Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Recommended conditions of approval from staff with the recommended conditions of approval from staff with the exception of one that's condition number two and I'll address that at the end of my presentation tonight. So the applicant tonight the builder and developer of this project is SI construction. Si is a local developer they've been building homes in the Treasure Valley for over 30 years a wide range of different product types from large custom homes to attached Town home style product right now their focus is on high quality homes at attainable prices specifically in Caldwell to target the housing needs and affordability issues in the community This slide does show the property at issue, highlighted in yellow there. We are just to the west of the intersection of Midway and Moss. The property is 15 acres in size. It's currently vacant, and this is an infill area. It's an interesting area of the city. You can see it's kind of in this last portion of Caldwell right before we hit Nampa. So areas in Caldwell that are annexed are overlaid in blue, and areas of... NAMBA that are annexed are overlaid in red. Because we are contiguous to the north with your city limits, this property is annexable under Idaho code. And so again, we'd ask that you exercise your legislative authority in this instance and annex this property. Real quick, I know staff will go over this as well, but The property is identified in this instance with the red star on your future land use map. You can see that we are designated as place type neighborhood two. And most of the land in this area is also designated as neighbor two, the exception being the Karcher Road corridor just to our south. It is designated with the orange community center designation there to, again, accommodate the arterial corridor that Karcher is. Primary uses in this neighborhood two place type is mid density residential and as well as low density residential. And under your code, we're supposed to develop property with this place type between two and eight homes per acre. And on the left side, another little excerpt from your comprehensive plan, but we are asking for R2 zoning tonight. And with the neighborhood two designation on your land use map, the R2 is a compatible zoning district. Wanted to run through the adjacent zoning in Caldwell quickly. The dashed green line, again, does show the edge of the city. So that's your area of city impact. The dashed red lines are current city limits. The area in kind of the light yellow is R1 zoning, single family. And the darker sort of mustard color is R3, a more dense area. a more dense residential zoning designation. So surrounding this property, we have R1 and R3 residential. Looking across Midway over into Nampa, I just wanted to highlight that the majority of this land that is annexed and developed in Nampa, you can see it in the yellow there, it's in the city's RS6 zone, which is basically synonymous with your R2 zone. So it's densities between two to eight units per acre. So not only are we compatible with the zoning in Caldwell, but we're also compatible with the zoning across Midway in Nampa. So this is a close up of the site with the proposed project overlaid. Again, we will be a residential community. We're proposing 65 detached single family homes on lots that meet your city's R2 standards. So no variances or deviations requested. Overall density of the project would be 4.6 homes per acre. which again is right in the middle of the two to eight that you guys have requested in your comprehensive plan. Average lot size is 4,796 square feet. There's essentially kind of two product types in this neighborhood. We've got the larger lots on the exterior. They're a 50 foot wide lot. And then on the interior, you can see the lots are a bit smaller. Those are 40 foot wide. It's slightly more compact. Again, the R2 zone does call for To try to achieve a bit of a mix of housing and we've tried to achieve that here while still providing a single-family product I want to highlight just a few more things on the property as we kind of move from the east to the west on this property. So running along the east is an irrigation facility, the Isaiah Drain. That'll be preserved and ultimately improved with open space and recreation amenity. I'll get to that in a little more detail here in a minute. As we continue to move west, you can see our main access point. That would be Gideon Street, which intersects with Moss. That'll be the access to this property. And then as we move all the way to the west side of the site, you can see there's kind of a vacant strip there right on the property boundary. That's an existing dirt road that provides access to some parcels to our south. And I'll get into why that's important here in just a minute. The project is proposed in two phases. Phase one would be the area in blue. Phase two, the area in red. And with respect to development timeline and occupancy, again, assuming we make it through this body and the city council and we get to develop this project, we would not expect any actual home occupancies until probably Q3 of 2028. It will take some time to get this rolling and built out. I did want to speak to density again, just real quick. When you're looking at what the proper zoning is for this property once it's annexed, compatibility is an important thing. We are, again, 4.6 units per acre. I wanted to provide this slide to the commission just to see that we are compatible with the surrounding zoning. There are some neighborhoods to our north, Brittany Heights, Windsor Creek, they're in that kind of four units per acre range. Again, the projects to the east in Nampa in that mid-four range. And then there is a multifamily project down Moss that's 15. So we are, again, on par with the neighborhood in the area, and that's why we feel like the R2 is appropriate here. One more thing we wanted to highlight. Certainly, I know everyone in this community is feeling it. I felt it on the way here today. But Karcher Road is under construction. And your comp plan does ask that we provide slightly higher density near your major transportation corridors. We are just a little over three quarters of a mile from Karcher Road here. So in terms of folks leaving this project and getting on a major arterial, this is a good location to have slightly more density. That midway and Karcher intersection is currently under construction right now by ITD. Open space, real quick, in total 1.8 acres or just about 13% of the project will be open space. There is a central amenity down towards the southern end of the site that'll have tot lot covered seating areas and as well as a grassy, just large play area. And then the other main open space amenity again is that Isaiah drain eight foot multi-use pathway that'll run north to south. Few product elevations. Again, we do have some 40 and 50 foot wide lots here. So we'll expect some smaller homes as well as some larger two story homes, a mix of housing types in this instance. So real quick, just to get to the condition of approval at issue, it's condition number two. I've repeated it on this slide here, but before we get into the language, just to kind of give you the lay of the land, in the bottom left hand of this slide, you can see a street level photo of the dirt road that runs along our western boundary. And again, that dirt road provides access to two residences south of our property. We've really tried to develop around this road, and we want to continue to allow those folks to access their property via this dirt road. You have comments in this report from the engineering staff that they would like us to remove this dirt road and force those folks to take access through the center of the project. And I'll just flip back real quick so you can see the THE STREET MAP THERE. SO ESSENTIALLY AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF OUR PROPERTY WHERE YOU SEE OUR LAST PUBLIC STREET, WE WOULD JUST STUB THEM INTO THE EXISTING DIRT ROAD. THAT'S THE SOLUTION THAT THE CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WOULD LIKE. AGAIN, WE WOULD LIKE TO PRESERVE THAT DIRT ROAD FOR THE BENEFIT OF THESE NEIGHBORS. SO CONDITION NUMBER TWO WOULD DO THAT AS WE MODIFIED IT INSTEAD Requiring us to remove the gravel access road. We would just ask that we Be able to maintain that For these folks it would essentially be an HOA lot that the HOA would take care of and maintain And again, we would continue to provide access that way. I Know there will be some questions on that But I'll keep going and sort of wrap up. Again, we're trying to provide housing that the comp plan has said is needed. We're sort of thinking that this project would be in the step up in ownership, so the 120% AMI-ish to 200. It's one of the categories where the comp plan indicates you need a significant amount of housing, which we would like to help provide. And with that, I'm happy to stand for any questions.

