of Cwell. I would be very pleased to answer any questions you have or discuss any element of the project with you. And

with that, I'll stand for questions. Thank you. Um so this at this time commissioners will have opportunity to ask questions of both the um applicant and staff. And I have two questions I'll start off with for particularly for staff. Um page 26 I believe is the first time it notes in your report that staff have concerns regarding the reduction of zoning setbacks. Um and I believe it's referenced several times throughout this um staff report, but I didn't hear that in the actual um verbal report. Now can you share were those concerns resolved and and if so how? Chair and commission. Thank you. Um, we've had conversation with the applicant about these concerns as well. Um, our biggest concern with it is overall parking for the site. Um, just if cars could fit in those envelopes and the alley loaded side of things. Um, along with the reality of the sizes of the garages, if that will fit two two cars. um if people have more than two cars, just things like that to keep in mind. So I guess to so again it wasn't brought up in the actual staffing report tonight. So h have those been resolved? Have your concerns been resolved? Chair and commissioners? Um I would say yes and yes and no. Staff does still have some concerns uh with the reality of the parking situations. Um, but staff did feel more comfortable after talking with the applicant about the the project. And then my second question is I in your report you talked about there's five developments either beginning or in the process that have been approved in that general vicinity. The TIS report was done in June 2024 and accepted in September 2024. So I guess my question is um does the reality of June 2024

still reflect is that I guess ultimately was is this TIS still valid for today's situation? Uh yes, thank you Mr. Chairman. I I would say that it's still valid. Um traffic continues to fluctuate and it's hard to get a good sense because there's been construction uh going on down on Homedale Road with some um other road projects and utility projects down there. But I would say yes. Thank you. Commissioners, Mr. Chairman, I have a couple comments if I could please. Um, real quickly, let's see in regard to those two things. Yes. Go ahead. Um, first of all, the um the size of the garages are all standard. So, they're 20 ft deep and standard width. There's they're just they're a standard garage. They're not compact garages. They're standard sizes. And um we balanced the idea was to balance the heavy emphasis on amenities against the smaller lots. So there's lots of things for people to do on the site and we felt that that was a good tradeoff. Thank you. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. So at this time we will move into public testimony. I have no Let me double check. Several pages here. No one signed up in in Yeah, I don't know if we'll have time. So, uh I have no one signed up in favor nor neutral. I have um several people signed up in opposition. So, we'll read down the list. Um I think it's George Bergen who signed up in opposition does not want to speak. Is that still correct? Okay. U but in opposition, same with Tamara Bergen in opposition. I do have Karen Kr Krueger signed up to speak. Yes. Would you like to come on up, please? Oh, sure.

So, thank you. Please say state your name and address into the record. And just a reminder, you have no more than three minutes. Uh, my name is Karen Krueger and I live at 16890 Jericho Court in Canyon County, Oakland Ares. It's an N1 neighborhood for c of custom homes on the north side of this property line that will maintain two of the bulks of the property that will be built are going to be 12 ft from our backyard and front yard. Uh the project by Triple Dot Development for Springhouse Towns Sub seeks to reszone the N3 from an irrigated pasture to an R2 residential medium to high density, which is how they can get the 77 units because they're going up. This directly impacts our neighborhood and raises concerns about incompatible infrastructure where we are zoned for R1, not R2. in a 360 degree radius. They are all single detached homes in an low density uh residential traffic and infrastructure. This area is not equipped to handle the projected increase in vehicles. The proposed 77 units of Springhouse Town by Triple Dot would add at minimum 154 cars on a a I thought it was a 8.56 acre. Uh there's one acre that is reserved for the farmer that sold the property and he's still there. Um the streets are already impacted by Jackson uh condominiums on Caldwell Boulevard, Corey Barton Homes development, um and

