Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

For September 9th at 6 p.m. Can I have roll call?

Harmon.

Here.

Larson.

Here. Lance.

Here.

Whitbeck. Here.

All right. Any conflict of interest from any of the commissioners?

None. None.

Okay. No special presentations. Consent calendar. Can I get all consent calendar items or action items? So I don't think I need that. Do I need a motion on the consent calendar? Okay. Can I get a motion?

So moved. Second.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Okay. All right. So I'm going to review the opening statement. A quasi-judicial hearing involves the consideration of a land use request such as an annexation, rezone classification, or approval of a subdivision preliminary plat. The public hearing procedures as required by the Idaho Code are as follows. Oral and written testimony will be accepted from those who have signed in to speak prior to the hearing being declared open. When providing testimony, please come to the podium, state your name and address, which will be included in the record. The applicant or applicant's representative will be given up to 20 minutes to present their land use request. The city planner will then follow up with their staff report. During public testimony, Testimony of those in support will be taken first Followed by those in neutral position and finally those in opposition of the request Note all public testimony will be limited to three minutes or less The applicant will be offered the opportunity to provide rebuttal testimony Follow up by the planner if necessary After the rebuttal testimony is given the public testimony portion of the public hearing will be closed and no new oral or written testimony will be allowed. However, city staff are allowed to discuss any questions or concerns with the commissioners after public testimony has been closed. During public testimony, I would just like to ask that if there's many of you signed up to speak in opposition or even for the property, if somebody or multiple people say the same thing and say everything you want to say, just come up and say, hey, same as everybody else or something like that. It just helps get the meeting moving a little quicker if that works for everybody. All right. Okay. So we're going to move into old business action item, case number A and N. Oops, hold on. All right, old business. Action item, public hearing legislative and quasi-judicial for case number ANN26-5, SPP26-3. The applicant, Porchlight Development, on behalf of Gemini LLP, is requesting annexation of three parcels, R3426800000, R3428313400, and R3426500. with an initial zoning designation of R2 Community Residential with a development agreement. The current city comprehensive plan future land use designation is Neighborhood 2 and R2 is considered a compatible zoning district. Concurrently, the applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat for Legacy Farm subdivision, a single family residential subdivision with 402 buildable lots, The approximate 95-acre site is located on the west side of Northside Boulevard. Northside Boulevard, whoops, approximately 1,300 feet north of the intersection with Linden Road in Caldwell, Idaho. This application was continued from June 10th meeting and rescheduled for July 8th, 2026, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. All right, and I think staff is gonna go first on this.

Thank you, Chair and Commissioners. Katie Wright, Senior Planner, 205 South 6th Avenue. To recap, Legacy Farms Neighborhood is an application submitted by Porchlight Development on behalf of Gemini LLLP requesting annexation of parcels R3428183134, parcel R34268, and parcel R34265 with an initial zone of R2 Community Residential with an associated development agreement and a request for a preliminary plot consisting of 402 single family detached buildable lots. Legacy Farms was continued from the June 10th meeting to address the following items at the request of the commission. Buffering between the development and the out parcels, side yard setback, a reduction request of five feet to three feet, and lot size reduction request from 4,000 square feet to 3,000 square feet. As a refresher, again, the site is going to be 95.6 acres located on the southwest corner of Northside Boulevard, where Skyway Street will be extended. And the parcel is currently located within the county and within the city's impact area. The parcel is contiguous to Caldwell City limits. Therefore, an annexation request for the property was permissible. And the applicants requesting to annex into the city with, again, the R2 zone, which permits single-family detached and the proposed density of 4.21 dwelling units per acre is within the allowable density range of two to eight dwelling units per acre and therefore complies with the code. The subject parcel is located within the neighborhood two place type within the comprehensive plan and this place type is a primary residential place type in Caldwell and the requested R2 zone is a compatible zoning district within the R2 or the neighborhood two place type. The primary plat request is for 400, the preliminary plat request is for 402 single family detached buildable lots with 11.9% open space which exceeds the code minimum of 10% and the applicants continuing to request deviations through the development agreement to allow for those three foot internal side setbacks rather than the five foot setbacks required by code and requesting the lot minimum of 3,083 square feet, where the code requires the 4,000 square feet. Based on conversations with the applicant, after the last meeting, staff is requesting the following conditions to address previous conversation about providing a buffer adjacent to the out parcel addressed 19451 Knott Lane. At time of C of O, lots 20 through 23, block two shall have three trees installed along the northern property line of each of those lots. And then at time of building permit submittal, lots 20 through 23, block two shall have a 20-foot rear setback. Outside of the deviation requests by the applicant and the conditioned items, staff's initial review found that the proposed project is in conformance with applicable city codes as amended all applicable approval criteria per city code and Idaho code, the adopted comprehensive plan and future land use map, all other applicable city adopted master plans, and all other adopted city policies subject to the recommended conditions by staff. And then the Planning and Zoning Commission has the authority to recommend approval or denial of the applications based on the approval criteria within Caldwell City Code once they've reviewed the record and evidence and heard all public testimony. And I stand for any questions. Thank you.

All right. Thanks, Katie. We'll hear from the applicant now. I do have to open for public testimony first. Okay. Sorry. One second. Can I get a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Okay. Public testimony is open. All right. The applicant, please. Thank you.