Thank you. We'll do a staff report, and then we'll get to questions.

Thank you. Yeah.

Thank you, commissioners. Galeen Davis, 205 South 6th Avenue, Caldwell. The application before you tonight is a request for annexation and preliminary plot approval. Application number ANN 26-7 and SPP 26-6. Tim Mulquah on behalf of Schmidt Investment is requesting annexation with initial zoning of two community residential and preliminary approval of a single family residential subdivision with 65 buildable lot. The development is proposed to be developed in two phases. The site is approximately 14.97 acres and located on the south side of Moore Street, approximately 600 feet west of the intersection with Midway. The subject parcel is zoned agricultural and located within Kenyon County and has no entitlement history with the city. The subject parcel is currently non-active agricultural land surrounded by a mix of single family residential uses and agricultural parcels. North Celeste subdivision east of the site is also currently seeking entitlement approval. The subject parcel is designated neighborhood two on the future land use map. That place type is primarily residential and support low to medium housing types. South finds that the proposed subdivision is consistent with that designation. The proposed development consists of single family detached home compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The proposed density is approximately 4.6 dwelling per acre, which falls within the two to eight The applicant is requesting R2, community residential, which is compatible with the place type. The applicant is proposing a single families detached subdivision. The preliminary plan proposes 65 lots detached with 12 common lots and approximately 12% open space, which exceeds the city's minimum. The development will take access from Moss, a collector roadway. Staff is requiring a revised planning plot to remove the proposed western access, which is currently serving the southern parcels. and instead provide internal access. The Western Connection may remain as an emergency only access. Due to the size and scope of the project, a traffic impact study was not required. As conditioned, the project is compliant with city code and development standard. Sewer and irrigation services can be made available to serve the development. The engineering department has required a water availability study prior to the city council hearing. At that point, water service will be determined. Political subdivisions, including school districts, were notified and given an opportunity to comment. Staff received comments from city departments and other agencies regarding infrastructure, utility, and easement, as well as school. The Valley View School District responded by identifying which schools would serve the development if approved. They also provided current enrollment information for Lakeview Elementary and acknowledged that the applicant has voluntarily committed to make a financial contribution to the district. Staff also received seven written statements from the public opposition. One of them is included as a late exhibit and entered into the record. The comments generally expressed concern regarding traffic and roadway conditions. They also addressed school capacity, public utilities, the proposed R2 zoning, and the already existing residential housing inventory. As As conditioned, staff finds that the proposal complies with all applicable city codes, comp plan, and Idaho code, and city master plans, and city policies. I will stand for questions.

All right, thank you. Commissioners?

Commissioner Vance? Yeah, I do have a question for staff about the proposed side road there. Engineering, you're proposing that they provide access to the, there's two lots, essentially, adjacent, or south of this proposed parcel, and you're proposing that they close off that access road?

Yes, we we're proposing that they closed off the access road to moss which is a classified collector correct per city code It doesn't meet the access spacing requirements with the new development So they would have a driveway within 150 feet of an adjacent roadway The to the two other properties you're saying correct that are not in city limits correct and Looking at a map of those progress

the way those properties are laid out, essentially, because based on that map right there, that south-facing road would be the access, correct? Correct.

The road that is labeled as Trumpet Avenue would actually be the access.

So the owner of parcel R32777 would essentially have to provide access to his neighbor, Because that road will enter into his property. He owns this field of these two parcels. He owns almost 75%.

And maybe we're not talking about the same parcels.

The two parcels... Yeah, so you're...

I think the two out parcels that aren't really shown here are actually located on the southwest corner of this part of this image that you're looking at up here. So the gravel road is on the entire west boundary of this that runs directly to the south.

So it's not the two properties directly south of the property.

Can staff pull up GIS for us to see it? Correct.

Because that's what I'm looking at.

Oh, me? Let's see. Planning and zoning, Morgan Besaw. So I think the confusion is it's not where the road goes all the way south. You would take Trumpet, and then you would tie into the dirt or gravel access road here where my cursor is. Oh, can you see it? And then they would still access from the same location they access from now, but rather than driving this entire dirt access road down the property line they would use the internal road until it comes over and then they would access their driveway in the same current location so no additional driveways or access across their property would be required. They would just be using the internal street up to the point that it connects with this existing gravel access road at which point they would use their existing driveway

the southwest corner to access their properties so so the map that we've been seeing that had that was originally proposed with the south access then that would have to change that is stubbed out for future development okay that's not where they're accessing future development of these two projects at some point in the future necessary yeah so i guess then my question would go now then to the developer you under we understand that um Would it make more sense then to shift that access, that south access then over to the west side then to accommodate this future development?

Again, I'm not really quite sure what you're asking here. The access for those two parcels on the south utilize a cross-access easement along this west boundary of the entire subdivision.

Which is what you're saying, that they should have to provide access to that west boundary, correct?

What I'm saying is that that access that runs along the entire west boundary should be removed, and they should just take access to Trumpet, because Trumpet will extend to the west in the future, which would mean that they would have to cross over Trumpet in order to access the cross-access easement to continue north, And then they would have to, when they hit their northbound, the street internal to the site on the north, then they would have to divert back to the east to exit out onto Moss at that location. It would not go straight through up to Moss. They're proposing to leave it there. but that is supposed to be a emergency access which would be ballered so that other residents within the subdivision wouldn't access through that emergency access or utilize their cross-access easement to access moss.