it's Britney Heights, and they're also adding more homes in the back end of that um development. Faith Landing Apartments, which is across on uh Caldwell Boulevard and Homedale. And then London Park is just east of us or south of us. And um all of those homes are detached and single. To support this rapid growth in our neighborhoods, it should be a priority and essential to widen roads, construct roundabouts, and install additional four-way stop signs or lights at the crossroads of Homell Midway and Moss Moss Roads. Appearance and neighborhood uh three compatibility. Um the mid roof low point is 23 feet. The high point is 28 to 30 feet. So to be correct, these tall black sport chalet split roof town homes are incompatible with the single up to twostory level detached homes that are in our R1 neighborhoods. Now, um we would like a a cohesive Sorry, that was time. I'll give you the last 10 more seconds to finish up your last thoughts. Really? That went fast. It does. It goes quick. Well, proposed changes is to replace the 28 to 30 foot um town homes along our property line with singlestory detached family homes. They're going to take our fence away. So, as soon as they take our fence away, my yard is exposed. I have three dogs. I have to temporarily hook up some kind of fencing because they're going to take my fence. Okay. Um, I understand growth is is is necessary. We all understand this, but there are still unsold homes in a lot of these developments.

And this building should actually be next to a um shopping mall or some kind of downtown area for the younger people that would probably rent this stuff because they're not going to be owning them. They're going to be renting them. Thank you. appreciate that and I just want to give you a quick overview of what this will look like. Ma'am, you maybe we can have it. Sarah, she can pass it to us, but that the three minutes have have um gone in more. Well, you got to understand that. Thank you. We have several other people signed up also in opposition that may um share some similar sentiment. So, with that, we have this is the building. Thank you. We can provide it to her. Slide it all the way to the right and all the way to the left. Thank you, ma'am. So, we have Dennis uh Oakland who signed up in opposition but chose not to speak. U Connie Keys who did sign up to speak. Come on up please. I have that power in a minute. Correct. I don't think that we will have that. Do we I don't think we're going to have the capacity. Is this it on the screen? Yeah. Yeah. Oh, okay. Yeah. My name is Connie Kais. I live at 16885 Jericho Court with my husband. We've lived here for 25 years. We live on almost a 2acre parcel and uh we have 515 linear feet of the north side of this planned development. I'm sorry. Do I need a clicker? Let's go to the next. I'm going to rock and roll through this. One more. One more. One more. Per Riley Planning Services letter to you on February 4th, which is when they applied, it states the town homes will be on individual parcels for individual home ownership. These town homes, what they failed to say are attached units, making several of these buildings 200 feet long all along the north side of my property.

They want to put these 12 feet from my fence line, not even the 15t setback from Caldwell City Code. And I get one, no, I get two on my property line. Next slide, please. That's my picture of the thing. Go. And that's what I'll be looking at. Next slide. Riley Planning also stated in their very first neighborhood meeting, all units would be individually deed. All would be purchased as a price point for individually or entry-level home ownership, the exact same development in Cougar Crossing for Caldwell has been purchased by a large LLC out of Anaheim, and all units are being rented out. So, there's a distinct difference between the pride of ownership between renters and property owners. This basically will be a multifamily apartment complex. Next slide, please. Um, let's go fast through those gradual increases in height. Neighborhood 3 is supposed to have from singlestory detached ground level homes to a towering height. They're not conforming to Calwell City Code. Per the original application cover letter, Riley Planning stated town homes minimally exceed the 25 foot height standard. Now, the amended application states the mid roof is at 22 feet tall. And even though the plans show it's 27 to 28 feet. Next slide, please. Here's a six-foot man with a six-foot privacy fence they're pro they are promising us that is dwarfed by the 28 foot tall massive townhouse structure. At high noon, this massive 28t structure shaves shades 48 feet from the fence line. My driveway that sits 15 feet from the property will never see sunshine in the wintertime. Next slide. You know that Midway Road is already overburdened and congested. The CAP plan or your CIP from December of 2024 states improvements and widening on Midway between Flamingo and the boulevard is scheduled, but not until 2036 or 2041. The roadway can't handle the increased traffic it currently has. To add this to that many