So as the commissioners are aware, this is a follow-up meeting from a couple of months ago. And we already had a good recap of where we were. And so I'll skip over a little bit of what I had intended to do here at the beginning to kind of set the stage. And I'll just kind of hit a couple of highlights. So as Katie mentioned, this is a project that's just on the west side and north side, south of 2026 corridor. Uh, we have, we are proposing approximately 400 lots. We have three different housing types, and that'll be relevant to the conversation here in a moment about, uh, some of the followup items from our first hearing. Uh, we also talked a little bit last time about our background. This is a development group. That's got about 75 years of history in the, in the, in the market, primarily in Boise, Meridian and Eagle. And so we're excited that this is the first time we get to bring some of that experience to Caldwell. And then again, just wanted to emphasize the area that it's in. This is an area that's planned for growth. It's got a number of growth, uh, applications that have been approved in the immediate area. It's ready to go. And that's why we're excited to be here. So after our last hearing, there were two items for discussion that the commission asked us to revisit. So the first was the discussions with our neighbor, uh, Katie hit that already, uh, a little bit more background on that. So under the, the R2 zoning that was proposed here, the base setback on the rear of those lots would be 15 feet. Our neighbor has a 20-foot setback up there, so we agreed to increase that setback to 20 feet to be able to match it. And then we did agree to the enhanced landscaping there, minimum of three trees, space no more than 20 feet apart. We're in agreement with the condition language that Katie put on the screen. Okay, so let's talk. Next, about the lot dimensions. And before we do, I'd like to revisit a couple items about the comprehensive plan. And you guys, given the volunteer work that you do here, you're very familiar with all of this, but maybe not everyone is. The comprehensive plan is vital to the planning process, and we look to the comprehensive plan for a number of things. For cities, we look at it for understanding where we're going to be doing the planning for growth, where the utility capacity needs to be. For property owners, we look at what we're going to be able to do with our property and what our neighbors might be able to do with theirs. And for businesses, we look at where the rooftops are going to be and where to invest. And so with that in mind, the comprehensive plan in this area does plan for density, does plan for growth. So as you look at the current comprehensive plan, You can see that the compact designations going south from Highway 2026 start with the mixed-use center designation at 10 to 25 units per acre. That then transitions to the neighborhood 3 at 4 to 20 units per acre. And then you get to us, where we're at the neighborhood 2 at 2 to 8 units per acre. We're on the northern boundary of that designation, but we've proposed a density that's on the lower end of neighborhood 2. Neighborhood two is two to eight. We're at 4.2 dwelling units per acre. So density is one consideration, but the comprehensive plan also emphasizes there being a variety of housing types and variety is not just multifamily versus single family. We think that within single family, there should also be a variety of housing types. That's how we design our projects. We think it supports a healthy community. It supports a healthy subdivision. if you provide for a different housing for different stages of life. So we design our projects to include the small single level for grandma to live in with the two, you know, down the street, the two story with the backyard that the grandkids can play in. And then there could also be the in between how that the young professionals live in that leave to go to the mountains on the weekends. So that's what we think makes a healthy subdivision. We support what Caldwell says in the comprehensive plan and promoting a variety of housing types. So let's look at this project with that concept of variety and density in mind. So what a lot of developers would do with this, including kind of the national type cookie cutter type project, would be to do essentially a sea of 40 foot lots. Our approach was not that our approach was to provide three different types of housing So we have the larger purple Lots on the outside. Those are 60 footers and We have the medium product type in the middle, the pink. Those are 41 footers. And then we have the blue lots here, which are internal to the project, and they're 32 feet. They're one third of the lot mix. And those blue lots are the only ones that we're talking about when we talk about the development agreement and the development agreement modifications that Katie mentioned. So even with those blue lots, our density is still on the low end of neighborhood two. If you just added applied the permitted density under neighborhood two, you could put 765 units on this project and we've done 400, so a little more than half. So in, in, excuse me, uh, coming out of our last hearing, uh, I, I did not understand there to be any debate about the purple in the pink lots. It really was had to do with the blue. And so for that blue area in particular, let's focus the conversation there. With that blue area, we wanted to provide a third housing type. We wanted to do it on a smaller lot, and in order to do that, we saw two options. One option would be that we could propose attached product in that area, or we could use an alternative design through the DA to propose a detached product on a smaller lot that could be at the same price point as an attached product. So we didn't want to do attached, so we're asking for a development agreement to modify certain standards for those blue lots only. So what would be different? These are not skinnier lots than what the code allows. We're not asking to modify the lot width. So we are actually above the code minimum, which is 30 feet for all of those lots. We're not asking to change the lot width. What we are asking to look at is two things. One is the square footage. So we're asking to reduce that square footage below the 4,000 square foot minimum. So we have enough frontage per code. So the width is there. So what we're really talking about in that case is the depth. I think that's important because lot depth is not something that you would notice if you're walking or driving down the street because it's street level. you'd see frontages that meet code. What we're talking about is much less noticeable to passersby and really only is experienced by the homeowners themselves who would choose those homes. So that's one item is the square footage. The second item is that the development agreement would recognize a three foot side setback. So right now the code says you can have a zero foot setback or a five foot setback. Zero of course would mean an attached and we don't want to do attached and we don't think that the city would want us to do attached. And if we, but what we have found is that if we pick a side setback that's in between those two, we can deliver a detached home for the same price point as what you would see for an attached home. So that's what we're asking for is to move that side set back from zero to three or from five to three, depending on your, on your perspective so that we can offer that third housing type without having to do attached. And then finally, the development agreement would also lock in our amenities package. As we showed you the last time, this is an enhanced amenities package. It's a lot of the reason why we hope the city will consider our request. Again, swimming pools, pickleball courts, sport courts, dog parks. It's a very nice amenity package. So we think a thoughtful approach that uses a development agreement to modify standards where appropriate is the right thing for this project. It allows us to keep the larger lots on the outside of the project, keep the blue lots internal to the project detached. It avoids that cookie cutter subdivision with a sea of 40 foot lots. And in fact, if we did do the sea of 40 foot lots and got rid of the 60 footers, you'd actually increase the lot count from what we've proposed. You could get up to about five, uh, over 500 if you just did a straight 40 foot lot subdivision. So with our 32 foot lots, we're proposing the 400 lots and those 32 foot lots are internal to the project. And that design helps us to do the amenity package that we've proposed. With regard to the three foot side setbacks, I do want to emphasize that that's not something that we just came up with for this project. It's a mature product. It's something we've done in a number of other subdivisions, including in Meridian. It's a quality development at a price point that folks can afford. We're comfortable with how these lots operate and function. Then again, the amenity package we think is an important part of all of this. So I'll just wrap up by saying that we do believe that this helps us actually more closely follow the comprehensive plan with a little bit of flexibility through the DA modification. And with that, I would just state that we are in agreement with the terms of the staff report. We're in agreement with the conditions, and I'm happy to answer any final questions.

