Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

We have a person that's going to join um through teams. Her name is Lauren. I don't know if she's Yeah, because I haven't I haven't I haven't got her email from email from her. Do you want to? Yes, please. Forward it to me. I'm like, let's see how this comes in. I don't know. Ready. All right. Um, this is planning and zoning commission regular meeting August 13, 2025. I'm go ahead and call this uh meeting to order. Roll call, please. Zamora

here. Harmon. Uh, Bros, here. Larson, here. Vance here. Whitbeck. Thank you. We do have a quorum. Uh so we'll move on. Is there any conflict of interest declarations from any of the commissioners? Yes. I have a conflict on item uh the first item action item for the public hearing for case number 13 for the signage. Okay. Thank you for disclosing that up front. Um and just by way you'll be recusing yourself from that vote, correct? Yes, I recuse myself from the vote. I will also be speaking on on the item itself. Uh but I am here to obviously make court. Thank you for that disclosure. Moving on. Oh, any other

see none. Moving on. Uh item four, special presentations, which are none. So with that, I'll move on to item five, which is the consent calendar. I'd entertain a motion to approve um the consent calendar. So moved. Second. There was a motion for Commissioner Bros and a a second from Commissioner Larson. Any discussion? Seeing hearing none, all those in favor say I. I.

No one opposed. Um item carries. All right. So we'll move on to review of proceedings. Um so this is a regularly scheduled meeting for the Caldwell Planning and Zoning Commission. We serve both in a decision-m capacity and the advisory and an advisory cap cap, excuse me, and an advisory capacity to the mayor and city council. There are two types of public hearings that this commission conducts. The first is a legislative hearing whereby we formulate recommendations on certain land use requests. Our recommendations are then forwarded onward to the city council who makes the decisions on legislative matters. The second type of public hearing is quasi judicial. A quasi judicial hearing involves a consideration of a land use request such as an annexation, reszone, classification, or approval of a subdivision preliminary plaque. The public hearing procedures as required by Idaho code are as follows. Oral and written testimony will be accepted from those who have signed in to speak prior to hearing being being declared open. When providing testimony, please come to the podium and state your name and address which will be included in the record. Staff will first present a report regarding the application being considered. Um, following that, public testimony begins. The applicant or the applicant's representative will present a summary of the request for no longer than 10 minutes. Testimony of those in support will be taken, followed by those in a neutral position, and finally those in opposition to the request, and all public testimony will be limited to 3 minutes or less. Finally, the applica uh the applicant will be offered the opportunity to provide a rebuttal testimony and any follow-up clarification offered by the planner. After the rebuttal testimony is given, the public testimony portion of the public hearing will be closed and no new oral rain testimony will be allowed. So with that, um item seven on the agenda is old business, which there are none. So moves us to item eight, new business. Um so this um first item is action item is an action item um which is case number SUP25-13. Staff report please

Mr. Chair. There we go. I really don't want to eat the mic. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Good evening. Just for the record, my name is Joe Dodson, principal planner here at the city of Cwell, 205 South 6 Avenue. I honestly do not remember our zip code, but um there we go. Before you tonight, the first item is a uh special use permit for Falcon Ridge Elementary monument sign. Just for clarity, this site, the school, this never works when I want it to. It's on. I promise. I checked. All right. Next slide, please. There we go. Site is located on the west side of South Montana approximately 1300 ft uh from the Montana and Carter intersection. Property address is 14670 Academic Lane. The proposed sign is uh adjacent to Academic Lane, which is basically the whole south boundary of the property. It is the only access point for the new Falcon Ridge Elementary School located on the property. Nearby uses include the Valley View Middle School directly to the west, a charter school to the south, some single family residential directly to the east along Montana, and then a vacant parcel to the northnortheast as you can see with no coloring there. Next slide, please. The request before you tonight is for a special use permit to allow an increase in the total monument

sign area from 24 ft to 32 ft with an electronic message center or reader board, however verbage you want to use there, that exceeds the allowable square footage within said monument sign. Um, cobalt city code 100206 states that the maximum allowable electronic message center area is not to exceed 25% of the allowable total signage. So 25% of the 32 square ft would be about 8 square feet. They are proposing next slide. They are proposing 16.8 square ft which is a little over 50% of the total signage square footage. uh this is hence why they have to submit the SUP. The point of this uh is twofold really. It allows staff and the commission an opportunity to review and require any specific changes or or just requirements for the signage based upon overall code requirements, vision statements within the code and other guiding principles that the city may be aiming to accomplish with signs. It's also to ensure that the proposed signage is compatible where it is proposed and in its overall design. For example, electronic message centers can be extremely bright. Um, and frankly can be a hazard to drivers at night. I've had this issue with a couple schools nearby where I live. It has been extremely bright for some reason and it has been a danger. Um thankfully what is being proposed here the applicant has proposed uh the correct kind of dimming within the message reader and as well because of where it's placed it is not placed along a public road and therefore should be minimally invasive to any adjacent properties or residences. Next slide please. As far as comments, no public agencies, no city departments, nor public comments were received. I did

not receive a phone call or anything. Uh the building permit for the monument sign itself is what city staff reviewed and then triggered this SUP. So the engineering department and other departments have already reviewed the monument sign and all that. I believe everybody has approved it except for me because of the SU. So it's it's all my fault. Darn code. As far as sight specific conditions, there were none other than to state you comply with what's been submitted. So staff does not have any concerns with the proposal. Just we have to do this to ensure that we're being compatible with the neighborhood. Next slide, please. So with that, if the commission approves of this request, since you are the deciding body on an SUP, then uh it will be subject to the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order of decision. And we can go to the applicant's presentation. Thank you. Thank you for that presentation. At this time, I'll have the applicant come up. I don't have the form, so I'm not sure it's official applicant coming up. State your name and address into the record, and you'll have no uh you have up to 10 minutes.

Can you give me one second? Yep.

Aaron Vance, 1814 O'Hara Street, Calto 83605. I am the owner of Superior Signs and I am presenting this sign. Um, one thing I'd like to point out is, uh, we provided some other pictures of other signage that we have done for the Valley View School District. We understand that the code has changed and that's why we are having a staff review at this time. This sign, as you can see from some of you, which was the last one we did for the Valley View School District. This is the same size message center, same size sign, but much smaller in height. Still has the same um, type of foundation. Um we try to keep it keep the signs harmonious with the building and everything as is code asks us to do that as well. Um just we so we have obviously reduced our size and footprint for this sign. Um we did this with uh Warhawk Elementary which is a sister school to this one in the Napa school district. Um it's already been installed and running. It matches to to the school as well just with the colors and everything. Um yes the sign itself does have it actually has autom Dacttronics is the manufacturer of this message center. They are one of the leaders of manufacturers in the EMC industry. They have gone all the way to the Supreme Court with the whole dimming control system. They have builtin uh dimming control systems in the sign. So the sign does reduce side or reduce brightness down to 7% uh at night. Only during the day when it has to overpower the sun when is when it is at its brightest. But as Joe pointed out, this sign doesn't even sit on the roadway. This sign only will be seen and act and seen by the actual parents and staff um of the school district. It won't even impact the um the houses uh within 500 ft of it. So, it's one of those it like I said, I don't see it as an invasive. The Skyway Elementary one when we did it, we also had to go through um a public hearing on that one. We had some feedback and everything like that on it from the um from the neighbors. They wanted it to be shut down at a specific

time of night. I see no problem with that. It's all very programmable and I would propose that to the school to hey, they don't need to run after 10:00 at night. There's no one there, no one present. So, those are things that I'm willing to propose to the school for this one. Um the sign itself is of a high quality and it's something that all schools are using these days to get information out to students and parents um as so that they don't have to send out flyers and notices all the time. So it's become a very common practice. Um if can I go next slide please? Or do I have the ability to do that?

Oh is that the only one you got? Oh that's fine. Okay. We we had about seven. Calwell school district is also in part of this. Um they have they have three other signs right now that that I've bid on for this. So it's the same similar issue that may come up. Um it's when it comes to the message centers themselves the size that is proposed and I can understand that staff has reasons that um where where they suggested and why message centers are one of those things when it comes to the resolution there's a millimeter pitch that uh is involved. The tighter the millimeter pitch the better the resolution. So that does allow you to shrink the size of the sign down, but of course with that the cost goes up. It's just like buying a really expensive TV with high resolution. So the the reason the size of this sign is what it is is one to allow for um being able to get the information out in um how do I say in an efficient fashion because when you're driving along a road there's at 35 or even 25 of these school zones as they are um you don't have a lot of time to get that information out. So you have to make sure people can read it one slide at a time because they're not going to get it all at once. Whereas if you make that so small, no one's going to be able to read it and they're squinting. And then at that point, as Joe said, then you may have an issue as far as safety goes. So the size increase is for that purpose of one functionality and two for safety in that regard and also based just based on what we've done in the past. So that's really all I have.