homes would generate a significant inre increase increase in our already congested minor arterial roadway. It's a huge safety concern for all of us that travel on it daily. And last but not least, you know, the Valley View schools are already at capacity. At the last planning and zoning meeting right here, you talked about the overcrowded Valley View School District. In less than a two-mile radius, there are now over 10 developments that that there several students will be attending. This will overcrowd the Valley View schools. How about the preliminary plat? The setbacks per code are 15 feet. Their plans show 12 feet from the property line. Height per code is 25 ft. Their plan shows 266 to up to 28. That that that I'll give you 10 more seconds. One slide left. Okay, 10 seconds. You You can have yours. There's just some of the things I'm going to be missing. Please couple more slides. One more. One more. And in conclusion, significantly increase. If you approve this development, it'll increase predominantly low-rise single family home area, cause detrimental impacts on traffic congestion, increase an even larger burden in the schools, and disrupt the privacy and overall character. We respectfully encourage you to deny the Springhouse Town's development at this time. Rocked and roll. Are there any questions? Any questions for Miss Keys? Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. We do need to maintain order and respect without um Ben keys. Would you like your time? Okay. But in signed up in opposition. Um Teresa Dooall signed up to speak. Is that I don't know if I have a whole lot more to add. You can say ditto as well, but go ahead and say come up and say your name and address into the record. U my name is Teresa Dooall. I live on um 5207 East Homeell Road. Um, I've lived there uh about 10 months now on the corner of Midway and Homeell. We have already had three accidents there

because of the traffic. That doesn't include the one that's just next to my house where they took out the uh fence line. The traffic there is absolutely unbelievable in the morning and the afternoon. Um, the cars are going way too fast. There never seems to be a police in the area to to check it out. Um, let me see. We've got the 107 homes that are coming in, which she already brought up, which is going to impact all of that. There's only one ingress egress. Um, and that goes on to Midway Road, which we've already proven is an extremely busy road. That's one of the four busiest roads that we have out there. Um, when is a roundabout planned? Did they They've talked about the roundabout. Do we have a plan for that? Is that where you said 2036 to 2041 somewhere along there? We have no roundabout planned. That is the road that the high school is on, which means that we have a million cars going down towards the high school. Teenagers, inexperienced drivers, and things like that that are on that road at all times during the during the morning and and afternoon. Um it's just a um it's just a bad area to be putting in more. Like I said, we've already got the 107. I know that in Caldwell, they mentioned three or five. Was that just in Caldwell when you guys said that there were five new things coming in? Because if you cross Midway, that's Nampa. Do you want to know how many we have going in over there? Yeah, there's about 10 right now within a two-mile radius. And that's all I have to add. But I live on Homedale Road and I see this this traffic every day. And it is it's not a good a good area to be putting more more housing in. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Doug. Any questions? Thank you. Folks, can I I please be respectful. I recognize the passion and I appreciate it, but we also need to make sure we maintain decorum. Uh I have Marilyn Oakland who signed up in opposition but not signed up to speak. Um same with

Christine me and Carl Meade, both in opposition but did not sign up to speak. Um Rick and Ardell Davenport um in opposition but signed up not to speak. And um I do have Angie Basset signed up to speak. Please state your name and address into the record and you have uh no more than three minutes, please. Thank you. My name is Angie Basset. My address is 11998 Jerry Lee Lane. I live on the opposite side of Midway from where this development is proposed. I'm here to express my strong opposition to the proposed zoning change and ultimately to the planned housing development in our neighborhood. While I understand the need for affordable housing in our city, I believe that this project, Springhouse Town Homes, will have a detrimental impact on our community. If a zoning change is necessary, I request that this parcel be reszoned to R1. This would be consistent with the existing housing communities and surrounding area. The proposed zoning change and development is simply too large for our area. The increase in population density would put a strain on our already overburdened infrastructure leading to increased traffic congestion, noise pollution, and strain on our public services. Additionally, the construction of this project would result in significant environmental damage, destroying natural habitats and putting wildlife at risk. This area is home to ducks, geese, blue herand, foxes, and several bird species. We keep hearing that the schools are overcrowded. Since this is workforce housing, there will be young families. Is there room in the schools for more children? What impact will this have on the classroom and our children that are currently in those classrooms? Taxpayers will be asked again to approve school funding because each new subdivision that goes in brings more children to our overcrowded schools. There is an ambulance district levy on the ballot right now. Can our public services handle more large developments? The