Okay. Do we have any future plans for those properties to the west of this one?

Yes, there is an application that's in for development of a development west of this site.

Yes, the development is, oh, we received roundtable inquiries for that, those groups of parcels directly west to this parcel, and then further west is North Celeste, which has already submitted an application.

I had right now Okay Staff I do have one more question for the staff just to clarify maybe I'm not exactly clear who owns that road That dirt road It is a cross-access easement That's granted as part of this parcel that's being developed So it's just a cross-access easement through that parcel to serve the two parcels to the south So it would actually be owned by the developer at this point. I

So then are they legally required to let those people get to their homes?

They are. Okay.

Thanks. Thanks for the clarification. No problem.

Any other questions? No, no. Okay. Then we will, do you have any questions? I don't actually, I have a question for the developer.

Um, so you're, you're proposing, That you don't want to close this road, essentially. You want to leave their access. Correct. This is for you guys.

I can Boise, Mr. Chair and Commissioner Vance. Yes, I want to address a few things, and I knew that was confusing and there'd be questions. But yes, so we have enjoyed our relationship with our neighbors to the south. We do own this road. We are legally obligated to provide them access from a public right-of-way to their property. We do have the right under Idaho law to relocate that easement, and we could theoretically put them within... the public right-of-way that we're dedicating. So, you know, along Gideon to Trumpet and then stub them to their property. That's one solution. That's what engineering is asking for. But we, again, have committed to this neighbor to make a plea with this body to try to retain this roadway. I know it's not... maybe the cleanest or very customary, but they enjoy the feel of the gravel road getting to their property. And we think we can design around it in a way that our community would not use it. It would just be the two homes using that for the daily access.

So the Trumpet access and the Eli Street access would be blocked off. They would have no access to this easement.

That's right. it would sort of happen iteratively, right? So if, if there was nothing developed on our Western boundary, which is the case today, we would essentially put a bollard in, um, I wish I had a pointer, uh, kind of on the backside of lot 22 there. Right. Um, so, so people coming at down trumpet couldn't, couldn't use it essentially. Um, If the property to the west were to develop, and we certainly want to provide cross access, I know that's very important, we would essentially put a gate on the dirt road just to the north of Trumpet. And those folks would otherwise have to use that gate as their access. So we'd have a paved road, Trumpet going east to west. they would enter into Trumpet from the south, and then cross Trumpet into their dirt driveway.

So in your crystal ball, is there any idea how long it would be before Gideon would be open to the south on that road, that access?

That's a really good question. And I think, I'm sorry, Mr. Chair and Commissioner Whitbeck. As far as we know right now, there are no development applications to our south. I think certainly it's within the city's prerogative in the future to say, hey, if you're developing that area to the south and you now have public road access via Gideon, we want to remove the dirt road. And at that time, again, it's an HOA lot. We'd make it a pathway, something like that, to provide some connectivity at the time.

Chair, it's another question for staff. Sorry to keep coming back to the same question. Say theoretically we make the recommendation to keep what they're suggesting to keep the dirt road. Then now this theoretically gets developed. What does the next development to the west do with the dirt road now? Because now who owns the road again is the same question I'd be coming back to. Because theoretically they own the road. But if the next developer is coming back, they're annexing it and touching it.

Planning and zoning, Morgan Besaw. One of the concerns that staff has, I mean, they would, this developer and this HOA would continue to own this road. It's on their property. But one of our concerns is that it will become a weed strip between two residential developments. And one of the suggestions was, okay, in a few years, if this road develops, you can come back to us and we'll turn it into a pathway. Well, in a few years, the developer will be gone and it'll be the HOA. And then we'll be asking the HOA to spend the funds to convert this weed strip to a pathway. And they probably aren't going to have the money or they're not going to want to raise the money, right? It's always hard to ask an HOA to do improvements that a developer should have done, which is why we would like to avoid all that and avoid the burden being placed on the HOA down the road to make sure it's clean today and make sure that there isn't going to be this weed strip between two residential developments in order to temporarily maintain a dirt road when there is a public road that accesses the same driveways.

Okay.

Thank you, staff. Thank you, applicant. Thank you.

Commissioners? You two answered both my questions.

I have no other questions for staff or for the applicant. You have another? No other. Okay.

All right. Well, then we're going to get on to the part of public testimony. Um, so in favor of this project, Paula Carter, you wish to speak. All right. Just state your name and your address and you have three minutes. Won't take that long.

My name's Paula Carter and I live at 1, 2, 4, 1, 1 Moss street, formerly Moss lane. And I'm a neighbor and a landowner to the proposed community Gideon's landing. I want to say I'm in support of the project because it blends in well with what has become a suburban neighborhood in which it's located.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So we have nobody in neutral, not in favor. Terry Lindberger, wish to speak? State your name, address, and you got three minutes.

My name is Terry Lineberger. I live at 12152 Moss Lane. My property is directly to the north of the proposed subdivision. Several things I want to point out. Number one, the police response to the development said they're going to have to have extra equipment, extra police to support this project. Right now they have 1.21 officers per thousand. And the national average is 2.4 officers per thousand. That is of 2019. So obviously the police department is understaffed to be able to support an additional subdivision like this. I submitted written documents and also photos of various intersections, and my big concern is with the traffic. Moss Lane and Midway, that intersection is just a two-way stop. Midway goes back and forth. You've got the bus barn down at Karcher Road with school buses coming down all the time during the school year, obviously. And there's been several wrecks there over the last year or two since I've lived there because of the excess traffic. And if you're going east on Moss Lane and you stop there at Midway, if you look to the south, it's very difficult to see the oncoming traffic because of the fence there at a business that's on that corner. Further down the intersection of Moss Lane and Celeste, just before you get there, the last 100 feet, 150 feet or so is basically a single lane road. That intersection is a disaster because there is no ability to see anything coming from the different directions. So it's really, traffic is a big issue. I'm concerned with the school system. There is an error I want to point out on page 161 of the docket documents that says that Falcon Ridge was under construction. Well, it's been open for a year. And I talked to Valley View School District today and asked various questions there. The proposed students would be going to Lakeview. Well, right now Lakeview has a capacity of 725 students. They have an enrollment at the end of last year, 697. Falcon Ridge has 820 capacity, 642 enrollment as of last year. But that is kind of somewhat deceiving because four of the classrooms are designated for a behavioral... issues there with the classrooms. Excess students, they said, would likely be sent to West Canyon. That's 10 miles to the west of the proposed subdivision. I don't have time here to go through the rest of the stuff But anyway, there's two two other subdivisions being proposed on Moss Lane on the south side one of them 97 Houses and the other one for 104 and because of these issues I would just urge the Commission to deny this until the intersection of Moss and Celeste has been something done with that and that whole infrastructure system Taken care of. Thank you an audit.