All right. Thank you. All right. Commissioners, any questions? for applicant or staff?

I have one. If I remember last time there was a last minute case item that came up with ITD, did that get addressed? Last minute case item. ITD sent you guys a letter right before the meeting and everything. It came up to us that they were wanting to be in talks with you guys about a traffic light over off Knott Lane in 2026.

Chair and Commissioner, could I actually touch on that? Sure. Thank you. talked with the attorney and we are unable to condition something along those lines based on we wouldn't be able to require them to put funding towards something that would not directly impact. Be directly in their development area. Correct. We don't have the authority to condition that.

My question is what was the letter about? Was it about that?

It was about providing funding for a project, I believe Highway 2026 widening.

Okay. And so that would be an impact fee that they were asking them to do?

Chair and Commissioner, they were asking for them to, I can look up the exact verbiage so that you can see exactly what they were asking. We have had another project that has sent a letter that says the same thing. that we will not be upholding that requirement for that project either due to the same reasoning, just that we wouldn't be able to enforce that. But I can look for the exact letter and see exactly what the words were that they used.

So ITD has no jurisdiction over this project in that regard?

In the case of us enforcing them providing funding to ITD, we would not be able to condition that and enforce that condition, if that makes sense. Yes, that does. OK.

Any other questions commissioners? Nope. Nope. All right. Thank you. All right. We're going to get into public testimony. Um, let's read here. So there is nobody on the in favor, nobody in neutral. So we're going to start here. Uh, Stacy Stevenson is opposed, but doesn't wish to speak.

Correct.

Alice Stephenson is opposed but doesn't wish to speak.

Can I turn my time over to someone else?

No, no, sorry. Kayleen Ossendorf is opposed but doesn't wish to speak. And if I mess up some of these names, I'm sorry. Looks like Chad Stephenson is opposed but doesn't wish to speak. David Ankins? Andrus? Andrus? You want to speak? Okay. If you want to come up to the podium, state your name, your address, and you have three minutes.

I apologize. I just wanted to make a comment, and maybe you already said it.

No, I didn't.

Any public comments this evening have to be limited to the new information that the applicant provided this evening regarding clarification on like the lot sizes or the setbacks or the additional trees for screening.

Yeah, anything that wasn't said in the last meeting in a public testimony won't be heard tonight, correct?

It doesn't necessarily need to be nothing that was in the last one. It's just only the items that were touched on today that are new information. So that would be either the lot sizes that are below 4,000 square feet, the buffering around the out parcels that they're proposing or the three foot setbacks rather than the five foot setbacks.

I'm not sure I follow all of that, but I'll start with my three minutes worth.

Sir, can you follow that? That's all we can do.

I'm not exactly sure kind of what you're saying here.

I mean... Well, we're trying to follow what is supposed to be happening tonight. So if you don't have anything to say on those three things, then we can't actually hear your public testimony tonight.

Okay. Well, I do have on those three things. Okay. When we met last time, you know, you talked about This doesn't meet your standards and now we're going below the 4,000 square feet On a lot size with a three foot in between which I can't even comprehend. This is such a dense property Just there's no really large large size Lots. They're all very small Three feet in between just seems crazy to me I don't think there's enough parking for all these vehicles with with this small of a lot. You did just almost impossible to Do want to recognize they did add five feet on the south side of my property and agreed to do some trees And I appreciate that so thank you for that The backside I did reach out to them and talk to them about stubbing an entrance on the backside of my property because I don't have Access into the backside of my property. I can't get it on knot lane There's not enough width in between there and Skyway on Skyway There is a very large drainage ditch that's probably five to seven feet deep that runs along there. And I know you guys can't say, yes, I'll give you access to Skyway. So I'm looking for access to the back of my property.

Okay. That's still not part of the three things. Okay. So I'm just trying to keep this. So basically I can't say anything. Is that what you're saying? Yeah. I'm sorry. That's just what we're having to tape to a standard too tonight. Thank you. Brian person you wish to speak Please state your name and address and you have three minutes and did you hear what we need to stand?

Brian Pearson one seven seven five four Polaroid in Napa actually about a mile and a half south of this So I'm at a little bit of a disadvantage with the new rules. I guess the limitation requirements for what can be said is the disadvantage because it wasn't here for the initial hearing is the 402 units new.

No.

So the, if you do the traffic multiplier, the 4,000 additional car trips per day, that's not new.

That's not what's up. Yeah.

Valley view school district saying the kids have no place to go to school. That's not.

Yeah. So you heard what we did. Um,

Guess fire suppression expertise is just not in my billiwick, but a three-foot sit back y'all's Fire Marshall reviewers are okay with homes that closely spaced. It's past the city muster.

They're okay with that They would have to meet building standards At that time during building permit they'd have to meet fire standards so perhaps some fire suppressant or fire resistant Well, I'm

I'm aced out. There were other things I'd wished to say, but with that rule set.