taxpayers are the ones getting stuck with the bill to fund these overburdened services. Furthermore, the type of housing being proposed is simply not in keeping with the character of our neighborhood. It has always been the goal of the city of Caldwell to support enhanced housing standards that will improve the visual appearance of residential neighborhoods. This proposed development does not enhance the appearance of the surrounding neighborhood. This is an infill project, not part of a new neighborhood development. The design of the town homes needs to match the existing neighborhood to better blend in and not look like it was an infill project. Make it look like it belongs in our area, not on the beaches in California or the mountains in Aspen. This development, known as workforce housing, would bring in a large number of lowincome residents, which could lead to increased crime rates and other negative social effects. It would also drastically alter the aesthetic of our area, replacing the existing greenery and open spaces with several monolithic highdensity housing complexes. Finally, I am deeply concerned about the impact this develop would have on property values in the surrounding area. The influx of low-income residents could result in a decline in property values, making it difficult for current residents to sell their homes and move elsewhere. In fact, it has been estimated that the existing homes will lose 100,000 in property value because of this proposed development. This is lost tax revenue. That's time. I'll give you about 10 more seconds. Being taken away from our overcrowded schools and overburdened public services. All of this falls onto Idahoans. It is not our responsibility to pay for everyone that wants to move here. If they want to move here, then they can figure out where to live. Thank Thank you, Miss Bass. Thank you. All right. So with that with that we'll move on. Um so that was the last um person signed up for

public testimony. So I will invite the applicant come up for a rebuttal. You have um five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um would you please put up the image that I gave you of the north neighbors? It says view from patio. Thank you. Um I'm just going to real quickly go some of this through some of this. Um first of all, the houses that are to the north of us are also in the neighborhood three zone and they're not zoned R1, they're zoned R2 currently. So um that's a a piece of information I think is important. The funding of infrastructure comes from development. I'd like to see it happen proactively, but it doesn't anywhere. DI what drives improvements in infrastructure is development. So that's how you pay for roads. That's how developers pay for the roads indirectly, but they do end up paying for it. The building height was measured per Cwell code. Um I went over this with Katie when we met last week. There will be a fence. The fence will be on this property, not their property. Their fence will not be taken down unless, of course, it's encroaching on the subject site, which is always a possibility, but there's no reason for for us to take their fence down. We'll put our fence on our property inside our property line. Um, attached houses. I live in a townhouse. I've lived in a townhouse for about 15 years. And I I'm attached, detached, busy people, people with kids that have lots of sports to do. I don't see what the difference is. It's a home that you own on a lot. So whether it's attached to something else or not shouldn't be of

any consequence. Cougar Crossing was intended to be a multifamily development. This is not a multifamily development. These are platted individual fe simple lots. Um, as for traffic, uh, Midway is actually classified as a minor arterial. The last time I checked from my days at working at Compass, the regional MO, minor arterials are supposed to carry up to 15,000 vehicle trips a day. Right now, based on the traffic impact study that was done, this site will add in the AM peak hour 0.5% additional traffic. Uh on Homedale and Cleveland Boulevard, it will add 0.9% additional vehicle trips. Homedale and Midway intersection, 2.6% increase in vehicle trips. Moss Lane and Midway Road intersection, 1 2% increase in traffic. So, our um the TIS says there's going to be 45 additional PMP peak hour trips. Based on all the impact fee work that I do, it should be somewhere around 20 vehicle trips, but there's not a lot of difference between the two really. So, I don't know that we're going to be generating a lot of traffic. Attached homes actually generate less traffic than single family detached houses do by about 50% more. Um, other comments? I don't know. I understand it's really hard. They've been looking at the sheep over there for years, but communities change, property has a right to develop, and as long as we're compliant with the city code, which we are, there shouldn't be any reason to not allow it to happen.