Thank you. All right. Um, so with that, nobody else has signed up. Um, so I think this is an opportunity for commissioners to ask questions both of the applicant and of staff. Uh, Commissioner Bros. So I I do have a staff question. Um, would approval of this sign size change constitute precedence for any future signage? It looks like what makes this feasible are a potentially unique set of circumstances. So rather than uh this look like precedents for future approvals, do we need to attach all of those variable conditions that make this feasible to this approval so it's not misinterpreted?

Commissioner Bros, Commission, I would agree with you that it does not set a precedent for the reasons you stated because of what they've already submitted and what's discussed in the staff report. I don't know that any motion would need to be um inclusive of additional information like that. It's already in the record, I guess you could say. Okay. So, I'm aware that there is a signage workshop with city council scheduled for October 6th. Correct. Is that going to be targeted at revising the code to memorialize uh signs like this and the variable conditions that make them feasible?

Commission. Commissioner Butress. Uh yes and no. It won't just be about EMC's. It will be broadly discussed about the recent sign code changes um that reduced a lot of signage at the request of city council including freeway oriented signs, you know, pole signs in general, monument signage, all of those things. But this would also be part of it and whether or not we missed the mark on the allowable area, etc. But um that yeah, it it wouldn't be because of this project alone. It's it's Superior Science is not the only one that has reached out. Let me put it that way. Thank you.

Um, thank you for the question. I guess just in my thought to that and and staff, you can uh Joe, you can um chime in. But I I I do believe I mean the whole point of SUP is that we look at the individual situation. So, we're not necessarily creating precedents. If we are, then you know that would just be memorialized in in maybe a in an ordinance and just be straight up allowable. Um, so I I do think that we had review this uh independently. I don't know. I think that's what I heard you say, Joe. U Joe, Mr. Chair, I would agree. Yes. Other questions, comments for um for applicant commission,

if I could add something on that, counselor chairman. Um so this is one of those special situations and I understand with the code um this is in a residential zone. When it comes to signage, signage are ideally for a commercial application, but there's only two types of businesses or facilities that usually end up in residential. That's churches and schools. So, usually in a code, there can be considerations for those. Um, and certain codes do do that and and we and I can point those out. Um, the star itself actually only allows EMC's for uh schools and city um city facilities. not exactly ideal but and everything but there can be exceptions made for these zones because the idea like you said we don't want to impact the neighbors and that's not our goal here our goal is to get information out to you helping the schools get information out to the people that that it needs to which is usually the people surrounding the schools so I think yes maybe like uh commissioner Mjo said maybe there can be some changes and yes we do have a workshop there's a lot to to work on and we are more than willing to help um there's multiple sign companies willing to come to come um come forward now and talk about this in a little bit just to maybe help make this a little simpler so where not necessarily that it shouldn't be reviewed by by commission um but that it just moves smoother for you guys and for staff. So yeah,

thank you Commissioner Larson. Yeah, Chair, just a question for the applicant. What's the general life expectancy for this one that we're going to put in?

Uh ideally I would like to see this 15 years on this. Um unfortunately in the industry we are seeing such um tremendous changes in technology that the typical lifespan is is they're they're saying is 10 years. I have some out there as long as 25 years but the manufacturer itself is only giving a 10-year lifespan on it before they change out. Case in point um Yat Stadium right now that is coming up. Uh the site is nine or sorry 10 years old. Um, we are looking at the idea of moving it and rebuilding it because they're no longer supporting the parts necessary for the sign itself. Um, that comes down to the manufacturer. It's a struggle that I deal with all the time, being able to bring forth a quality product. Um, like Joe pointed out uh signs that were too bright. That is a na that went all the way to the Supreme Court years ago. That is a nationally recognized standard that all signs should do that, but not all manufacturers follow that. So me as a good U fabricator, I should be bringing forth good quality products that meet those kind of standards. So that is part of the struggle I deal with is finding those products that are going to meet standards and last and to so they don't fall into degradation, you know.

Thank you. Thank you, chair. Any other questions, comments? All right. Thank you. Joe, do you have any final planner clarifications? If not, I think at this time nobody else signed up. I I'm presume you don't have any further rebuttal at this time. No, I don't. Okay. So then I would entertain a motion to close public testimony. So moved. U comm that was Commissioner uh Larson. Is there a second? Second. Second for Commissioner Bros. All those in favor say I.

I. Any opposed? Motion carries. All right, it's time for us to deliberate. um looks pretty straightforward and because it's categorized as a special use permit um I that mitigates my concern about somehow a flood of applicants coming in asking for the same type of percentage. Well, and just to a point brought up earlier, I think two things in addition to that. Um it's just the dimming feature built into this specific product and two that this is not necessarily on a on a m a roadway. you know, along the the roadway for the school itself,

right? And those are certainly mitigating features that that make this feasible. Any other comments? No. If not, I'd entertain a motion at this time. I'll make a motion. Commissioner Larson. Based upon the testimony, evidence and record in this matter and upon the finding of fact and conclusions of law set forth herein, I do hereby recommend, determine, and move that the request for SUP25-13 for Valueview School District is approved subject to the conditions of approval as presented or amended. Is there a second? Second. Second for Commissioner Bros. Uh, roll call, please. Uh, Larson, yes. Bros, yes. Zamora,

yes. And with that, um, motion carries. Um, so then we'll move on. We'll close that, um, public hearing and move on to the next action item on new business, which is a public hearing. Um, case number A&N25-7, SP25-7. Staff report, please. And look at that. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Commission. Again, um Joe Dodson, principal planner here at the city of Caldwell. Next one on the docket is Hunter Path Subdivision, ANN25-07 and SP25-07. subject site is located uh northwest of the marble front and aviation way intersection. It's south of Lincoln Road. It has frontages to Lincoln Future Aviation along the east boundary and then marble front to the south. It is about 23.86 acres and is currently in the county, hence the annexation request before you tonight. approved developments and surrounding conditions for the subject site. Um, typically when we look at the approved developments, we're only doing residential, but because there's so much going on generally, I did include additional types of development in here just to show that there is a mix of development in the area. And this is a true onem radius um within this subdivision. So, I won't go through the list, but just to highlight, um, there's a mix of uses out here that are, you know, residential, commercial, and industrial in nature. Um, including the North Ranch Business Park, which is number six. Home Depot, which is number seven there. U-Haul Storage is eight, at

least the blue is the blue zoning there. The red zoning is actually Prospector Point, which is an affordable unit housing project. Same with the number nine being a multif family housing project that's affordable. Uh so I just wanted to highlight a few of those for the area. Directly the surrounding the site are actually multiple county zone residential properties. They are not annexing to the city. Its touch is technically it is to the north which would be Huntington Ridge East to the west which is a city park site and then to the south which is R1 but it is an RV park. Um directly abudding most of the property boundary are again county residential properties and then to the east there is also a vacant county property. The requests before you tonight are for annexation of approximately 25.7 acres with an initial zoning request of R2. The annexation does include the adjacent rightway area which is why it's larger than the parcel sizes themselves. Uh they also include a new preliminary plat for Hunter Path subdivision. As far as the comprehensive plan is concerned, the subject site and all adjacent parcels are designated as neighborhood 2 on the future land use map. The neighborhood 2 place type is the primary residential place type in the city of Caldwell. This encompasses residential areas that provide an array of low and medium density housing options. These neighborhoods are located outside of most commercial centers, but should be well connected to commercial areas and nearby services. Nonetheless, this place type anticipates residential developments with a gross density of 2 to eight dwelling units per acre. Again, that's gross density, which is low to medium density residential. Compatible zoning districts compatible zoning districts for the neighborhood to place typer R1, R2, C1, and PD, which is public. In addition, the subject site

has an area hub which is delineated in this dashed circle around. Probably the first time you guys have seen an application with that. Generally, uh the only real thing it contemplates within the comp plan is it is anticipated to include areas that are encourage density essentially within even these neighborhood areas because they're supposed to be activity centers essentially. are supposed to be near institutions like a school or public other public facilities um or commercial corridors. In this case, there is a school Vanier Elementary to the southwest and a city future park site directly to the west, but it is owned by the city currently. Uh it also says that the minimum gross density should be four units per acre. Based on the submitted plan, staff does find the proposed development is consistent with the comp plan and the area hub designation um because it proposes a transitional housing type of detached single family with different lot sizes, which I'll get into shortly, and a gross density of 5.2 units per acre. As noted, the application does request an initial zoning of R2. R2 is a compatible zone, as I listed for the neighborhood 2 designation. There's also R2, you know, adjacent on the southeast corner there. Uh R2 does permit a number of residential housing types varying from detached single family, attached single family as well as I believe duplexes and triplexes. They are proposing detached single family throughout this um subdivision and those single family detach is permitted directly within the R2 district. So therefore looking at the comp plan and as well as the zoning ordinance as far as mission statements and everything for that for the R2 uh staff does find it's compatible in this location because it transitions from the RV park to the south as well as the