Yeah, sorry about that.

No, I'm sorry. This is just sort of a civics thing, and it's just a general statement. It's just kind of interesting that a developer is going to come in and develop this property, and then when it's built in two years or whatever, retreat back to their comfort or their home in Boise. and we live with a mess because that's what it is, has an unlimited amount of time to propose. I have to live with this the rest of my life, and I get three minutes, and those comments are limited. It's just an interesting civics lesson.

Well, it would have been done at the last meeting that this came up.

But it's still unlimited time and three minutes. All right.

Hey, thank you.

Chair, and I do want to just make a comment. We will accept public comments for the city council hearing or anyone who wants to come and testify then as well so that you can touch on all of the different items of the development.

Thank you. All right. Sue Kinchler? Kushlong. Kushlong? I'm sorry. Says you're opposed but don't wish to speak? Correct. Okay. Dave Christensen, opposed, doesn't wish to speak. Lowell Dale, you want to speak? Yes. All right. If you could state your name and address.

I have your staff bring up three items so I know what they are. Lowell Dale, 19236 Flora Road.

Okay. And you can stick to the three items that we need to talk about?

We'll bring the three items up and we'll see. In the meantime, Katie. Well, I'll help you out with it. Okay. Katie, you said... 3,000 feet was the reduction. And your docket, your exhibit K from last winter was 3,500, not 3,000. This is a slippery slope. I'm honestly confused by what's going on here tonight. Are you with me on the 3,500, not 3,000? I'm referring to the lot reduction size. 4,000 wasn't good enough. They wanted to reduce it to 3,500. You said 3,000 earlier tonight. It's getting smaller and smaller by the minute. So let's get that corrected in minutes, okay? All right. My first item will be around the side setback and the reduction, which was one of the items. And one of the other items that would open it up is the applicant said that he believes there were no other items. There were other items spoken to. It wasn't just those lots inside. It was the fact that we are like the gentleman before me said, we're putting 400 homes in an area that we can't get out of our neighborhood today. Okay. I'll express my concerns again about the five foot as well as the 4,000 or 3,500, not 3,000 foot. Never mind applicant one in the squeeze anymore. I went and looked at one of the developments. I don't know if your staff, if staff, you went over and looked at the Verado or any of the other. I did. And they were not what was marketed to us earlier on in February or in July as well. They're on top of each other. There were two landscape trucks, one with a trailer parked up on the sidewalk. I couldn't walk down the sidewalk. There were cars lined up and down the street. And mind you, this is the middle of the day when people are supposedly working. Never mind if somebody was having a wedding, a barbecue, a birthday party. Undersized garage from the looks of it, which generates, thanks to our development and what's going on here tonight, storage units, traffic to and from storage units. I don't see how shoving more people into an already constrained and barely maintained infrastructure is going to net us forward versus backwards. We're behind in infrastructure, ahead of wheat, a sugar beet, corn. Excuse me, sir. Hold on.

Can we turn the phones off, please? Sorry. Sorry. I just didn't want to do that. You can have a little bit more time. So sorry about that.

I don't see how, again, we can't get out of our neighborhoods. twice a day today. We're putting our lives in our hands trying to turn out a Rose Downs subdivision. We've got Walmart planned, we've got WinCo planned, and then 400 homes. Maybe it's timing, but right now we're behind. We don't have green belts, we have checkbox parks. I passed a kid trying to ride down the side of the road today on a bike. No sidewalks. Kid's gonna get run over by a car. So I don't see how, I mean we have the argument that it's gonna pay for itself over time, We're behind now. We've grown to 120,000 people, and we haven't proven that we're doing well with the development dollars thus far. So when the applicant referred to widening... You can have a couple more. When he referred to the widening as the answer, let's not forget the widening of 2026 is commercialized. We've taken the three largest state highways in the state of Idaho and turned them into commercial corridors. It's not about expediting traffic and moving traffic. And I don't get it. It's a burden. And I don't know why someone that says they're from Meridian would want to turn something that was special to us here in Idaho. I've lived here most of my life. And we want to turn it into something that we can't even get anywhere. Last Saturday, I tried to go to Grover's. 110 minutes for a three-mile to and a three-mile back. I was in the store 10 minutes. I had ambulances and fire trucks trying to get to an accident, and they could not get around any of the gridlock traffic. It's an atrocity. It's irresponsible.

And lastly... You've got to make this quick.

Subdivision fires. 2008, you guys probably remember we had the fires on Columbia Village.

But that's still not part of those three things.

It is part of the side setback. It absolutely is.

That's part of a building code, so...

Well, how are we approving houses that are this far apart? I'd rather have apartments that have fire suppression and we're going to put houses that one of those catches on fire. So who's, who's responsible for that then? If a home, one person died out of Columbia village when that happened, spoke cam this year and we're just going to sit here and prove it and then not let people talk.

Can we wrap this up real quick?

That is it.

Okay. Thank you. Calvin Walsh. You want to speak? You're opposed. Can you state your name, address for the record, please?