Um, in terms of the schools, um, interesting fact, the school districts were invited to join the impact fee effort that was done at the Idaho legislature about 20 years ago and they declined. They refused to be involved. They wanted to be able to do bonds instead. So part of the problem with school funding is a is a problem that unfortunately the schools generated for themselves when they declined to become part of the impact fee um statute that's in Idaho code. Um I don't know. I just I just I understand but I it's it's a little bit distressing. I don't think we should talk about lowincome people. I think that's a little bit of a it's discriminatory. Low-income people are still people and they still have a right to have a home and they still have a right to have a home in a nice neighborhood. Um the road is not overburdened right now. Compass predicts that there's somewhere between a thousand and 5,000 vehicle trips on Homedale Road right now. wildlife. I have owls in my along the alley that feeds my townhouse every night. There's wildlife coexists in urban settings a lot. I had a fox that came through my parking lot every night when I lived in North Boisee. So, there's just no issue with that. And the last item is 10 10 more seconds. Property values are not based on what's next to you. Property values are based on comparable sales. I know this because I spent a decade as a real estate agent. Thank you. Thank you. All right. With that, this is the time for commissioners um to ask. Do you have any follow-up questions? Yeah, I had one followup question, chair. Okay, final. Yes. Uh Commissioner Larson. So, uh what they had questions or concerns about the design not matching? So, it they do look

like nice homes, but I don't know. Did you guys consider matching your design in some way to the design of the surrounding homes? I don't know that's really possible, but asking it anyways. That's a great question. Um, being homogeneous isn't always a good thing. Um, these are nicely designed with a variety of of exterior materials. There's no loud colors. Um, mid-century is hot everywhere. So, it just it just adds context. It adds variety to the neighborhood. I don't think that's a bad thing really. Um, and there size-wise, it's probably a more efficient uh structure in terms of adding livable space. Thank you. Thank you, Harmon. I got a couple questions for you. Um, I thought I read that these are going to be sold, right? They're not rentals or it's it's fee simple. Okay. They're on lots, platted lots. Yeah. Well, I just wanted to clarify it because that's what I read. So, um, second is I do believe development pays for the infrastructure. So, what how much of midway will this development improve improve just our frontage? Just that little frontage right there. But I I chatted with um the engineer here this evening and um I believe that the traffic impact fees here in in Caldwell are higher than I find them in other areas. So there is a generous um contribution that's made. Thank you. You're welcome. And I guess I have a question. My question is can you you articulated in your rebuttal that um the high points um of the homes were to code I guess I and I and I guess I maybe I need some understanding because I do know there's been some change in

conversation. So I somebody articulate what is actually the high point and what is the the reference that they're using to be in compliance. Yes. Uh thank you chairman. the code that this project is falling under measured to the midpoint. Um, and the midpoint for this project is 22 feet and and some inches. And and the high point is 28 to 30. Yes. And so that isn't, I guess, called out in the code specifically for the high point. It refers to the midpoint. Other questions for commissioners? I just had questions for staff. Uh, uh, Commissioner Morrison. Yeah. A couple a couple ones that kind of relate for the for the roundabout. Can you kind of Rob, can you kind of elaborate a little bit on that because I know stuff changes pretty rapidly around here. Is there could you just provide a little clarity for us here on that portion? Uh, Commissioner and Commission, I appreciate just a moment to speak a little bit about the transportation. Um, I I appreciate some of the testimony. there was a reference to the cat's plan and the cat's plan does delineate deficiencies that we have in our system. Uh and there are many we are a growing city and so there's areas where attention is definitely needed. Um I think the one thing that's been mentioned a couple times is that development uh because of the transportation impact fees that they pay and the frontage improvements and other improvements they're obligated to complete. Um the development does pay for a lot of these uh improvements. the the city doesn't have the funding to go build roads. We have to put it on the backs of the developments and the developments then uh pay that money and then we pile that money together and put projects together. Um the traffic impact fees from this development in addition to their frontage um would go toward Middleton or Midland Midway, sorry, Midway Road. Midway Road is a road