institutional uses to the west to the as it transitions to the north. It'll be a medium density to the low density that's proposed or already approved in Huntington Bridge east to the north. As far as the development specifically, the preliminary plat includes 125 single family lots on the 23.86 acres, which again is 5.2 units per acre. Uh they generally provide 40 foot and 50 foot wide lots to offer some variety in each individual site and building designs. Platt also depicts open space lots adjacent to adjacent out parcels where feasible and they provide substrates in logical locations where future connectivity can occur. Um the proposed plat depicts compliance with all zoning ordinances except for landscape items and those have been conditioned as you've seen within the staff report. Therefore, staff does not have any specific concerns with what has been proposed. There's nothing no glaring red flags that staff found here. The minimum lot size for the R2 zone is 4,000 ft. This plat is proposed with a minimum lot size of 4360 give or take, but has an average lot size of approximately 5,000 ft² and therefore it's consistent with the R2 zone. Development is proposed to be completed in two phases with phase one including their required accesses to Lincoln and Marblefront to make sure that they have their required fire access. The applicant is proposing 2.8 8 acres of qualifying open space which is about 11.7%. A minimum 10% is required. So they are exceeding their open space requirement. Uh they're also just to highlight including a pathway connection along the west boundary that's wider than what code would require and this would be for future connectivity to the city park site there. I do not have specific timing on that. I do know that city engineer as well as the parks and rec director have met with planning about this site. So I know it's at least

on our minds. As far as amenities are concerned, they are proposing multiple amenities where none are required in code for a base level subdivision. Amenities include a shade structure, a wildflower garden with seating, um multiple multiple multi-use lawn areas, and multiple play areas that include a traditional playground as well as a nature play area. And I'm sure the applicant will describe those in much greater detail than I'm able to. uh engineering and planning reviewed and fire reviewed the plat for access and utilities and all utilities and access will be provided and have been considered compliant with code requirements. Therefore, there are no concerns from any of the city departments regarding that project was notified per state statute. The Caldwell School District, Compass, our MO, our Metropolitan Planning Organization, and ITD as well as Franklin Ditch Company responded to the application. Calwell School District provided general information for anticipated schools on where they would attend and noted that uh the potential children within the proposed subdivision should be able to be accommodated by the district. Uh they just noted a lack of pedestrian facilities between the subdivision and Van Beerren Elementary which is of course because the out parcels through the engineering department's review they are requiring a number of sidewalks along the out parcels to help mitigate this issue which is typical of every subdivision when there are out parcels adjacent to a a project like this. Compass provided their communities in motion checklist uh did not raise any glaring issues. They don't support or not support projects. They just provide information. ITD noted the proximity of the project to highway 2026 and recognizes recognized that all of the mitigation recommendations within the TIS um and but noted that they do not

include any ITD facilities and they had no additional comments. So, ITD was not concerned. The Franklin Ditch Company uh just submitted their bylaws and then provided a general caution about overall water usage throughout the entire county. Uh no public comments were received prior to the hearing, at least not that I was aware of at all. No written and or any phone calls to me. Again, any of the sight specific conditions that were in the staff report just dealt with landscape items and then the 8oot community pathway requirement. And again, staff is not concerned with the applicant complying with these requirements prior to city council. Therefore, if uh commissioner recommends approval of the annexation and preliminary plat requests, I just request that why is it skipping? There we go. That this subject approval is a recommendation is subject to the conditions within the findings. And that is it for me.

Thank you. All right. At this time, we'll ask um the applicant to come on up. Sabrina

name and address and then you'll have up to 10 minutes. You bet. Can we PowerPoint? Is it this button?

Okay. Okay, let's go. Um, chairman, members of the commission, hello and good evening. For the record, my name is Sabrina Dery and I am here on behalf of the applicant. My business address is 5179 South Boven Avenue, Boisee, Idaho 83716. And this evening I am super excited to present to you our applications for Hunter Path subdivision. So first let me welcome you to the entrance point for Hunter Path. Hunter Path is envisioned as a welcoming, vibrant, and thoughtfully planned community that future residents will be proud to call home. In designing and theming the subdivision, we incorporated layers of rustic charm, wood, stone, wild flowers, and evergreens to create an elegant yet casual feel throughout the neighborhood. The site design features generous open spaces, carefully curated amenities, and a variety of well-sized lots. Togethers, these elements foster robust quality of life, and a strong sense of community for our future homeowners. Here's one of our great entrances off of Marblefront. This view highlights the mix of materials and a raised planter bed that will be landscaped to offer a little pop of color to visitors as they enter the community. On our second entrance, this is from Lincoln, um features a beautifully landscaped island with an entry monument that mirrors the style and elegance of our marble front entrance while offering a really its own distinctive character. The blend of natural stone, refined detailing, and seasonal plannings creates another welcoming gateway entrance into our community. So, as Joe has noted with Hunter Path, we are requesting an annexation zoning of R2 and a preliminary plat. I have we

are requesting 125 single family residential lots with 26 common lots. Our um gross density is 5.24 24 units per acre and our residential lot sizes are ranging a little bit over 4,000 square ft to a little bit over 9,000 square ft. So with your newly adopted comprehensive plan and zoning code, this area has been designated as neighborhood 2. The goal for neighborhood 2 is to serve areas near major centers and activity hubs that Joe had mentioned. Given the site's proximity to a rapidly expanding highway 2020 26 corridor with its growing concentration of commercial and industrial employment centers, Hunter Path will offer meet the critical need for residential housing in this key area of Caldwell. Our community will offer a well- balanced array of mid density housing options, ensuring opportunities for a variety of households and lifestyles. And we believe our applications um aligns beautifully with this vision. delivering a thoughtfully planned neighborhood that complements the city's comprehensive plan goals. So, um to better understand how the site fits into the broader area, let's look at the surrounding context in detail. To the north, as Joe had noted, we have Huntington Ridge phases one and two, and phase 2 is currently under construction. To the northwest, we have another school. It's Mosaic's public school and then Riverluff subdivision. To the east we have unincorporated county parcels. To the south we have several single family residential subdivisions including Voyage Crossing, Monteito Park, Marble Valley, and then we also have um directly south the Sun Creek Point RV Park. To the west we have the Van Beern Elementary School with the city park that's directly west of our site. And this park's going to create kind of a gateway between our community and the schools and the surrounding

neighborhoods. And so we feel like Hunter Path is strategically situated among established residential neighborhoods, educational facilities, and a planned community park. And it really creates a seamless extension for the existing area. For um utilities, we are near or adjacent to our site. Um for water, um service will be provided by an existing water man within Lincoln. For sewer, we'll reconnect to an existing manhole that's also located in Lincoln Road. And then for the PI, we'll be be um providing and connecting to an existing pump house north of Huntington Ridge. And any upgrades or connections to this will be coordinated with the city of Caldwell prior connection to the system. Um this site we're planning on constructing within two phases. Um, construction timing will of course be determined by market conditions, but we're estimating phase 1 start in fall of 2026 or spring of 2027. Um, we held a neighborhood meeting on May 12th at the Van Burren Elementary School. During the meeting, the neighbors expressed some concern with their irrigation water. So, while Idaho state code requires all developers to convey the existing water rights to each water user, I really wanted to alleviate their concerns. And so, we conducted two on-site meetings with the neighbors kind of focused on walking the back of their property, looking at where their irrigation water conveyance is um and then really to design a plan that's going to help meet their needs. So based on all that information that was collected and our engineers were able to provide this following plan and you kind of see it but in the purple line is the slide shows the rerouting of the irrigation water that will provide water to all the surrounding users. Um one of the other suggestions that a neighbor recommended was to swap out some of the

larger lots. We had 50 foot wide lots up against Lincoln to um swap them out next to theirs. And so this exhibit shows that change in the lot sizes. Um, but I didn't have time to update everything. So I'll make sure it's updated before city council for you. So open space. So in every community I design, open space, usable open space is a top priority for it sets our foundation for our community's amenities, pathways, and interconnectivity. In Hunter Path, we have thoughtfully designed 2.8 8 acres of qualified open space which represents 11.74% of the site and pathway connectivity and walkability is also our priority. So in purple depicts our community sidewalks, orange depicts our micro pathways that fan out throughout the site and green illustrates our 8-foot community pathway that provides connection from the east to the west of the site. And Joe had mentioned this, but I just wanted to bring this up. In addition to the pathways highlighted, we'll be um providing a pathway to the west connecting to the proposed future park. This connection will offer a safe open view fencing to ensure safe route for residents, especially children, to access both Van Burren and the Mosaic um public school. In Hunter Path, we have designed um to include three pocket parks within the community. And this slide shows each park's location. Our first park will serve as our focal point for Hunter Path. It's thoughtfully designed and um has space that encourages connection, activity, and outdoor engagement. Um we will have a shade structure with a picnic area, an active component. Um our community will provide a playground, playlogs with two distinct play areas to design and entertain children of different ages. And then we'll have bike parking and