Calvin Walsh, 19266 Flora, 83687. So obviously I'm here as an opposition to stick with the... How do I just say? So... The developer made and changed their setbacks from 15 feet to 20 feet. Obviously, my part when I came up here originally was for privacy. As with other people in our neighborhood, it vaguely affects our neighborhood right now. But what happens in this neighborhood is going to set the precedence for the neighborhood that goes in behind it. So the neighborhood, if I'm not mistaken, the same people, the people that are developing this land also own the land to the south of it. which the land in the south of it will run directly along our border. Everybody on our side of the subdivision, Rosedown subdivision that faces the east, we bought those property and that land for the view and the privacy. I would like to ask if we can somehow, rather than just putting trees something with the lots with the buildings so the people who built there have been been in this Rose down subdivision with the east facing backyards do still do still get some sort of her privacy I mean I I know we're not I know we're not a view state we don't get to protect our views but I'd like to be able to do say something to protect our privacy if with a 10 or 15 to 20 foot setback built right up right off my off our back fence line as it takes is a two-story building and everybody behind us gets to see in our backyard i know trees are supposed i know the proposed trees for that for the neighbors and stuff they're they're considered you know uh is a consideration but still trees die you know uh secondly is um with regards to to the setbacks obviously everybody else here is and opposed to the three-foot setback i am as well uh I don't know if anybody, as far as the 402 homes and stuff, I feel like I just need to say it out loud. I don't know if anybody actually thought about it. So we got 402 homes on 95 gross acres, just like gross versus net, just like your paycheck. So I did a little bit of math on the proposal, and what I see is that's 402 homes on 95 gross acres. If you remove the setbacks and the parks and the roads or whatnot, that's 402 homes on 47 net acres, 47 net acres. And that comes out to be over the eight homes per acre. That's something to gross acre. Everybody says we talk about gross acres, but I think so. So need to think about is the actual net acres of how much how densely we're populating this. Along with that, obviously, traffic is that we're not and we're not by ourselves here. There's other. There's other cities, sorry, there's other cities that are building right around this, Nampa per se, are doing the same exact thing. So I wonder how we can think about what we're allowing in conjunction with what other cities are allowing and the density we're putting into such a small area. All right. Hey, thank you. Thanks.

Hold on, Chair. Yeah. If you don't want trees, what's your recommendation?

No, it's not that I said I don't want trees. In addition, I'm saying is you can put up trees to help with privacy. That's great.

Sorry, maybe my question wasn't clear. What would you like us to ask the developer to change for that portion? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. If it's not trees, what would you like, what would you, if you could have your way, what would you want?

What I would like to say is obviously this is not really going to affect us right now, but they own, from what I understand, they own the property in the south that will be developed soon after this, is to make those homes that border us to protect our privacy is single story. That's the best we can ask for. If they're going to build 20 foot off our back fence line, the best we can ask for is some privacy trees. And not only trees, but also single stories. So the 14-year-old kid whose bedroom window faces back here doesn't see me and my wife getting out of the hot tub naked.

OK. Got you. Single story. Thank you.

Hey, thank you.

But don't want to speak? OK. DeRay quarters you didn't mark anything. Do you want to speak? Are you opposed? Can you state your name and address for the record and You heard what we're sticking to tonight for responses, right?

So we're not going back on anything we're not going back to what was discussed at the last meeting Yeah, so it sounds like the ITD thing Didn't get discussed?

It was unclear at the time because it just came in. It was new evidence brought to us and everything that the developer hadn't had a chance to even address it yet. We didn't even know what it was, which is why I needed clarification what it truly was. Even staff hadn't had a time to do that. But it sounds like it's outside of our purview. Just like we cannot enforce codes or force things in NAMPA or BOIS or anything, we are limited to what we can do.

Right. But it is something we could discuss then if it hasn't been discussed, right?

No. No, we're sticking correct. Katie, can you explain?

Chair and Commissioner, unfortunately, it's not one of the items that was asked for the commission. So the commission asked the applicant to come back and address the three things that we're talking about today. So the lot sizes being below the 4,000, the three-foot setbacks rather than the five-foot setbacks in code, and then the buffering from the property to the out parcels.

So Okay, my name's Dre Quarters. I live on Knot Lane. What's your address? Did you state your address? 19460 Knot Lane.

Thank you.

So I'm one of the two properties that's getting pretty much completely surrounded there. If we're not talking about the impacts of what the traffic is going to do, when do we get that chance to talk about that?

I believe you can bring it back up at City Council when it comes to City Council.

So then we can talk about, you know, what Brighton's doing and getting the services over there. And then essentially that's correct. The widening of 2026 and what's happening with not lane.

Yep.

And Skyway.

Yep. You'll have to take that up with city council at the city council meeting for this project.

Okay. So can I ask just one question? Are we going to wait for Skyway to get put in before we're doing a development for ingress egress? Staff will have to answer that.

Chair and commissioner. Engineering would be best to discuss timing of when Skyway will be constructed, but I would imagine that that's required for access for over 30 homes. So they would have to require it prior to probably more than one phase.

So essentially they have to put in Skyway before...

Development starts and I can't guarantee that that'd be engineering that I'll be able to touch on that But unfortunately, they're not here yet so that they will be coming later, but probably not for this hearing Or the applicant. Yeah, I might be able to as well during the rebuttal.

Okay, so then I guess with Skyway in question With not laying going out to 2026 and no light there. It's obviously super dangerous intersection along with Midway or Midland. I'm sorry. Is, are we going to wait for 2026 to carry through and widen so they can put some lights up before we're trying to shove all this traffic?

We won't be able to answer that until engineering's here or I don't think engineering's here for this, this hearing because we're not talking about that tonight.

So there'll be another hearing.

I would say bring that up at city council. Correct. Okay.

And again, the applicant may have the answer to some of these, but engineering would be able to touch on it from the city's perspective. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. Rebuttal. Applicant, I feel like you have five minutes to do a rebuttal.