Thank you stand for questions or anything you have. Okay Thank you. Yep. All right. Next we have, uh, Cheryl Turner. He didn't put, Oh, you don't want to speak. Okay. Uh, Lee Rosanoff. And you want to speak? Okay. State your name, address.

My name is Leah Ross. Now I live at 1, 2, 2, 4, 9 Moss lane. We have, um, one of the two parcels that are the, behind the south. We're talking about the driveway and that kind of thing. And I'm just going to read my notes because I want to make my points. I live with my daughter and her family of seven in one of the two homes that are adjacent and directly behind the proposed development. Our driveway is the easement that runs parallel to the developer's property. The entire family was here last time, but they have family vacation pre-planned, so they couldn't be today, so I'm speaking for them as well. For the record, I too am very against the project for all the same reasons that have been or tried to be explained about the impact and infrastructure that seems to be impacting at a high rate of these homes being built all around us. But due to the proximity of our home, I'm asking tonight that if this parcel does go forward, that you would require the berms and open spaces to be included in the developer's developers' plans, which I just saw it seems like they're heading in that direction. The open spaces would immensely help to create a little bit of a barrier between our family's country living lifestyle that we've worked so hard to create and the proposed subdivision. I also appreciate the developers. We have talked with them keeping that easement open for us. That road's very important to our family. We bike down there. We walk our dogs down there. It's used a lot. And we also Chose that home because it was so far off the beaten path and try to keep back there We do not want to drive through a subdivision to get to our house The crowdedness I mean I've driven through subdivisions the the parked cars the children running out We just don't we do not want to drive through there. It just takes away from our homestead our country living lifestyle and To my understanding, there are legal matters discussed about the Persuade easement, about the easement that it is, and how it's written on our title of both of our homes, of the two homesteads that live back there. So thank you for allowing me to speak, but we really are in favor of keeping that road. And I know my son-in-law submitted, we all did, but letters, and I think addressing that as well after we sought legal counsel on it. As far as I know, I thought that they needed to sign off with us. So we had to sign off to let go of that easement because of persuade easement. Thank you.

Thank you. And we have one more signed up opposed. Steve, sorry, I can't read your last, is it?

Sesma.

Sesma, thank you. Do you want to state your name and address? And you got three minutes.

Thank you.

My name is Steve Sesma. I live at. 12063 Pendleton, Anderson, Nampa. Just an observation for one thing. In looking at the layout of the subdivision, it would seem that if they couldn't use the dirt road, that perhaps it would make it a cleaner exit if they were to go to the furthest west street that runs north and south, and that would give them a little cleaner exit from their residence. And that will also do another thing. The way it's set up now, The egress from the subdivision runs right into Terry's house. Everybody that enters and exits this subdivision, their house is an old farmhouse. It's real close to the road, and it's like right opposite from where these people are exiting. If that was switched, it would make life a little easier, I would think, for Terry, wouldn't it? Most definitely. The other one is the traffic. We've talked about that before. We've got three subdivisions that are coming in on this small road. It's just Moss. It doesn't even go through we've got Between three and four hundred homes that were just built to the north of Moss that utilize this road heavily Then we've got all these other subdivisions that are coming in and like was mentioned before Leaving going west on Moss. It's one lane. There's it's just too much traffic for too little road and With the size of the developments, I don't believe any impact studies have to be done. I would suggest at least an impact study on what's going to happen on this road when these three developments are in place, because I don't think Moss can handle it. Anyway, thank you for your time. Thank you.

All right. Applicant, you have five minutes if you want to rebuttal.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I could get my presentation back up, that would be great. OK. Those maps always help me. Just a few things. Wanted to touch on schools first. There are two comment letters from Mr. Palmer. from Valley View School District in the file for this project. They do mention the same capacity issues that were raised by Mr. Lindberger, but Valley View hasn't indicated any capacity concerns to us. The one school they mentioned, the elementary school, is still under capacity. And the second letter indicates that this developer's voluntarily agreed to pay an impact fee to the school district, which they've requested of us. So we don't feel like there are any school concerns in this instance. What I did want to highlight is that there's a lot of discussion about other developments coming in on Moss. And I think that's important because this is an infill area. This area will develop. It's currently sandwiched between the cities. And we are consistent with the development in the area. And I think that compatibility is important. The other piece of testimony that we wanted to address was the intersection Celeste and Moss to our west. Certainly understand that that's an issue. That is a city road. It's off-site for us. There's really nothing we can do in that instance. But we, like every developer, we will be paying our impact fees. We're happy to take on an additional, our proportionate share of the right-of-way for that, if that's the commission's will in this instance. So we want to be a part of the solution there. But really, it's not within our power at this time. It's got to be a city-initiated right of way acquisition to correct that problem. One thing I did also want to mention, if this is headed towards an approval tonight, We had committed to the neighbors, to our south, that we would restrict the first three lots on the west side of that southern boundary to be single story, those that are adjacent to their homes. So on this slide, it would be two, three, and four of that block on the south. So that's not a condition currently. And if the commission wanted to impose that, we would accept that. Think I touched on all of the issues raised but if there any questions or the Commission feels like anything's unanswered I'm happy to answer those questions Yeah chair have a question for the applicant You said you were trying to make affordable housing.