that's in the CIP and it's a road that will receive impact fees to be completed at some point. Um it was also referenced that that's mentioned in the cat's plan um year 2030 to 2036. And that is uh that's a basic general guideline that was put together, but that's not necessarily when it's going to be built. It's all things change and as certain areas grow faster than others, projects and priorities are shifted. I can tell you that the roundabout is likely to come much sooner than that. Um, typically the bottlenecks on these types of streets are the intersections and so the intersections would be built first and then later you would later on would come the widening of the roads themselves. Um, I was in a meeting uh just a few days ago where we talked extensively about the Homedale corridor. Uh we have four roundabouts proposed on the Homedale corridor and those are projects that we will be starting design um even as early as this year this year for for a few of them and we're trying to get through all four of them uh as quick as we can now. So I'm happy to answer any other questions that you might have. Thank you. Do you have a followup? Yeah, I had a second question but it wasn't for Rob. Thanks Rob. I have a followup to Rob. I do I do for Rob. Um thanks. There was a a letter from Nampa Highway District number one that requests that uh if any utilities go under Midway that the city of Caldwell annex the entire width of Midway right there uh what is the consequence to the city of that for example does the city then also take over maintenance of that section and who's paying for maintenance on Midway currently? Uh, great questions. Uh, uh, Commission Commissioner Bros. Um, we work closely with, uh, all the highway districts, Highway District 4, Napa Highway District 1. Um, just because utilities are going in, um, the city does not have the obligation to take over responsibility of the road. We have

agreements with some of the ir districts and so there's a timing of when that happens and usually it's when most of the land adjacent to that section of road is annexed. And so, uh, we're getting to that point. And so, it would be a natural cause for the city to take over that road. The way that that is funded is every year the city submits a, uh, roadways report. And any additional roadway that the city is receiving from a highway district, um, is computed and calculated and that's all sent to the state. And then the allocation to the city increases and it would decrease from the highway district. And that's how the city is funded to pay for those extra roads that the city is taking over from the highway district. Thank you. Thank you, uh, Commissioner Larson. Thank you, Chair. I had one last question. I don't think staff has an answer, but I'm going to ask it anyways. Do we have a uh a quality of life survey for building homes to say, hey, there's a certain density and it adds or subtracts quality of life? I know there's some general ones out in the wild, but I just wanted to double check that we as the city doesn't do any such a thing and there's no plans for us to add such a thing. Uh planning and zoning Morgan Visa. No, we don't have anything like that. Um I would say the and this isn't a quality life survey, but that area was looked at very recently because in the new comprehensive plan, that area became neighborhood three as some of the the neighbors mentioned. And the intent behind neighborhood 3 was to provide denser areas of development that could be either medium density or high density because of its close proximity to services and major corridors like Cleveland Boulevard and public transit. So the idea to locate more density in this area was intentional um but we because of access to services and things like that but we don't have a quality life survey and this area would be

compatible in the new comp plan with R2 or R3 um the applicant was applying for R2 medium density but while they meet the new comp plan they are coming in under the old code because they were submitted before we adopted the new codes. Okay. Yeah, just one follow up to clarify because maybe I used the wrong word. Um, more of like a quality of life standard that we be following, less of a survey so that there's something that we could reference to say, hey, here's a density. I think overall that it it looks like a pretty good project. But for density in this spot near these things, here's some common factors. No emotions involved, just statistics and go this qualifies, this does not, this improves, this subtracts. I know it's very hard to quantify on the fly, but it was just something based on our last meeting and this current meeting if the city could look at adding something like that to help us make decisions where they're kind of gray. One thing that I could say that we do have is we do sort of look at a level of service for say parks, right? How many park acres per head in the city? And so we do try to look at that and increase our acreage as we have more residents. So that sort of level of service for parks, you know, maintains even as we have more residents. I think that's good. Thank you. Thank you, staff. Thank you, Chair. All right. Any final questions from commissioners? All right. At this time, I would entertain a motion to close public testimony. So moved. Commissioner Larson made a motion. Second. Second for Commissioner Harmon. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? All right. Now, it's time for the commission to deliberate. Commissioners, as as always, I have notes, so if you want to go ahead. Commissioner Harmon. Um, I I think my my I think it doesn't look bad. It just um the concern of the city a little bit with some stuff kind of makes me question it just a bit. Um, you know, it's it's hard. We've