Members of the Commission, Heath Clark, 251 East Front Street in Boise. So Katie, can I bring that map or the presentation up one more time? So just a couple of items that I would mention. That one works. So one item with regard to the county neighbors, I did want to point out that If you look at our Northwest portion of the project, there's that green space there in that very, in that point, that is the only portion of this plat that touches that rose down subdivision. And we put open space against those lots. So I just wanted to point that out that we have been trying to be mindful. And that was a, I think a nice concession by the developer to put that open space in that location. I also wanted to emphasize that this is not, again, just the 32-foot lots. The 32-foot lots are only the blue lots, and they are only internal to the project. So someone who lives in a county sub or somewhere else is not going to be able to see them. They won't know that they're there. What we have done is a variety of lot sizes. And so again, we've put our biggest loss, the 60 footers out on the outside of the project against our neighbors in order to transition. Um, with regard to parking, there was a couple of comments about that. The staff report confirms that we do meet code on parking. We we've done this type of development in a number of places, and we're confident that it's more than adequately parked. We're also very familiar with the fire code, international building code. There's not an issue with these setbacks in the fire code or the international building code. They are perfectly safe. I think with that, unless there's other things that the commission has, I think those were the main items that I heard, but we're happy to see if there's any other follow-up.

I just have one. Can you... touch on any of the road stuff that we just got asked about?

Sure, yeah. So I would point out, again, I agree with the chair. We're trying to be cautious here, and it's more with regard to the commission gave us specific direction on the things you wanted to hear about tonight, so we're trying to keep the public hearing narrow. The city council, that will all be discussed at that point, but the staff report includes all that information. The staff report shows that there is a traffic impact study that was prepared. Identified the specific mitigation that the engineering department was looking for we've agreed to all of that mitigation With regard to Skyway the portions that are not part of our project are part of another project that has already been plotted is my understanding and so that will be built in due course along with that project in in cooperation with ours and And I would just also point out that the city is protected in that instance in that we have to have the two points of Access if we're ever going to go above 30 units So we need to be working with our neighbor to make sure that those pieces go in at the appropriate time So hopefully that answers that question commission. Yeah.

Thank you So you touched on the other so you're saying on the northwest corner That is currently being plotted. Is that it?

That's my understanding and Katie might be able to clarify that I

Chair and Commissioner, staff will have to confirm. I believe that we saw the final plot come through recently for the preliminary aviary. Is it aviary heights? We can confirm, but I do believe that if it's aviary heights, we've had a preliminary plot come through for it. Not a final plot.

And that section of Skyway in that northwest corner is part of their plot? Yes. Correct. Okay. That's because I was noticing it's on the east side, but not the west side.

The alignment is off of our site. Correct. Okay. I just wanted to make sure.

Correction. It is regular aviary subdivision, not Heights. And I believe that there has been a final plot for it that's in process.

So we haven't seen that yet? It hasn't come through?

It will just be staff review for a staff report and then on the consent agenda for city council. The preliminary plot has already gone through entitlements a few years ago.

Any other questions?

Just a quick question. I think it was Kelvin Walsh asking about the single stories. Where is his home on here? Is it touching that green in the northwest corner? Is that what? portion you're talking about?

He'd have to confirm but I believe his house is further south than that so it doesn't touch but that's I don't know for certain.

Is that true? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions?

No?

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Alright. Any final clarifications by staff? Any final clarifications by staff? Nope. You're good? Okay. Any final questions by commissioners?

Commissioner Larson? I do have a question, Chair, for staff. In regarding to the parking that's not really pertaining to this, but just in general holistically for us to all understand, say theoretically there's no HOA, there's no law saying where you can park and we can have super dense parking and that's totally fine with code? I want to make sure that's clear in my mind.

Chair and commissioners, single-family homes are required to have two off-street parking spaces one enclosed aka garage and then one can be unenclosed and each of the homes here will have will meet that code requirement and that and then also all Subdivisions are required to have HOAs per our code Okay, I guess so add really quickly that public streets are a wide enough width that they allow on street parking and

Okay. I guess my question is the on-street parking just generally holistically. There's no code saying that you can't have everybody two inches apart from each other all around the width of the roads, correct?

Our code does not call out any specifics for on-street parking within subdivisions, but if that were to be something in the CCNRs for the subdivision itself, then that would be under the HOAs.

Okay. But we have nothing in code saying anything about that?

No, we wouldn't.

Okay. Just wanted to double check. Thanks, Chair.

Yep. Any other?

I guess I have a question for the applicant and everything.

Commissioner Vance. Yeah.

Mr. Chair. So in doing this, I mean, you've definitely done your homework, done your numbers and everything. You said the reason for the higher density... is essentially to be able to be at a price point but also to help with pay for the amenities that you guys are providing on this specific lot, correct?

Commissioner Vance, not directly on that element. So the real emphasis with the 32-foot lots is to provide that third product type. and to do that product type in a way that's detached versus attached and to hit that same price point. That's primary. If we have the density, that also helps in other ways in the sense that it allows us to kind of push that open space open and allow us to have the amenities in the way that it's laid out. Now, if you don't have that density, then you spread the lots out, it changes everything. There's ripple effects throughout all of it. So it certainly changes the amenity plan. So I don't know that I would use the words, we need it to afford the amenities. It's different than that. The real emphasis is to try to get that third product type.

Did you do a calculation if you were to modify in specifically the green area to the 40 foot light, what would be the reduction of the amount of homes in just that green area? Did you do that calculation? Just the blue area. Oh, sorry. I guess it might be Well, those are those are 32-foot lot 32 lots going to going to a 40-foot lot because by going to a 40-foot lot wouldn't that? Just that would increase to the five-foot minimum requirement for that.

We normally have at the city code, correct Commissioner Vance No, so the your frontage requirement in the r2 is 30 feet and So you could have a 30 foot lot with five foot setbacks on it is really the, so the difference is in the large part, I guess I would point out that, you know, our developer has studied this market significantly and that's why he likes it, right? And part of the motivation for a person who likes this type of home is that they would prefer more building and less outside of it to maintain, right? And so they're not interested in the extra couple feet of landscaping on the other side if they can get the same house on a smaller lot and have less to maintain. So that's kind of the psychology behind it.