What what's the price range of trying to shoot for these homes? I Because not to be, yeah, not to be cynical, but everyone who's told us affordable housing is said market, which is not affordable. So I guess, yeah, you have a rough idea. Mr.

Chair and Commissioner Larson, like I said, our goal is to provide very high quality housing at attainable prices. What's affordable is certainly on the spectrum, right? We think we'll be in the 120% AMI range. Okay. Okay.

I think that's the only question I have for the applicant. I have some other questions for staff.

Okay. Any other commissioners? Any other questions for the applicant?

I have one more question. You said on lots, when we're going back to two, three, I also see what it looks like to be trees or some form of landscaping put along the property boundary there. Is that also being proposed to continue giving them their privacy?

Mr. Chair and Commissioner Vance, there is an existing solid tree grove there, and we would be preserving those as the commitment.

Okay.

Yeah. That's all I had.

Any other questions?

Yeah, a couple quick questions for staff.

Thank you.

Thank you. For the police and fire concern, what's the rule of thumb of how much an applicant approves for a fire person and a police person percentage-wise? Does it take six developments to get one policeman hired staff-wise or 12 developments for one firefighter? If you don't know the answer, that's okay. Just a rough idea on what it's supposed to be.

I don't have that information on the top of my head, but I am referencing the cover sheet because recently I think police and fire have been trying to put some of that information into the cover sheet. Um, while you're looking at currently Caldwell has a ratio of 1.21 officers to 1000 citizens. Um, To accommodate the expected 195 citizens, it would necessitate an increase of sworn officers by an approximately 0.2 officers to maintain the current ratio.

Okay.

Uh, the other couple of questions, can you define what, what, uh, infill is and spot zoning is for us to all be on the same page and what those two things mean?

So I don't, Let me see if we even have infill defined in our code. I think that when you say infill development, it means different things to different people, and we don't have necessarily an infill code right now, but typically it means, and it might be in our code actually, something about there is development on multiple sides of the parcel, and typically it's a smaller parcel. So we're not talking about 100 acres. A smaller parcel with development adjacent.

And then another maybe not so rhetorical question, but that doesn't mean it has to be infilled, correct?

What doesn't have to be infilled?

So if there's a spot of land that exists that could be annexed in, it doesn't mean it has to be annexed in. It's not a trick question.

Land does not have to be infilled to be annexed, nor does the inverse apply that it doesn't have to be infilled to be annexed, but it doesn't prohibit it or mean that we have to annex it if it is infilled. Okay. So I guess discretion to annex is left up to city council.

So every piece that touches that piece of property is not the city. That's correct, right?

So every piece is to the north where it doesn't touch it, where it's kitty corner to the two blue corners. That is, is city.

Okay. So I guess I'm trying to determine, is this a spot fill or an infill and do we have to infill something that's county and where's the line on where we take all the counties land? Annex it into city.

This is located within the city's area of impact. So it is anticipated that it will be annexed within five years That is the agreement that the city and county come to when we adopt an area of impact is that Anything in there we anticipate will be annexed in five years and this is in that area Okay, so the plan is that in five years all of this will no longer be camp County That is the anticipation.

Okay a reasonable Yeah, yeah, I'm not holding your word to her just generally I

Because this meets my definition in infill, right? Because you've got multiple developments surrounding it, per se?

I mean, generally, yes. Like I said, there's different definitions of infill. You also asked about spot zoning. So spot zoning would be more like where you have a zone that is standalone. So we were asking for R2, and there's nothing anywhere nearby. But there is R1 here. There's R3 here. And this is all identified as Available for our one or two within our comprehensive plan So I would say that anything that meets the anticipated zoning in our comprehensive plan is not considered spot zoning.

Okay? Okay, I think those are my questions.

Thank you, and if I could just try to touch on those two issues real quick I think miss Pasa did a great job, but I believe the definition of infill is is that we're surrounded by city limits. And so we are here. I think there's even less restrictive instances of something being infill. But again, you see city limits to our north, west, and south. And then we're hemmed in on the east by Nampa. So I think, yes, this is infill. And then I agree with the answer to spot zoning. There's a lot of case law about this. But essentially, if you're asking for a zone that's compatible with the comprehensive plan, it's not spot zoning.

thank you thank you any other questions okay any final clarifications from staff not at the moment Thank You commissioners sorry chair one more thing yeah for the traffic since there's no impact study what's the estimate of the eastbound westbound traffic

Mean you don't have anything do we have anything that would give us any indication of where they would go Down Moss east or west or you're anticipating all of them going down to Karcher We would we would anticipate the traffic is gonna go back to Midway and then they're either gonna go north or south Okay, so you're thinking they're gonna go to a majority of them.

I would assume would go to the closest Highway, which would be Karcher Road.

Okay, so Midway and and Karcher's where you think they're mostly gonna travel. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you chair. I

All right. I have a motion to close public testimony.

So moved.

Second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Okay. Time for us to deliberate.

I mean, the property is good. I like the development of it. It is an infill location and everything like that. I think the applicant has made tremendous strides to work with the neighbors in this area and trying to honor what was agreed upon with the sell of the properties. And I understand when everyone has their properties, they want to preserve those accesses and preserve those rights. Development is coming. We can't really stop that and everything. And this does fit into our code. But I also do understand staff's issues with that road. I'm struggling with that one.

It's funny that this dirt road seems like the hangout point.

Yes.

But, yeah, I agree with you. I think it's a good project. It's coming. It's surrounded all the way around.

The fact that there's another development next to it that's already been applied for, it's, I mean.

Yeah. So, I like it.

I guess I might have one more question for staff then at that point. Is that allowed to do that?

Yeah, they can still.

So on the, I believe is it the Gideon or no, sorry. It's the trumpet access. Would that trumpet access then potentially connect between the two subdivisions to be required? Would that be required to happen?