comfortable seating for the parents. And this slide shows the um entrance point off the road as you walk in um outlining all the amenities I just discussed. And this is my favorite part because this is our envisioned um peaceful wildflower garden providing residents kind of a tranquil sanctuary to unwind and reflect and um gather. And it is really the heart uh at the heart of it. The park will featurize a centralized seating area thoughtfully arranged with natural boulders surrounded by native wild flowers that change with the seasons. And here's the walking path that accesses um this um park. Um we feel that this serene space complements the more active elements that I had in the first park, ensuring residents have a diverse outdoor um environments that cater to both recreation and um peaceful contemplation. And then our final third little pocket park is designed as more passive space, but it's featuring a versatile multi-use lawn that accommodate a variety of informal activities. Um, comfortable seating will be provided. And it was also we're incorporating some additional wild flowers just to kind of complement our previous park and tie everything in seamlessly together. And quickly to summarize, um, we feel that Hunter Path is a thoughtfully planned designed to offer a balanced blend of elegant and rustic charm. It's situated near major commercial employment hubs, as I noted, and provides a well-rounded selection of mid-density housing options. The neighborhood's design emphasizes connectivity and a quality of life featuring open spaces, diverse amenities, and safe pathways that link residents to nearby schools and a future park. And overall, we feel um that it really complements the city of Caldwell's long-term vision for growth and livability. And with that, I'd like

to thank staff um for their guidance and help. And on that note, I'd like to thank you for your time, your consideration, and the opportunity to present our project this evening, and respectively request a recommendation of approval to city council. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Um, questions from commissioners for either the applicant or staff. Commissioner Vance, I have a question. Um, when it comes to the lot sizes and everything, we we mentioned the minimum was 4,000, right? Um, I'm looking at the neighboring subdivisions all around. Do you have any kind of measurement of the width of the subdivisions as far as like the street frontage and everything on that?

Um, chairman, um, Commissioner Mans, I do not. And those would be under the old zoning code which had, I think, different zoning standards. This is under the new code for the R2. So, I'm just not noticing an average of about anywhere looking at the other other subdivisions anywhere from 57 feet to 63 feet. You know, I'm thinking about the size and how compact it looks. Just looking at the map that you've that you've provided here, it seems like these are very tight, you know, and I mean, obviously, I realize it's a line drawing, but just wanted to make sure there was adequate space for for all the construction and, you know, the density. Absolutely. And of course, um, our we're meeting all the minimum standards for the zoning code and open space. So, yes,

Mr. here. Just to piggyback off of that, I agree with the applicant there. Um, most of those subdivisions, I think they may have even been approved in a different version of the R1 zone, which would they had a 6,000 foot lot size. So, I think that's why they're measuring probably 57 foot wide, 63. So, it they're slightly bigger. Yeah. And then I even believe Huntington Ridge east to the north which may not have lines on it in your maps. That was a PUD and they had smaller lot sizes than what are one allowed. So there's a mix for sure. Okay. In the area.

I have a question. So um one of the slides you shared how and you made a comment about placing some of the bigger lots next to the out parcels. Can you kind of dive into that a little bit more please?

Absolutely. Sorry, we'll get there eventually. Sorry. Sorry, guys. Okay, here it is. Yes. And so the neighbor is here. Um, Michael and Karen, they're neighbors directly south, completely lovely. Um, and I've been, um, talking with them. I've been meeting them on site um, to talk about irrigation. And Karen was like, you know, um, I see those larger lots up at Lincoln. Would it be possible if we could maybe swap them? And I'm like, yeah, we'll take a look at it. And, um, it totally worked. Um, the numbers were the same, which kept my client happy. And it seemed like Karen was um happy with the overall um change, but again, it just happened. So, I need to get the pre-plat updated. I'll need to get the landscape updated with some of the comments that Joe had conditioned before city council. So,

and so is that in the conditions, Joe? Mr. Chair, no, because at the time I didn't know either. If they wanted to make that change between commission and council, they can do that anyways. Um, if you guys want to make sure just to cover our butts, include it as an additional condition on your recommendation, totally fine as well. And staff does support that change as well to just make the 50 foot wide lots adjacent to the county parcels. Totally agree. Okay.

Um, that was my question. Any other question, Commissioner Butchers? So, I have a couple of questions that touch on the capital improvement plan. Uh, but but Joe, you're you're going to have to have part of this as well. Has ITD committed to evaluating the southbound right turn lane at Aviation Way and Highway 2026. Their letter on page 175 of the application states they accept a traffic impact study with no further recommendations or requirements.

Um, Councelor Bros, I do not believe that ITD has plans at this time to further evaluate that right turn lane. Um my understanding is that that highway and aviation way are fully built out to their completion at that location. So they would not have plans to do any further improvements at that area.

Okay. Um is the recommended sidewalk between this development and Vanurren Elementary School in the capital improvement plan? Sorry. Um the our transportation capital improvement plan does not include a a pathway. Um I'm wondering if our pathways plan does include it. Uh I know Joe, we were working on we were going to be redoing our pathway plan. Are you do you have that pulled up by chance?

I do not. I apologize. I also just for clarification, Commissioner Butress, do you mean pathway or do you mean the sidewalk like along front? The sidewalk because uh there there was a recommendation for a proper sidewalk between this development and Van Beern Elementary. Gotcha. Yeah. So, the the sidewalk on Marble Front Road, um we would not be asking the applicant from engineering's standpoint to complete the sidewalk all the way on along Marble Front, which is why I was asking if there's separate funding for it.

Oh, okay. I see. Um at this time, we do not have separate funding set aside for that specifically, but I'd be happy to speak with my public works department and look at it. other options would be for those property owners to enter into an LID agreement with the city so that we could complete the sidewalk. Okay. So my my last question on like this is is the northern extension of Aviation Way between Marble Front Road and Lincoln Road in the capital improvement plan. The aviation road extension is not in the capital improvement plan, but it is in our long-term um just our what our roadway plans are. It's anticipated as a part of our roadway network. Um but it's not in the capital improvement plan specifically.

Okay. So there there's no specific commitment to uh get that road extended. And the reason I ask is right now traffic between Marble Front and Lincoln is forced to either Mason Road, which is a little rural road, or Georgia up on the hill. um people will use this development as a way to get through and that's probably bad for this development. So that that the the extension of aviation way is something that I think is necessary in order to make a a development like this feasible. All right. Thank you for the answer.

Do you want me to add to that?

Sure. Um so um the extension of Aviation Road cannot occur until the properties surrounding it develop because we do not currently have the right of way for the city to go in and expand and create Aviation Road at this location. So the applicant is required to complete their half streetet improvements of Aviation Road. We also have included that if the city is is able to get the ride ofway of the two out parcels along aviation that the applicant would also be required to complete those half street improvements in front of those out parcels with the second half of the road would be constructed when the east side of it uh develops.

Oh, thank you. Okay, Joe. Um I noted in the application that the master land use application is blank except for the applicant signature. The annexation checklist is blank. Section four, the project specific details is blank. Section six, the applicant acknowledgement is blank except for the applicant signature. Is that of any consequence? I mean, we we've got a lot of blank documents that look like they've been pre-signed. Mr. Chair, Commission, um I'm not sure why that's showing like that. The copies that I have found in my records aren't blank. So, I'm

sure it's when it was what was distributed in the packet, the agenda packet. That's very um that as far as procedural, that's fine. Um frankly, I don't look at them anyways. I look at data on other areas, but um as far as what we're doing tonight, no, that should not be an issue. Thank you. I I have no no further questions. Any other questions for applicant or staff?

Um I want to touch a little bit about on what Commissioner Bros talked about with the aviation way. So you said it's in the long-term plan. Um obviously I understand that until that other property develops, we can't really do anything with that. But that being the case, um, looking at the the layout that you have for this, wouldn't it make sense to with the idea that aviation is going to eventually go through, look at the idea of an exit being put on aviation as it would be the major artery to service the highway at that point in time. So I noticed that there's a common lot there. I mean, which again, you're only in 11% of the minimum 10%. But that being the case, wouldn't maybe getting rid of one lot for that future expansion be a good idea?