I'm just trying to find the middle ground here, you know, because obviously you have the five. You're asking for the three and everything. There seems to be a lot of contention over that. I definitely kind of hear what they're saying about fire enforcement and everything like that. So just things I want to consider.

Well, and just to be clear, Commissioner Vance, this does meet fire code. It does meet fire code. And there is no evidence in the record. There's no, you know, the fire is not. indicated that it's an issue. And we know that it's not because we built it in a number of different instances. It does meet fire code. And again, that was one thing coming away from the last hearing that I felt like maybe there was a misperception about was the width of the lots. And that's why I wanted to emphasize that. We're not talking about skinnier lots. We're talking about a different setback on the sides of those lots. Okay.

That makes more sense. Thank you.

Sorry, one more question for the applicants. So you decided to do detached instead of attached. How are you guys assessing the quality of life of those two? Like how are you determining that a quality of life of a detached is better than an attached?

I don't know that I necessarily understand the question, but I'll take a stab at it. I do know that we believe that the market that we're catering to would prefer a detached home. I do these types of hearings all over the valley, and I very regularly hear people say, I would prefer to see detached product than I would like to see attached product. Attached product, yes, you can get it into a smaller footprint. It also has higher building costs. There are different ways of living with that. You get to hear people pounding on the wall next to you. But there are people that prefer it. I lived in an attached townhome when I was in law school. I enjoyed it. But in this case, based on market inputs and based on what we hear at a lot of our land use hearings, we know that there's a preference for that. And that's why we think this is a really cool thing that we're proposing here and that we can present that a detached product for the attached price. So that's why we think it's something that the city should consider. Okay.

Thanks, Chair. Thanks, applicant.

Yeah.

Any others? No. Okay. All right. Do I have a motion to close public testimony?

So moved. Second.

All right. All in favor?

Aye.

All right. Public testimony is closed. It's time for us to deliberate.

I think I like the clarification, though, on the three foot to the five foot. It's just a bigger house, but not necessarily the distance between that they were working on. Just going to the zero line. Yeah.

That wasn't at the original hearing, so that's true.

So, yeah, we're just deliberating on the three things that they came back with. So, really, and I think you just got clarification. I did that as a big clarification on that.

Okay, good.

yeah the traffic um the setback was addressed and and everything on the 25 15 foot to 20 foot and and public will be able to speak again at city council right so for more of their concerns um anything else i'm up for a motion if anybody wants to make one

Because I guess I have more questions. How about that?

OK.

What else is your?

I guess another one of my concerns is like I said, I understand it's not part of this customer's project or this applicant's project. But now engineering is here. So I guess I just worry a little bit more about the traffic study. But we did get a traffic impact study on this. And based on the traffic impact study, it was compliant. The project is compliant with traffic impact study.

Yes, that's correct.

Did you get a loss rating of the roads?

I'm sorry, say that again?

Do you have a loss rating of the roads? Like we normally have the A, B, C, D, F? the rating of how bad the road is?

No, I am not aware of what the rating of the road is. Some of these roads don't exist actually adjacent, so they'll still have to be constructed as part of the development. Not late specifically.

And commissioners, I still do want to come back to you. We're only looking at three things. And traffic is not one of them right now. Sorry, I'm not trying to rein everybody in, but... We're only making a motion on the three things that were brought forward that they actually...

I will interject. We are not just making a motion on the three things.

Oh, okay. This is on the whole thing.

On the whole project.

The whole project.

It's a recommendation to council. Okay.

Sorry.

The three things were for the public. We still are looking at the project. Sorry.

Okay. Perfect. Okay.

Sorry. So same question still. So when you did the traffic, when said traffic impact study was done, we don't do the loss... rating of the roads while we do that? Am I misunderstanding what happens when we do a traffic impact study?

Yes, yes, I see what you're asking now. And yes, that is done at the time that the traffic impact study is completed. All of those are in compliance. Obviously, they've got to construct some of these roads out here. And part of the engineering requirements within the staff report for that Recognize that there also has to be turn lanes constructed with some of those intersections out there because there are two classified intersections city code requires Turn lanes to be constructed at the intersection of all classified intersections So we're two roads that are collectors meet or collectors and arterials meet will automatically trigger a right-hand turn lane For northbound traffic southbound traffic east and westbound traffic.

Okay, so then I guess to clarify sorry to our chair keep asking the same questions What exactly is the loss rating, then, if it's meeting the city's loss rating? What is that?

That, I believe, is a loss rating of an E, F. F or an E, if I'm not mistaken, is what it has to mean. But in this case, I think we're at a D or a B at this point.

And F, just to clarify.

We're well within the rating for the intersection.

F is the bottom, right? Yes. Okay. Okay, thank you.

So, Mr. Chair, and I do want to point out for other occasions, I like to do my research. So looking at the highways, the land that they have acquired, they definitely have, I can't speak that they have a plan, but I can see from these maps that they've acquired the land necessary for a major change at the intersection here. So something is going to happen here. I can see 20 to 40 foot setbacks and looks like what would be turn lanes and other things like that, but they don't have a formal plan in place. So I think that might alleviate some of the worry on the traffic because even though we can't see everything that's going on, something is happening here. We just don't know what it is yet.

And I believe somebody said, and I could be wrong, so correct me, but that there's other developments coming in that are going to be contributing to that, to the roads, correct?

Correct. And they would be on that west side of Knott Lane. Now, Katie, to that, do they only meet to center line and over, or do they go, because they're going to be the remaining length of the road all the way almost up to the highway.