Yes. That was the intent between providing cross access between those two parcels. That's why I say that if it's, if it remains in place, then the applicant would have to cross over Trumpet to utilize that. That's where they're proposing to put a gate in. Eli as well? Correct. Yeah, the north access, and again, the north access that's in alignment with that driveway is actually only there for emergency access only for fire department services to access this site. It doesn't have an access to the south, which restricts some of the accesses out here for fire departments. Yeah.

In some ways, it's unfortunate that the development is ahead of what's going to happen in the future that would make it much more pleasant to deal with.

The other part of that is we're also looking that it's probably not even going to be ready until 2028.

Well, and we're also dealing, I mean, realistically with this road, what we're really dealing with is lot lines that were divided, you know, properties chopped up access is given permissions granted, you know, to individuals that didn't have rules in place for fire access, police access for, for a full community, their individuals. And so, I mean, I, I hate to say that, but that's the truth of what we're dealing with right here is we have individual properties, one, two, and three that are, now being, we have to provide access to all of these properties. And that's what staff is asking for. I don't have a good answer on that, unfortunately.

Anything else?

I guess another question for staff you might not have the answer to. What is the point at which we think that fire and police can no longer support something where it's close to endangering the the living of the people nearby if they're far too far away from a fire station and too far away from a police station where the, uh, not the cost of living, but the, the living expectations now go down.

Right. Fire and police have the opportunity to state that on the application and they did not state anything on here to that extent saying that they thought that this would be that impactful.

Once again, we're looking at the crystal ball, but for fire, by the time this is developed, fire will be available closer to this development. Yeah, theoretically at another station. Station 4, right? Station 4 and Station 5 proposed.

So I guess that brings up another question for staff on the future development, looking through the crystal ball. The future development that's proposed their plot to the west, they would be required to provide those cross accesses across this easement lot, correct? And connect it? That would be part of their development agreement?

That would be a no. It would not because their access does not reside on the parcel to the west. Their access solely resides on this parcel that is being developed. Because that access crosses public right of way, which is what staff is recommending just to take access to the nearest public right of way versus actually crossing over the right of way. but they wouldn't be required to provide any cross access for the adjacent parcel to the west because it does not, they don't take access to that parcel now and they wouldn't in the future.

And then my next question because I've seen this happen a couple properties Looking at the Gideon Road So the South property if the owner did decide ever they were wanting to sell am I get am I guessing that the city has already got proposed plans in there that a road An access road would have to sweep through that property Would that be?

Perceivable, I think what what you're asking is that the Gideon that extends to the south, correct? Yes any City record the city would would typically put it put in a or Request that they put in a stub Street for future access for an adjacent parcel, which is what we're doing here I think the intent here is that as development happens to the south of this site It will give better fire access and the emergency access wouldn't be needed TO THE MOSS ACCESS. AGAIN, THAT ACCESS DOESN'T REALLY COMPLY WITH THE STANDARD DRIVEWAY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MEET SPACING REQUIREMENTS ALONG COLLECTOR. SO, YES, WE WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT THERE WOULD BE FUTURE ACCESS FROM A SOUTHERN PARCEL.

WOULD THAT BE A CONDITION FOR APPROVAL?

YES. AS FAR AS INTERCONNECTIVITY, YES. AND FOR FIRE ACCESS, YES. OKAY.

THAT'S THE QUESTION I HAD THERE. Mr. Chair, I motion for the approval of based on the testimony and evidence and record of the matter upon findings and facts and conclusions to set forth the idea hereby determined and move that request that for ANN 26-07 and SPP 26-06 Gideon's Landing, I recommend it for approval provided on the following conditions that the developer honor the agreement of the original plat to keep the access road along the west area open, and then transfer the responsibility to the HOA. And two, that lots two, three, and four be developed as single-level homes only.

I have a second.

Can I ask for a clarification, just to make sure I was following? So an additional condition, limiting lots two, three, and four to single-story, and removing condition two that staff wrote. Correct. Okay.

Okay. That's my motion.

Excuse me, commissioners. Are you removing conditions too completely, or are you amending it to the applicants proposed?

I'm amending it to the applicants proposed. Thank you.

Second. So what do we do here?

Someone has another motion and they propose another motion.

Anybody got another motion?

I can make for a motion and for a denial, but I don't know that anybody wants that. Based upon the testimony and evidence in recording this matter and upon the finding of facts and conclusion of law set forth herein, I do determine and move that Then 26-0 7 and SSP 26-0 6 Gideon Landon be recommend based for denial Based upon the infrastructure needs that are currently not met. I think other development needs to be met nearby So it's not it's not no because it's the development. It's no because there's other developments.

I need to come nearby first So I got a question for staff. This is quasi judicial, right? so if it meets all the requirements and Can you can you explain this to us real quick because I think we can't just this has to be based on the merit of this law this Piece of property only not what could come what could come later agree.

That is correct It does have to be based on the merits of this lot only not what other applications may be in the works That being said it is an annexation. So council does have a little bit of discretion on and whether or not they want to approve an annexation. It's just not an automatic approval because they meet code. Okay. If that helps.

No, that does help. Do I have a second?

On the denial.

Second on the denial. Second.

Okay. Roll call.

Larson. Yes. Whitbeck.

Yes.

Harmon.

No.

Vance.

No.

And so because of because the council changed the code there's no way in which it can be going forward with an approval or denial You know, I guess when you could always make another motion for approval potentially a change the conditions Maybe that would you know sway a member?

Mr. Chair, I open we deliberated a little bit more I'm Understood the applicants and I maybe understand why maybe my motion was did not get a second But I don't think the project I think the project is sounded as it is I can understand the access road being an issue so So I guess with that then I would make us I've removed my first part of my motion and to leave the access road and follow staff's recommendation to, what was it, condition two, to agree with condition two, as staff has provided, and then keep my motion for my second of lots two, three, and four being developed as single family only. I'd be willing to consent to that.

Okay. We have a second to that. All right, guys, what's going to get us there?

What do you think in there, Phil?

We can also, because we've already closed the public hearing, so we can just continue this for further commission deliberation to the next meeting as well. We can leave the commission. As long as no new information is provided, we don't have to open public testimony at the next meeting, and it could give the commission just two more weeks to think about it.