The engineering department typically doesn't dictate to the applicant um where they must take their access uh so long as it meets our access spacing requirements. Um, to my understanding, the proposed development meets the emergency access requirements. It meets all of engineering spacing requirements and the traffic study didn't show that there was going to be a conflict with the accesses taken purely just from Lincoln Road and Marble Front. So from engineering's perspective, there wasn't anything that was um violating code or a safety violation that would dictate that we need to require the applicant to add another access point

for even for future expansion. Okay. Because I agree with Commissioner Brutus. I I know these lot know these lots and I've know the subdivisions. They do get driven through constantly by people trying to access Lincoln from Marble Front. I drive Mason almost every day and I feel like that will happen. So aviation going forward would be a good plan but and for the these community uh this community itself an access on aviation would make sense just again long-term planning you speak to long-term planning I speak to really long-term planning for CWall that's just my thoughts

but but it it does sound like there could be some serious legal impediments to ever getting those rights away to be able to continue aviation way through to Lincoln. Well, the way they have it shown on even on the um on the uh irrigation map, it sounds like the the line is drawn already for aviation to continue through next to the existing. There's two properties that would pose the issue. And it looks like the the line is drawn next to those. Is that correct? I believe that the line was drawn on this plat to show what the future buildout would be for the curb gutter sidewalk to give the um the commission and staff and council the full idea of what their half section of aviation road would look like. To my knowledge and as I'm seeing on our current mapping system, the city does not own any right ofway for aviation from Marble Front to Lincoln Road. So, we could not dictate to the property owners, and I'm sure some of them might be here this evening. Um we we could not take that right ofway without negotiating with them first.

Got any other questions, Mr. Chair? Yes.

Um in conjunction with that, I would just like to note that the whole roadway hierarchy that would be in place out here. I, you know, I might speaking a little out of my engineering head hat here, but minimizing um access points out to arterials, which aviation way would be would be welcomed. I mean, we if you if you have none out there, that'd be ideal in a lot of capacity, too. Having extra avenues in and out of a subdivision, you hit a certain point and then they become pointless or create more traffic issues when you can funnel them to different areas. Should it be extended in the future? Obviously, that's in our long-term plan, but in the context of they have an avenue from Lincoln all the way down to Marble Front through the subdivision through local roads. Again, you want to funnel them to the collector first and then to the arterial, which is what is being proposed tonight. So, I just wanted to note the through roadway hierarchy, they are meeting what the the thought process is there. And I I believe the traffic engineer who's online with the applicant would speak even better to that than I can too. Yes, I did want to mention Lauren with KDson and Associates is online so she can maybe um answer some of your questions um commissioners if you'd like. And then I did want to add Commissioner Bros. I did fill out all those applications so don't think I didn't. So just so you know. Um, and then as far as we did originally take a look at taking access off of um, aviation, but we were so concerned with them not getting the necessary ride ofway that it would be a road that kind of just went nowhere and

kind of like the run that reach up to the property that cuts through the property. Yeah. Pretty much you got two of those already. Yeah. So, we thought that with Lincoln and Marble Front would be better especially for fire to meet the fire safety public safety standards. So, great. I also want to point out that your your entry sign on uh marble front is in the vision triangle. It shouldn't be. I'll have to tell Emily. Okay, I'll double check. Wall structure is right in it. Okay, I'll double It's a lower wall section. I That's personally. Thank you, chairman. Thank you, Commissioner. I I'll double check that. Other questions, comments. All right, with that, um thank you. Thank you.

Um we have just um one no one else signed up in favor nor neutral. We have one person signed up in opposition that chose not to speak. That's Dalen Swansen. Is that Do you would you like to speak or you still? No. Okay. But in opposition, no one else signed up for public testimony. Um Sabrina, do you we had kind of had dialogue. Any um final comments for your rebuttal?

Um I I'll keep it really short. Um, I think I covered it well through my presentation, but we feel like it Hunter Path is going to be a great community and we are whenever I do a subdivision, the neighbors always come first because they're they're here before us. And so I took um I've taken a lot of effort to get to know the neighbors, understand their concerns, and I'm going to make sure the irrigation water and everything's addressed um to their satisfaction. And overall um super excited to present it again. and um thank you for your time and look looking for a recommendation of approval. So, thank you. Thank you, Sabrina. Okay. Um with that, any final comments, Joe?

Mr. Chair, thank you. Just one final clarification on the TIS and the southbound right turn lane that was discussed at the aviation in 2026.

TIS noted that and ITD agreed because they didn't object that the intersection overall functions properly both now and with the proposed anticipated buildout. uh the one lane which was just the southbound right turn lane they said would be over their VC ratio which I believe is just vehicle count ratio um and that was it. So overall ITD was fine with that and accepted that TIS as such and they thankfully in the future they said the only thing that would be needed to mitigate it would be to just change the striping essentially. So if ITD chooses to do that that's on them. It's not city can't even dictate that for them. So, I just wanted to clarify that. Understood. Thank you.

That was only during peak hour, too. Correct. Oh, and commissioners, I did want to note for the park, I hope that with our pathway and that the school will be involved in the park design and so that can create some safer pathways for the kids to access the school so they don't have to be on Marble Front and Lincoln. Um, I'm assuming that'll be a goal. So, I'm hoping that that will be a discussion um when the park's being planned. So, thank you. Thank you. All right. With that, I would entertain a motion close public testimony. So moved. Commissioner Larson second. Second for Commissioner Bros. Uh all those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? All right. So now it's time for us to dialogue and come to a decision. Commissioners,

I I mean other the the tra the flow of traffic was my chief concern, but Joe brought up a good point is funneling to a minor arterial to then to a major. Um, so I that kind of and the fact that they already have lanes for traffic going in and out that makes a lot of sense to me. So seems good to me.

But so um the I'm concerned about the the R2 zoning. The rationale for that's weak. The surrounding developments are mostly R1 and this development should also be R1 to be compatible and it wraps around low density properties. It's a it's a very unusual shape. Um, normally we're used to seeing developments go in and get a whole big section. In this case, they're wrapping around uh very low density properties that look like they were the farm houses at one time. I am concerned about R2. I'm concerned about the very small lots. I am not pleased that that kids are probably not going to be allowed to walk along Marble Front. it's a little bit too busy to get to the school. Um I think it's incompatible with the surrounding area and I would be in favor of denial.

If I could, I would like to speak to that just a little bit. Um so the specific lot R35120 and and R351201, uh I knew the previous owners of those. Um I did talk to them about this and everything. um they were aware of what was going in here. They did not think the density would be as high as it is. They also were not aware of uh an entry being put in on Marble Front. They thought all of it was going to be serviced from uh Lincoln. So I can understand your point on the density. Um and there there's a little miscommunication. they did sell the property because they were not able to for for lack of farmers farmers to farm the land and everything to keep the county um uh what do I say the county requirements for a county um property. So that's why it's also being annexed in. So I just wanted to add those points in.

I would have been good if they provided testimony. They they're unfortunately in Riggins. Yeah. Well, they're here today. Yeah. And the reality is that they didn't either way including either way they knew they was okay. That's was okay with

and so and I hear you commissioner Bros. I I agree. I actually I think that in looking at um the various elements of this, I think this is a very thoughtfully planned um development, I appreciate and I were it to be approved, I would love to vote in uh in favor of uh approval with it the additional condition of the 50 um foot uh lots closer to, you know, adjacent to the that south those south out parcels. Um and I think to that end I I think that for me certainly we hear a lot of testimony from a lot of different developments. Um we don't we have certainly one person in opposition but um also there schools also often comes up as consideration. There was nothing there for that and I I do think this is an area that's going to clearly be developed just the way it where it's at. There's it's certainly not it's going to continue to be farmland. It doesn't appear. Um and so I think that this is a very thoughtful one that um come butts up to to a school and with a and the park and I think there's a lot of serendipity serendipitous um cohesive um elements here that I am in favor of other comments for commissioners commissioner Larson.

Yeah, the only thing I'm kind of concerned about is the density. Other than that, I think the everything looks pretty reasonable. They're meeting all the code. um they're trying to provide more open space. So I think overall the project is is a good project. I just uh the density is the concern that I hear from people who live in the city. But I think in this spot where it's at, I mean I lived at Voyage Crossing for a little bit and it was maybe a little less dense than this but similar. So I guess it's kind of close. But yeah, that's the only that's the only concern that I have is the is the density. But it it meets the code. It's 2 to8. And I think that council right now is going for more of a dense approach. So even if we say yes or no, I think they're going to say yes. So

um so I'm leaning towards yes. But uh yeah, I think it's just it's the situation where it's in because it's near the park and the school, I think having more density and then making that pathway safe is the best approach going forward. on where they're going to put in a city park to open up the area for more communal property right there. That's a future plan. I mean, yes, the city code has adopted a no more desert plan and it does meet that requirement. So, other comments for commissioners. Uh if not, I would entertain a motion uh at this time.