heard a lot of stuff about what people can do and not do, but property owner rights is a real thing and I mean it's in the constitution. So somebody sells their property and wants to build on it, they should be able to do what they want to do to be honest with you. If it meets the city standards and as a commission, if it meets the codes, we really have to push it through to city council. So that's all I got. I I'll jump in. I have a similar sentiment. two points that I really want to make um at least right now. One is similar to you the concerns from staff um in regards to parking. I um I still don't think I got a a final answer that things were resolved um in my questions earlier this evening. So that's my one concern. The other point I want to make and I and I believe the applicant said you know homogenous not not always a good thing and I and I agree to that to an extent but I think for me the more it's a compatibility. I think there needs to be I think when we look at things and the conversations we've had as a commission is that is there a natural transition and I think um some of the commentary with the heights and the the largeness of just the the building in and of itself. My wondering and questioning is the compatibility to the neighborhood. So yes it might be um are you may the uh density may be appropriate but we also had to look at you know um just the reality of these are lot bigger lots. I think there was some compelling testimony in regards to that. So, those are kind of my two the two things that I'm um I'm sitting on right now when it comes to to making a decision. Commissioner Butress. Okay. So, uh a little bit more detail on the Valley View School District letter. They express concern that they're going to be at capacity in eight of nine elementary schools by 2029, even with two new elementary schools currently in process. So, they're they're going to have to

come back uh with with more proposals for new schools. Okay. Uh as was noted, staff comments expressed concern about the proposed lot sizes in this application. So, there are 77 lots, but there really are only about 10 rather large buildings, and they struck me looking much like the notorious barracks down on 10th Avenue and Eustic. those green sawtooth barracks and I thought, well, they're not green, but it's going to have that same kind of skyline and that that's a problem. And I think everyone agrees that the barracks were a bad decision. Um, remarkably, lot area is proposed at only 940 square ft for rear loaded lots. I don't think we've ever seen anything close to such a small lot size for anything. Um, more extract from staff comments. Staff has some concerns regarding the extent of the reductions to the zoning setbacks and lot area minimums since they differ significantly from the code minimums and leave very little space for additional parking or landscaping. So, how is it that that someone can take away so much and claim that they're compliant? It's because the rules for a planned unit development allow that kind of variance. Uh whether that is appropriate for this area is for us to decide and I think uh that that gets into the same compatibility issue that you had raised. It is really not compatible with the surrounding area. Yes, people have the right to develop but not to the extent that they are that far off from compatibility with the surrounding area. Okay. So, uh obviously the applicant is leveraging the PUB category to enact

severe reductions in lot size for amenities that just did not look that good to me. They were minimal. It's a small playground, a gazebo, some outdoor gym equipment, a small dog park, and a halfcourt basketball court don't seem to me to be sufficient for the very small lot sizes that are proposed. and staff even calls attention to the PUD amenities to be evaluated for appropriateness. That's in the application. Okay. Uh there was an additional comment by staff regarding parking. While the applicant has provided adequate guest parking per code, staff has concerns with the proposed location and design of the guest parking regarding usability and safety. staff is recommending a condition that requires two landscape strips that would potentially limit the safety concerns and I think uh the applicant is is has addressed that. Uh additionally because the alley loaded units do not include full driveways there is some concern that the guest parking will be primarily utilized by residents leaving few spaces for guests as intended by code. The alley loaded town homes have twocar garages whereas the front-loaded town homes have onecar garages and onecar driveways. There is a minimal amount of on street parking provided. This means parking is going to be difficult at best in this development and may force residents and guests out onto adjacent roads. The traffic impact study recommends improvements on Midway, Cleveland, and Homedale, but Midway will not be improved in the capital improvement plan until the mid 2030s at best. That's 10 years away. Uh the TIS states Midway and Cleveland intersection will be at level of service F by 2027 during rush hour and no improvement in the capital improvement plan for that