That's essentially kicking the can down the road and then stacking up more. I'm surprised we don't have five after two months. Well, you haven't seen the next agenda yet. I'm very thankful for that.

I mean, I would like us to get to some place today and really for the developers. Agreed. You know, every time you keep delaying this, that's somebody else's money you're playing on. Right.

I mean, I understand that this is only 67 pieces. We've seen much larger ones than this. It is infill it is and it's gonna be there. It's it's not this one. They could the secondary the other Development could scoop this up and and put all 67 in with its X number that they might apply for I mean at one way or another there's I Agree that the I'm not happy with the south facing properties being cut off of their access road That's why I made my motion the way I did but I can understand that Especially from the fire and safety perspective why and for future development why that is a problem So that's why I was willing to retract that motion But as far as the development is they are only four point four point one three Is that right units four point six, which is reasonable, which is very reasonable. They could ask for quite a bit more They're over the ten percent minimum. They're at twelve percent. I mean there

But in single stories, have a consideration for the labor?

Yeah, in my opinion, I much rather, I mean, and I'm not supposed to have an opinion. This fits the code. But in an opinion, it doesn't matter here. I'd rather have a smaller development like this with, as we talked about traffic study, this puts a less of an impact on the area that is going to happen, whether we want it to or not. Our job is to deliberate the code. and make sure that everyone is following it. And this developer is following it. And it's going over and above to follow it, in my opinion.

I agree that the development itself follows the code, but as far as the traffic flow is functionally only going to be out to Moss. Correct. And so I believe we have the right to

deny just on the basis of traffic flow on the moss does not meet but what needs to be but what's it but what's it meet because there's no others they're not connecting you they're not gonna if you look at the geographic of this property it's landlocked by its own by the net they don't have access to any other streets. Now, am I right to say that there's two other two accesses going on to Moss? Is that correct? There's only one. Just the one. Okay. So that's, that's your issue because you're from a fire safety. The other is fire only. Correct.

Fire and safety only. Can I interrupt here for just one second? EVEN THOUGH THE PARCEL, EVEN THOUGH THIS IS SHOWING TWO ACCESSES HERE, ONE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE AN EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY, BUT WITH THE ADJACENT DRIVEWAY, IT WOULD ACTUALLY SHOW AS TWO ACCESSES. SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. THEY'RE PROPOSING TWO ACCESSES, ONE WHICH WAS SUPPOSED TO BE EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY, BUT IS FUNCTIONING AS A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY, AS A FULL ACCESS.

So your disagreement with is the single access only on the mosque like but it's landlocked. There's no other access to any other correct So you're saying except the dirt road well, but the dirt road only goes to mosque, correct? Yes, so it still goes to mosque So we're denying a development based on the fact that they can only buy this much land They can't buy any other adjacent lands that connect to so if we were to look at THE OTHER PROPERTY GOING TO THE WEST THAT IS PROPOSED RIGHT NOW, THREE OR FOUR LOTS, THEY WOULD ALSO HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM. CORRECT. NOW, THEY MAY BE ABLE TO PUT TWO ACCESSES ON THE MOSS, BUT THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PUT ANY ACCESS IN THE END.

WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT THE OVERALL TRAFFIC Staff is mossed one lane or not. Is it two lanes? I

Moss is actually two lanes except for one bottleneck at the corner of Celeste and Moss which is There's an existing home that has not will not dedicate right-of-way out there which limits this to one lane It is not currently it would it has not currently been used as as a roadway and therefore the city doesn't technically have Prescriptive right-of-way adjacent to that parcel either so that would be Obtaining right-of-way is very difficult at this point.

So all traffic is to the east.

That's why I say that, yes, that most of your traffic would go back to midway, and it would direct either north or south, most likely south to the nearest highway.

there any kind of future plans developments or anything like that for moss i mean at what point i know that a lot of times we put some of these develop are some of these um and those sort of impacts these are for for the developments of these roads and everything like that and they're widening at are there any future plans for moss to be developed maintained or expanded i would like to say yes because

I don't know if that's an accurate statement, honestly. Again, the city has tried to purchase this right-of-way numerous times and work with this out parcel owner to obtain that right-of-way. I think Hayden has actually approached the city to help in procuring that. Um, currently, um, the only avenue that the city currently sees in this is, is a condemnation for that right of way. Um, previous mayor didn't want to pursue that at that time. And I don't know that the current mayor is, is looking to do that either at this time. I think his development, uh, increases out here and the need for that, that may change, but I can't speak to that honestly. I hope that answers your question.

Looking at this Celeste bottleneck, it's exactly what we're talking about. We're talking about lot lines that were developed and hashed in there and without any form of rules or regulations. And that's why that bottleneck is existing, which is why the road cannot expand properly. So what we are doing here is essentially applying the rules to where this doesn't happen. I mean, it's not ideal right now. But if we don't do it, and again, we're just following what our city code and what our elected officials put forth to staff and staff rights code for, and hopefully to stop these kind of things. But the only way to do that is to develop. And so again, it does meet all the requirements

Staff what percentage of our approvals and denials do the council and mayor actually approve? It's not as yet. These are not trick questions Do you know what percentage of our approval or denials that?

City Council and the mayor actually follow I Don't know those numbers off the top of my head Yeah

Because I'm not that, again, not to be cynical here, but if we say yes or no, it doesn't really matter because council has final say anyway.

Correct. And our job is just to.

To make the best decision to make it recommend for.

To follow the code as well as we see fit.

Yeah, for the planning and the zoning of Cobb. Correct. So, yeah, I think Whitbeck and I think infrastructure is not really ready. I'm fine with this. If it's going to be five years, we have four more years to wait. but I don't know that I want to, his development is pretty good, or their development is pretty good.