I'll make a a motion based upon the testimony and evidence and records of this matter and upon the finding of facts and conclusions of law set forth herein. I do by hereby determine and move that the request for annexation of four parcels with a zoning R-2 neighborhood residential and a preliminary plat SP25-7 for the Hunter Path subdivision is recommended for approval subject to the conditions approved as presented or amended with the condition of the 55 ft lots being put on the south portion as uh presented. Thank you. There was a motion for Commissioner Lson. Is there a second? A second. Second for Commissioner Vance. Uh, roll call, please.

Larson, yes. Vance, yes. Zamara, yes. Bros, no. And with that motion carries and we move and we'll close that that public hearing. We'll move on to the next action item on our agenda. Um, it's action item site B, urban renewal plan. Um, staff report, please. Let's go, Mr. Chair. It'll be just the applicant. Staff does not have any uh presentation for this, just to let you know. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Name and address, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, commissioners. Uh for the record, my name is Mark Hilty. My business address is 1303 12th Avenue Road in Nampa. I'm appearing before you in my role as the attorney for the Caldwell Urban Renewal Agency on this matter. Um the uh before you tonight is a request to um compile a comprehensive plan analysis of the site B urban renewal plan which has been working its way through the process uh of approval. And so I'm going to present a little bit about that plan to you tonight and then ask you as is required by the statute for you to uh take a look at a comprehensive plan analysis. Um the uh the plan u was originated really by a developer who came to the urban renewal agency late last year, Lee Jenkee, who acquired some property uh on Fifth in Chicago. And so this is north of the railroad tracks uh in that u that neighborhood there that's adjacent to downtown but separated by the railroad tracks. And he was asking for some assistance in developing uh seven cottage homes uh for essentially workforce housing. It's not subsidized, but they're smaller homes uh that would be appropriate for sort of workforce folks um at a price point that hopefully they could afford. Um and what the agency can do is um assist in some ways with um infrastructure development. So the agency can't go onto the property and build homes for him that he then turns around and sells of course, but we can assist with right-of-way projects. And so so the plan um kind of at a 30,000 foot view is uh Mr. Jeny would go in and he would build his project including paying for all of the utility and right-of-way type infrastructure improvements. Uh and then the assessed value of his property should go from about $130,000

currently it's vacant ground to approximately $2.2 million. and and the taxes that are attributable to that increase in value are available to the urban renewal agency to effectively pay for in this case it would be a reimbursement to Mr. Jeny for the cost of of those right-of-way improvements. Um it's a very very small project area. The the Caldwell agency has had very large areas not just within the city but by statewide standards. uh the east urban renewal area that included downtown and then all the way out to Sky Ranch on Highway 2026 was a very large area. There's currently a large area we call the north area that is off of the the notice Parma exit. This is very very small, one lot, one property owner and it was really done because uh the the agency felt like it was the right project in the right place. And so we as staff have kind of done the lift of trying to put together this this urban renewal area which is required in order to capture that tax increment and then reimburse the developer who is going to be responsible for that increase in property value and then it can be can be reimbursed. So that's really the the kind of the nuts and bolts of the plan um that that he approached the agency with. um he would bear the upfront cost and then he would have a reimbursement agreement with the agency and then once that tax money comes in it would go um to him to reimburse those costs. So that really is the substance of the plan that we are uh asking for you to evaluate um based on um the city's comprehensive plan and that that request is statutory. So in anytime that that there is that the city is forming an urban renewal area and again it is the city council that does it the urban renewal agency can propose areas which it's doing in this case but ultimately the decision to

create it is a city council decision and so I don't want you to be confused about whether you're creating an urban renewal agency tonight you're not. Um, but part of that step is that the council is is to transmit the plan to the to the planning and zoning commission to have you look at what's going on and analyze it based on the comprehensive plan. So, that's that's the role that you play and that's um what we're here to do tonight. Um, the the comprehensive plan um that is in your packet begins on page 178. It's different in form um probably from what you're used to seeing, but it is the same in substance. It is it is staff's effort in this case not not Joe and his staff but my office Mr. Waterman my partner actually put this analysis together. So he went through the comprehensive plan much like Joe would do and looks at those goals and and does an analysis of whether or not uh those goals are met and furthered by this plan or not. Um and so what is there is a proposed analysis but but again it's like the ones you get from planning and zoning staff. It's proposed for your consideration. You can adopt it. you can amend it. Um, and so anyway, I'm going to go through that analysis, but that at the end of the day then, you know, you you agree with this analysis, you can change this analysis. It's really your decision and recommendation to the city council based on your you hopefully you had a chance to review the plan. Um, which I I know is lengthy, but it was in your packet. Um, and it is what is being evaluated based on um um this this template that's before you. As with most comprehensive plans, uh there's numerous goals. Uh some of those goals are uh furthered by a particular development, as you're probably well aware. Some goals are not furthered, but they're not harmed either. They're kind of not relevant to what's going on. Um and then there could potentially be a situation where uh a proposed development runs contrary to uh some of your comprehensive plan goals. Uh in our

analysis, there are some of your goals that are are really not affected one way or another. Um and then there are some certainly we think that are furthered by uh this proposed plan. And so I'm going to go through those. I'm starting on uh the second page, page two of the um proposed analysis. It's page 179 in your packet. And this is kind of broken down into um the various categories of um consistent with your comprehensive plan. Um you'll note that the vision for connected communities um vibrant gathering spaces because of the small scope of this of this project, there's not a lot there um that is furthered. There's certainly nothing inconsistent with this project and those goal objectives. Um, there are some sidewalk improvements which helps with a connected community, could also be potentially a public gathering space. And there's certainly nothing that's visiating or taking away uh any sort of public gathering space. Um, the vision for rivers, parks, and agriculture. Again, this doesn't really trigger any of that. Um, it certainly is not a negative in terms of the city's recognized importance of the rivers, parks, and agricultural uses. When you get down into kind of the bottom of that second page, um this is where you're really going to see how um at least in our opinion and I think the opinion of the Urban Renewal Agency, uh there's really some alignment between the objectives and goals of your comprehensive plan and what um what is planned there for Mr. Jenkey's property. Um diversified housing options to accommodate varying household incomes, lifestyles, and sizes, promoting inclusivity and affordability. Um this one of the one of the struggles and I think you probably deal with it regularly is affordable housing. Uh and

this this is intended to to to allow home ownership for um you know people who can get into that that lower end that workforce housing. People who may be on a a policeman's salary or a teacher salary can find something that they can afford. And so we think um that diversifying um and affordability uh objectives that are outlined sort of there under subsection one clearly are met. Um create I'm on to page three now. Create distinct and exclusive neighborhoods with a focus on highquality design, connectivity, and livability. There's probably some limited connection there to how this is designed and where it's located. Um um I know one of the things I think this has to do with uh quality design and livability is um this is a major investment by a developer in an area that has not had major investment for many for a long time and and really the trend in the area has been toward dilapidation and blight rather than revitalization and redevelopment which is going on with this project. Uh number three there, concentrate development closer to the city's core and preserve rural transition at the city's western and northern boundaries. This is an infill development. Um it is clearly walkable uh to the downtown core. And so the location of the development both for preserving that rural and urban interface, right? It's far away from that toward the center of the city, but it also meets goals in your comprehensive plan that speak to the accessibility of downtown and the financial support of downtown that could be provided by residents who live in relatively close proximity. Um there as an aside um there has been some development pressure uh for residential uses right in the downtown core like the Tillian the apartment type stuff um that presents a real parking challenge at at

times and so this where you're outside the downtown core but walkable I think is is um kind of a unique opportunity um to to try to accomplish both of those goals. Uh moving on to page four. Um the vision for uh intentional and distinct centers. I don't know how much that's going to be furthered by this. It is part of the comprehensive plan analysis. Um it it certainly is not um detracting from those objectives. I don't know how much in honesty that it's furthering them. Um but I do think as part of your comprehensive plan analysis, the question not only is have you ticked every goal and moved it in the right direction. this one more on the other side. Are you doing something that that harms the achieving of these goals? And I think here the answer is more neutral. We're not we're not maybe advancing it as much as some developments could, but we're certainly not harming that either. Uh page five, ensure that new development provides adequate public services and infrastructure uh to meet Caldwell's needs. One of the things that's nice about this project is this collaboration between the agency, the Urban Renewal Agency, and the developer is intended specifically to develop that infrastructure. Um, and if you've driven through or spent any time in that neighborhood kind of between the interstate and the railroad tracks, um, and you know, 10th Avenue and Centennial, um, lots of dilapidated infrastructure and so this is a small area. I get it. Um but it also furthers that um that goal. If I could I don't know if that was my

Yeah. Was that the If I may just wrap up. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um so what we just went over those six points are outlined there. Um you'll you'll note that there is um a place for you to adopt the finding if you want to while at the same time making some kind of recommendation for the city council. Um we'd like to get this approved and signed tonight if possible. Uh, thank you for your consideration. I'll stand for questions.