intersection. So, it's a problem that's coming and there's no planned fix for it because as everyone recognizes, the city has limited money to do road repairs or road improvements, I'm sorry. And the Homedale and Midway intersection has a similar prognosis. Um, okay. Block one, lot 19, which is the common lot, appears to border the Elijah drain and the notice feeder canal number two and appears to not be usable by residents of the development. In the updated letter from the applicant, they actually addressed that issue straight on where before it looked like they were claiming uh something like 60% was uh open space. there. It's now more practical in that they've taken that out. And so, as noted in the update project narrative provided by email, 40% of the development is open, but is unusable as it abuts the drain and canal. So, the open space in this is a lot smaller than than it would appear when you consider the easement for for the the drain and the canal. The applicant letter justifies compatibility by asserting that individual ownership of these very small lots renders them compatible with the surrounding area. That's on page three of their narrative. That is not how compatibility is determined. And I was I was surprised to see that claim. Um I don't think this development is appropriate for Caldwell. It's clearly incompatible with the surrounding area and the parking situation is very difficult. The amenities are minimal, don't justify granting the PUD reductions in lot size. Traffic congestion will get worse and will not be remediated until the 20 mid 2030s. That's everything I have and I'm

prepared to do a motion to deny if when you when you all are ready. Other commissioners have comments? Commissioner Larson? Yeah. No, no comments. just the the school thing that that the applicant brought up that we can't control what the state does. So, we're trying our best to help with it. But, yeah, and I I will also add I I agree with Commissioner Bros um in in regards to the amenities. I kind of listed here from the presentation, referred back to it again. Um because part of the PUB is that we're be we're gaining a bunch of amenities to offset some of the exceptions that we're allowing. And I do think, you know, half basketball court, some of these things are pretty nominal um to to that process. And so it is that is part of our charge as a commission um to decide in our in in in making our recommendation if we believe that those uh amenities are sufficient enough to to grant exceptions. And I agree with Commissioner Butchers in that that I I don't think that they're sufficient to the extent that it it qualifies for the exceptions that are being proposed here. Uh, Commissioner Harmon, I just go back to city still kind of feel I feel is wavering on some of the stuff with the parking and stuff and I think it that needs to be taken care of before or we get it back or whatever. But I don't know that if if you're going to move it forward, it needs to be with a a condition to get the parking taken care of. That's my only big concern I mean to it. Um, so okay. All right. I would entertain a motion at this time. So moved. Uh, Commissioner Bos 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 A&N25-02 for the annexation of parcel R

32756010000 with a zoning designation of R2 medium density residential. A planned unit development and a preliminary plat for the Springhouse Town subdivision is recommended for denial because it is incompatible with the surrounding area. There is inadequate parking arrangement and inadequate amenities to justify the PUD small lot sizes. Thank you. That was a motion from Commissioner Bros, second for Commissioner Larson. Um so I'll ask for roll call, but remember an affirmative vote would be to deny. Bros, yes. Larson, yes. Zamora, yes. Harmon. Yes. And with that, the motion carries, and we'll close this public hearing uh and move on to our next item here on the agenda, which um which is case number A&N 24-14, CPM24-5, SP24-5, SUP24-22. There is a recommendation uh staff request rather for continuation to June 11th um for a PNZ hearing. So I would entertain a motion um to um continue if there's a will from so moved. All right, that was Commissioner Larson. Second. Second for Commissioner Harmon. All those in favor continuing it to June 11, 2025 say I. I. Any opposed? None. Uh and with that, I would entertain a motion to adjurnn. So moved as Commissioner Larson. Was there a second? Second. Second Commissioner Buchos. All those in favor say I. Any opposed?