It's just... So essentially what you're saying is, and just trying to crystal ball this a little bit, that bottleneck right there at Celeste is what's stopping that road from being developed deep, and we have a holdout. At the only point that city or government has a chance to fix that right now is eminent domain. And that is not what the current mayor is probably going to do. Well, that's just not a good topic for any conversation. That's essentially exactly what they're talking about. We're telling the developers taking their road, but the city's trying to make... The council's not going to vote for that. Yeah, they're not going to vote for that. They can't vote for that. No, they never would. But what I'm saying is we're trying to fix those problems with this developer right now and fix, you know, some of these road issues. It's not ideal for some of the existing homeowners, but it's a best case scenario right now.

So then one more question for, for the, uh, city engineer, this wasn't on the table, but that's not the, the dirt pathway is not a road and you would, there would be no way for us to recommend it to be a road that's paved. Correct, correct. So if he thinks we don't want the weeds, but we want it to be a road We can't make that recommendation because it's not planned for being a road It's not that it's not planned for being a road.

The bigger issue here is is city code Doesn't allow it to a classified roadway with adjacent development and that is per the access and connectivity code that the city currently has SECTION, IT'S GOING TO BE NUMBER THREE, SECTION A, NOTE FOUR, SPECIFIES THAT ANY ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT TO AN EXISTING PARCEL, WE CAN RESTRICT THE ACCESS, WE CAN RESTRICT THAT ACCESS TO A CLASSIFIED ROADWAY AS LONG AS WE STILL PROVIDE ACCESS TO PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH WOULD BE THE INTERNAL ROADWAY OUT HERE. Bigger issue here is it doesn't meet access spacing requirements of 150 feet between driveway spacing along the classified roadway So now you've got two roadways that are within 150 feet which would create an immediate turning conflict with people coming out of this driveway and driving Westbound with people turning out of the adjacent subdivision on the north turning eastbound. This is a direct conflict of turning within too close a proximity of one another of each of those accesses.

So that explains a little bit of why there's only a single access onto Moss Lane because of that 150 feet. So there's no way to essentially move move in phase one, lot nine and eight over to parcel one and create a secondary access right there because of that 150 foot distance.

Correct. When you start, yeah, because there's an existing street and you can just barely make it out in this image. There's an existing street to the northwest of this proposed driveway access here, which is extremely close to the emergency access that fire requires there. So that's exactly where the problem lies, really, here. IF THAT STREET DIDN'T EXIST, THEN CHANCES ARE WE WOULD SAY, YEAH, WE HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THIS, BUT BECAUSE OF THE ACCESS BASING ON A CLASSIFIED.

SO WE HAVE COUNTY CODES CLASHING WITH CITY CODES, ESSENTIALLY. WE HAVE COUNTY CODES CLASHING WITH CITY CODES ESSENTIALLY AT THAT POINT.

NO, I WOULDN'T SAY THAT'S NECESSARILY THE CASE. THIS IS AN EXISTING PARCEL, AND THEREFORE They're allowed to have that what the city code requires that each parcel have its access And so we've provided that access same thing as the county would have to provide access to any parcel Whether it's classified or residential street. It's required by code when development happens adjacent to a classified roadway the restriction to that access can be Restricted as long as we still provide public access to the out parcel down below which we are doing with the internal roadway which is just .

Anybody got a change of heart?

I don't think so. Another question. What's our general? This city engineer again. What's our general rule of thumb of how close we need to approximate? How close were when we're approving a development how many miles or? Blocks do we think that we would be evaluating for impact when you're doing like an impact study? Is it a half a mile a quarter mile so we're deciding if Moss Lane is really something that's impacted How far is far enough because we don't go 12 miles We don't go 12 miles away ago that house needs to be taken care of correct and so

The traffic impact is actually done on number of doors, technically, and the number of trips per household. And that threshold is 100. If we feel like that they're closing in on that 100 and the proximity to the state highway that's down there, then we could potentially require that. We could still go back and require that. If you guys see fit and you would like to have that analysis done, then we could easily go back and ask the applicant to do that now at this time before they go to council or before we come back to a commission.

I can go with an approval if you ask for them to have a traffic impact study of Moss. to say whether it is or isn't safe and then if they want it or they don't want it.

Then it would be up to council. Then council would have that information. Prior to city council.

Prior to city council. I could say approval.

So you're saying you would rather.

I would want them to know can you prove that this is actually safe or not safe and if it's traffic impact study would prove that.

Typically how much do those traffic impact studies cost on a development of this size?

That I can't tell you. I'm not sure. From Hayden may be able to to speak to that To that solution to answer the question a TIS of this scale is probably somewhere in the ten to fifteen thousand dollar range and

And we have done some preliminary investigation of moss. And it backed up the city engineer's comments, which is not surprising. But trip distribution we think will be 85% to the east coming out of the access and 15% to the west. But we can do more study about the capacity of moss. I think that's your issue.

Yes. Yeah. Yeah. So I can... I can say approval to something if you can ask for the development to have a traffic impact study done before city council.

Okay. I would concur.

Because I can't, although Whitbeck and I, thank you. Although Whitbeck and I, yeah. I do slightly agree that we don't have data, but I've driven on that road and it's one lane.

What about, okay, so with that idea of that condition, what about, I mean, I presented... Two other parts of the motion. What would your thoughts on those two parts?

I would want them to make it a road, but we can't legally do that. So, yeah.

Okay, so we're going to stick with staff.

Yeah, I think I would lean toward what staff wants because we're trying to holistically make a big decision on what's planned.

And we realistically have to think about the future prospects.

And it will become a weed thing. It's a reality. Yeah. All right. With that, Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion.

All right. Commissioner Vance.

Based upon testimony and evidence of the record of the matter, upon findings and facts and conditions of law set forth herein, I do hereby determine and move that I request that ANN 26-07 and SPP 26-06 Gideon Landing, recommended for approval, subject to the conditions of approval presented, that One, lots two, three, and four be developed as single-level homes only. And two, that a traffic impact study is requested and provided before final council approval. Second.

Okay. Roll call.

Vance. Yes. Whitbeck.

Yes.

Harmon. Yes. Larson.

Yes.

Okay. Do I have a motion to adjourn?

Second. So moved. Second.

So moved. All in favor?

Aye.