Thank you. Um, questions for commissioners. I I have a question and certainly there there's a quite a few attachments. And so just quite simply, so the the reimbursement um to the land owner would extend for how many years? It's a it's a product of the feasibility study that's attached. Uh we were hopeful that it would be done in about eight. eight. I think it's going to wind up being more like 12 or 13. Okay. And it depends on some unknowns like levy rates and things. Sure. And so the and the reimbursement rate is up to the and again because um just for clarity sake is up to the amount that um up to what amount I guess

he sure so the developer pays for all that upfront and he has to prove what he paid for. So he'll have to to prove up his cost. That would be the maximum that he could recover. Okay. Thank you. questions for Commissioner Bros. Uh yeah, I've got a quite a bit of material, so I want to get that. My only question would be would this require because of the density and everything because this is a traditional neighborhood, would this with the cottage style housing that is proposed, would this require a reszone for this specific lots?

Mr. Chair, Commissioner, my understanding when we looked at this before the answer was no, but I have not seen the latest plan, so I don't know exactly how many units he has proposed at this time. So yeah, we would look at that as it came through and infrastructure frankly regardless of how many units generally the public infrastructure that be car is going to be the same. It's and said it would be a separate application alto together correct the actual development itself. Absolutely. It would and just to clarify commissioner Vance that what you're doing tonight would not approve any zone change or any any land use entitlement would still be required to be obtained just bringing basically bringing a dilapidated area up to a more standard and uh usable area basically. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Bus.

Okay. So, the document states that the plan only aligns with vision for connected community by providing some sidewalk improvements. I don't think that qualifies as meeting the goal. I'm not sure how that got written in there, but um um it's a stretch. The document states that the plan aligns with the vibrant gathering spaces goal by not replacing any public gathering spaces. That that's a negative there. It should not be attempting to claim that the goal is met. It's not clear to me that uh every single goal has to be met and we should not be stretching the definition. When we looked at the comprehensive plan, it was clear what the intent was. This is not meeting the intent of meeting those goals. The document states the plan meets the goal vision for rivers, parks, and agriculture by providing sidewalk improvements. That's the same thing. And it doesn't meet that goal either. A reading of the goals would show that the vision for quality neighborhoods topic for points one, two, and three from the comprehensive plan regarding housing options. distinct neighborhoods and concentrating development closer to the city core. The plan makes generalized claims about meeting these goals, but there are no specifics. And further, the development district is one small area that was a gas station and cannot meet the goals of the comprehensive plan in more than a nominal way. Uh it's it's a good idea that somebody is building cottage homes that are walkable to the downtown, but is it something that requires an urban renewal district? And I'll I'll talk a little bit more about that. The vision for intentional and distinct centers points one, two, three, and six describe broader development

activities that this very small district cannot meet in more than a nominal way. This plan stretches credibility as justification for creating an urban renewal district that is very small and it creates a bureaucracy that has no set end date. That's important. When you look at the details of this, the taxing district runs for a maximum of 20 years, but the agency itself has no end. Even though the oh I and I my note even though the taxing portion must end in 20 years the plan describes the capability for the agency to continue past that time and to even retain control of property under its jurisdiction past that time. The estimated administrative costs which are attachment six in the plan for this lot one lot over the term of the plan $6.9 million. That's astonishing. That's for a 0.94 acre lot. The taxable assessed value, as as was noted of proposed improvements, is $2.2 million, which is significantly less than the administrative costs over the term of the plan. This very small urban renewal district does not meet the goals of the comprehensive plan, which is what we were charged with evaluating first. And I I'm going beyond that now. If you will indulge me, I don't think this urban renewal district should exist. Some other way to manage development of that empty lot needs to be found without creating a huge bureaucracy. Thank you.

Was are there question is questions for the applicant? He has an opportunity to Would you like to respond? I guess the question is would you like to respond? Sure. Yeah. I I I appreciate your your comprehensive plan analysis points. I do. Um, I do understand probably more than most urban renewal agencies are are controversial. Um, the 6.9 million admin fees can't possibly be true for this area. So, that could be a typo that was adopted somewhere else. There's the detailed numbers. There's a table in attachment six which has it adds up.

I'm not I'm not saying that you're lying to me. Okay. I I I appreciate the arithmetic the arithmetic is is intentional. there won't be that many that much inadmin fees could possibly be, but we'll take a look and we will get that cleaned up in terms of what what the city council does with the overall plan. But your points your points and your analysis um Commissioner Bros on the comprehensive plan are relevant, right? Whether you think it meets the goal or not is what you're in that seat to do. Um and we provided you an analysis and ultimately what you as a commission do with that that draft analysis is going to be up to you. Thank you. Other questions from commissioners?

All right. Um, nobody signed up either way. So, any final comments? No. Thank you for your consideration and um and your analysis will be appreciated for uh the council. Thank you. Thank you. All right. With that, I'd entertain a motion to close public testimony. So moved. Commissioner Larson. Is there a second? Second. Second. Commissioner Buchos. All those in favor say I. I. Anyone opposed? Motion carries. Now time for us to dialogue. I've I've had my say. I think we know where Commissioner B.

I I would like to say I agree with I I looked at those numbers and everything and I like they obviously I I don't understand everything. I I'm very fairly new to this, but I mean that number was staggering. It it shocked me for such an area and such a small lot. And in working with the city staff and everything like that uh in what I do um there's a lot of questions that that number brings up in my mind. you know that I7 million $7 million worth of course and also the the the point of like you pointed out the 20-y year um he said anywhere from started out at 8 to 12 has a grand total of 20 years I guess I feel like that that's just really pushing it way far out there and that's well beyond what we should be considering for something like this for such a small lot.

Yeah, I I actually have similar sentiments on the administrative cost and some of those things. I do think that in looking at the actual analysis of does it make sense with the comprehensive plan it is a small lot so we have to do think I mean I think commissioner you use the word nominal multiple times in in your assessment and I don't disagree because it is a nominal it's a tiny spot um so I think that's actually a fair assessment but to that end I do think that it it does um work with that comprehensive plan that said I I don't know if I if it were were to be a typo I don't feel comfortable Um, with that just moving that forward, I would feel like it need would need to be a complete application for me to feel comfortable even to I recognizing this is just a recommendation to council. Um, but um I think that's that part where were that to be a true number or not. Um, public testimony is already closed. So if he has more information, I could I would entertain a motion to reopen public testimony. So he has attachment six up on his screen.

Yeah, I'm looking at it too. Yeah, but we've closed public I could I can clarify your concern if you'd like me to before you Joe. We could reopen public testimony. I could entertain a motion to reopen public testimony. Yes, you can. Okay, I would entertain that motion. So move second. Commissioner Butcher. All those in favor say I. I.

Okay. And so just for for the record, this is for the record, this is to clarify that specific attachment. Um Sure. I'm looking at attachment six. Um if you look at um the $6.9 million figure that is at the bottom of totals total for all areas, that's all the urban renewal areas. So it includes the very large north area. Um the total for the new area, which is what would be relevant to this particular one, is the $60,000 number. the far right bottom column, the bottom right, bottom right is for is for what you're being asked to consider.

Um, and again, you're not being asked to consider the plan as a whole. You're being asked to just do a comprehensive plan analysis. But but the in terms of the admin costs um the total for the legal services, liability, insurance, financial, all that stuff is the 60,000 that's attributable to um to this particular area. Joe, would you say that's Thank you. That that was worth reopening. Yeah, I'm sorry that I wasn't better. It just it does doesn't specify plan site site B or anything. It just says plan A actually on here. Um as it's based on the current subject for inflammation curve and plan A doesn't even list for this attachment. This is so so this is known as site B. Yeah.

So if it had said site at the top, we would have understood that. Yeah. Agreed. Agreed. But but as well I erroneously was was looking at the the for all areas not just this. So thank you for the clarification. Yeah. My apologies that I didn't have that at my fingertips. Thank you. Since we did reopen a testimony, I do have a question. Um, chair, um, what's the average, uh, I think you guys word use the word sunset for you guys' projects? Do you have an idea? Is it 20 years?

Yeah, they're they're typically set at 20 years. Um, and particularly for the larger areas, um, and if if you'll just indulge me, Commissioner Larson, um, the it's hard to foresee how quickly development occurs. Mhm.

And the way the finances work with the reallocated tax dollars and the tax increment, I mean, the increased tax values when that happens, um, is very relevant to how the the area progresses through its projects. If it happens early, there's going to be more overall increment. You may be able to close it out sooner, but we don't know. And if it happens late, um, you're going to need those extra years. This one is different because it's small. All of the increments coming from one development, we know it's happening right away. And so the the the the reason we don't know about the time frame is is that increment as it's collected is just going to go back to the developer. And when we hit that same number that he's invested in, those infrastructure improvements, it will end. that we think will happen about year 12. We were hoping that it would happen in about year eight, but um but I think this one and this is a a recommendation that you can convey to the council um is set at 20 years. That's the maximum allowed by um by the statute and it's sort of our standard operating procedure because of those unknowns.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, chair. So I have another I guess just for clarity. So then the expectation would be if everything was reconciled in year 12 then that then this area would be sunset. Yeah. Correct. Yeah. Yes. There's nothing more to do. So it would sunset as soon as we get him reimbursed. So if I'm looking at the the the page above that the total amount of that as projected for this is right around $175,000 of that would be the the city's total investment in this. Correct. That's the estimate. The estimate as as of right now. If it's more than that, it's more than that. If it's less, it's less. It does say higher up or down, but that is as of projected right now. Right.

Um, also, next question I had is based on the map and everything, it shows, you know, um, Fifth Street being a a major portion of that, would that require closure and what what kind of infrastructure work would be done on that? I guess on an engineering standpoint for Fifth Street, what would be looked at in that is just rebuilding that portion of the road. Um I I must apologize. I was reading an email. Would you please repeat your question?

The way the map the the area drawn here includes a portion of Chicago and portion of Fifth Street in the intersection everything that um Chicago being I don't know if it's considered a major artery, but I think it's major artery of Calwell and everything. um in with the idea this is an 8year to 12-ear plan like what would be look we would be looking at as far as closures for the re revitalization of this area as far as like a a temporary road closure or a permanent well is are any long-term plans for fifth or Chicago are there any other plans involved in this that would this would tie into is I guess my question

we don't currently have any long-term plans to do any road work in that area and I apologize I want to make sure I I'm understanding the question. So, if we're if we're doing road road work, there could be potential road closures for the construction. Um, but we don't have any like closures planned.

Well, my question pertains to is again this is a very small area, one intersection of a road that I think is important, but we're putting money into this with it reminds me of of the Ustick. What happens in USC? Calwell put all this money into Eustic to go over the over freeway, expand the road, widen it for NA to just stop. You know, again, it's basically throwing good money at bad. You know what I mean? There's nothing else going to come of it. You know what I mean? I get it will help the developer, but it may not broaden for the community overall. I Is it appropriate to ask why the boundary of this district is over fifth in Chicago? Chicago.

What? What what work is contemplated in the rights of way of fifth and and Chicago? Mr. Chair, commission the when Lee came to us originally and not just planning but also engineering they would have to replace the sidewalk in a large portion because it's not good quality and also I believe there's an approach to Chicago or fit that would have to get closed as well. They would have to take access through the alley which needs to be improved to a certain degree as well. There's a lot of infrastructure in quote unquote rightway actually that would be part of any project on that lot which is why those roads are correct in that correct. Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. And and and again as a reminder the the urban renewal funds are available for those rightway improvements. We can't reach onto private property and build somebody's house for them. Right. So, so that that rideway has to be included because that's where the project really is going to be constructed for what would be considered city city project in city rideways but so that the developer itself doesn't have to upfront those funds basically he does he does have to build them and he does have to dedicate them and he doesn't pay for them usually that would be the obligation of the developer here there's a mechanism really working toward a mechanism to incentivize this kind of development by reimbursing those costs over time. Um, so the question about closure is

the cost there there there would probably not be a complete closure of Fifth or Chicago. If he's just redoing the sidewalk, if if he stretches out a little bit onto the pavement if that's required,

there might be, you know, some temporary closure while there's some repaving done there, but it certainly wouldn't be for 12 years, right? I that it would just be for the probably a number of days while they constructed. Like I said, my my only concern there is just like again, we're we're putting money into it. And again, it's mostly for sidewalks as long as it's not necessarily the roadways because those roadways are much larger project that would need to be addressed at that point. So, thank you. Any other comments while we're open for public testimony? If not, I would entertain a motion to re uh to close public testimony. So, moved. Commissioner second for Commissioner Bros. All those in favor say I. I.

Uh any opposed? All right. It's a time for us to recol uh dialogue. So I I I I appreciate the clarification. I'm still not comfortable with the creation of the urban renewal district bureaucracy to cover such a small property. Uh I I I still believe there's got to be a better way to do this without the long-term impact.

Thank you for that. I hear you. I actually think as I noted initially I actually thought that there that it did meet the comprehensive plan but if we go into that area this is underdeveloped area underutilized area underserved area and so having opportunities to leverage something like urban renewal to help create some revitalization even if it's one block at a time allows for a neighborhood that's woefully under um served and and I mean if anybody spent time over there on in this area I mean I I'm over in that area often and so Um I I do think that this is a mechanism that we use because otherwise we don't have you know as we know that it's the developers it's other infrastructure or individuals that want to come in to do that that fix those things. Nobody's coming in to fix those things and we as a as a city aren't you know dedicating time to to or monies excuse me at that time to um support this right now and I think this is an opportunity to do that. So I um with the clarification I am in favor of this other comments. Yeah, I do have one question for staff which I don't think they can answer but I'm going to ask anyway.

Staff can ask off for cl Yeah.

So just clarity um what's the normal uh and I'm going to use Ramsay's words here bureaucracy c cost that we have for a normal plan. So, we approved the development and if they're going to develop a lot that's 100 by 100 or something or something similar size is is it I don't think you know, but is it I guess I'm trying to say I'm I'm guessing it's not substantially larger than this, but I'm wondering if we have an idea if it's like 10 or 15,000 or a couple percents higher. Do do you have any idea on what the magnitude of difference is? I'm assuming it's like something small. I'm assuming whatever it is 170 60,000. And I'm assuming those numbers are not astronomically larger.

Mr. Chair, um, Commissioner Larson, I would say I don't know exact, right? Every lot is different. It could be the exact 100 by 100 lot one block over. It's probably going to vary, right? So, there's always going to be nominal changes there. My understanding with what has to go into these urban renewal things and and these um proposed numbers is they're not just willy-nilly. like these are based off of bids, sometimes very specific bids or they're based off of very specific projects that are similar. So there shouldn't be major major changes between what is there. But then if you also look at the numbers in there, it includes about $29,000 of contingency which would be right that certain percentage of like oh okay we only anticipate 145 but we already anticipated maybe you know our lovely inflation and other things that could come into effect over the next 8 to 12 years as Mr. Hilty noted. So I would not imagine it being beyond that and it may not even be close to this because this includes um paving and includes certain road mix stuff they may not have to do but that's the point of at least allow the cap so that way we could use it if we need to to again incentivize the use of this this program.

Okay. Commissioner uh Vance. So I have another question for staff. So at this point in time we have no plans. We're just this is just for the urban for for the funds associated for them to to basically improve the um improve the infrastructure of the property and it would take it from an assessed value of what I remember it was almost is $80,000 per lot to $2.234 million. I mean seems a bit of a jump to to say the property just by changing the infrastructure would jump all that much. I think I I I believe that the 2.2 million valuation includes the cottage homes that would be built on that values.

But Mr. Chair, Commissioner Vance, to clarify yet the only thing tonight is just a recommendation regarding the urban renewal piece over the property and whether it meets the comp plan. No specific development. Yep. Mr. Genkey has not come through and submitted that to us yet. I'm assuming he'll have another round table with us to discuss it with us further. Correct. Yeah. Okay. I think the other point is you know a after the 8 to 12 years whatever it may be then those are additional tax revenues for the city um that that pro those property owners whoever owns it would be obligated to pay the city once this reimbursement process has done. So it does gener eventually will generate um tax revenue for

well but what we've also discussed with council and everything residential does not generate very much tax revenue to be honest at all. So, I mean I I get your point there, but we have noted that residential is I mean condos and and multiple probably does do more than single family. Absolutely. But yeah, uh other discussion

if not I would entertain a motion at this time. So I I'm willing to do a motion to recommend for denial 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 the request for a recommendation on whether the urban renewal plan is in conformity with the comp plan of the city of Caldwell is recommended for denial because it is not in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Okay. So, there was a motion to deny. Is there a second? I second.

A second for Commissioner Vance. So, we'll do roll call, but remember an affirmative would be to deny. Affirmative vote from a commissioner would be to deny. Um, roll call, please. Bros, yes. Um, Vance, yes. Um, Zamora, no. And Larson, yes. Yeah. And with that, that uh motion carries. Um and so we'll go ahead and close this public hearing and then get move on to the last item on our agenda, which I entertain a motion to adjurnn. So moved. Commissioner Larson, is there a second? Second. Commissioner BH. All those in favor say I.

I. I. Anyone opposed? Journey.