Chair and Commissioner, for Knott Lane? Yes. I believe there's a portion where they would be doing the full section, the full street section of Knott Lane, and then there is a portion where I believe they're only doing the east half section. One of the half sections. But there is a portion where they're doing the full.

Okay, so they're a typical section.

I apologize. It is the west half section that they'll be doing. But again, there is a large chunk where they'll be doing the full.

The full length of the west half section?

Yes. Okay. Besides adjacent to the two out parcels that you see right there. Oh, right.

Yeah.

So that road is going to widen. I mean, it's hard to say so now, but that it won't. Yes, I can understand that as of right now, but we have no control over ITD and what they do.

Can I add something to this?

Yeah.

There's two out parcels on the corner up here. on both sides of roadway at the intersection. The city would have to obtain the out parcel right of way in order for the full street section to be completed and for right hand turn lanes to be completed. If the city can't obtain that right of way, those turn lanes would not be required at that point.

Within the city, but it looks like they've been acquired by ITD, at least on the one closest to 2026.

Yeah, up at 2026. Yeah, that would be at 2026. This would be at the Knott and Midland intersection. Northside. Oh, over there, okay. Or Skyway, right? Is it Skyway? Yeah, so it's Skyway and Knott is the intersection that we're talking about, and there's an out parcel on both sides of that roadway. So the city would have to obtain the right of way for those out parcels in order for this development to complete the frontage improvements along those parcel frontages. That may or may not be a challenge for the city. We don't know that until we actually approach them, but that can hinder frontage improvements along those two out parcels. Thank you.

There is almost... There's a subdivision in between that is County not even city of Napa The odds of Skyway completing is I'm sorry Commissioner Vance. Can you speak up so I can I'm sorry What I'm saying is I just I struggle with the Skyway With the Skyway Street and everything just because I can see what they're trying to do and what what the plan is but just looking at it and like like the engineer said, the time or what it would take to gain that it's, yeah. Also going across railroad tracks and so the only road would be not lane for access.

That was part of the concern that I was trying to address.

That's what I was looking into. Because when you brought it up, it rang off to me for a minute.

We really weren't able to talk to everyone.

The public testimony is closed. Please understand, the reason we have to restrict it is so that, because we did the one meeting that was already two and a half hours, that a lot of this stuff got brought up. We remember it. It's in here. It's in our notes. And if we were to compound and restate everything, this all of a sudden, we were only on our first item of four tonight, we would be on an eight-hour meeting. We'd never get it all done.

So we're just doing this so that we can... Sir, sir, this is a... Can you please have some decorum?

What I'm trying to say, we are paying attention. We are listening. We're just trying to get through it so that we can go through all the information. But we are listening. So... Um... Yeah. That.

So I will apologize to you guys for over speaking of what we were voting on tonight. So I apologize for that to staff too. So I was thinking something different. So entertain a motion.

I don't have a motion. This one's... It's not necessarily infill either, this is outlying. This is all the way on the outskirts of our area of impact and everything, so it's really hard to see what those, I can see what the developer's benefits are, but the connective benefits, I'm struggling with and I can understand the Community's response that it doesn't meet certain parts of our code, but they are asking for consideration based on that Your thoughts I Apologize the chairman because not not having all the information from the first meeting.

I don't feel I that I'm prepared to make a motion one way or the other.

Staff, I do have one question, and I'm just, and maybe I'm misreading this, but I thought that the applicant said 30 foot lots, but on page 30 it says 24 foot. So I just, can you double verify with me that I'm reading that correctly, or is that incorrect?

No, Chair and Commissioner, that is correct. It's been conditioned that they must meet code. prior to city council. So the plan that the applicant was showing, that may show those 32-foot wide lots like they were calling out, but we would require that they meet code unless they were to request that deviation through the development agreement, which that was not part of their request. So we would ensure that that is met prior to city council as a condition.

Okay. Thanks, Steph.

You know, it is kind of like everything. If there's already other developments coming right here, too, it's all going to start to fill in.

That's true.

I'm not saying it's the right thing always, but it's coming. And as they come, the roads get wider. That's the only way we're getting roads taken care of is by developers coming through.

I guess we've closed public testimony, haven't we?

Yeah, public testimony is closed.

Yeah, OK. 6-5.

Somebody make a motion?

Sure. Based upon the testimony evidence in this matter and upon the findings of facts and conclusions of law set forth here and I do hereby determine and move that the request for ANN 26-05 and SPP 26-3 legacy farms is recommended for denial based on concerns from the deviation from our standard codes.

Okay. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. Roll call.

Larson. Yes. Vance. Yes. Harmon.

No.

Whitbeck.

Yes.

Okay. All right. So let's move on to the next one.

Okay.

All right. So we're going to move on to new business, action item, public hearing. legislative and quasi-judicial for case number ANN26000010. The applicant, Josh Roeder of Seminium Development Group, on behalf of Wild Oak LLC, is requesting annexation of parcel R343160000 with a proposed zoning of C2 Community Commercial with a development agreement. The current city comprehensive plan future land use map place type is neighborhood three and C2 is identified as a compatible zoning designation. The applicant has already received a condition condition use permit through Canyon County for a special events facility wedding venue on the site and is requesting to bring the facility into the city of Caldwell so they may connect to the water and sewer. The 3.85-acre parcel is addressed as 19781 Middleton Road and is located on the west side of Middleton Road, approximately 1,100 feet south of the intersection with 2026 and Caldwell, Idaho. All right. So applicant, if you could come forward. State your name and address for the record. You've got 20 minutes.

Commissioners I have a sinus infection, so I apologize for the throat and everything my name is Josh trader with Somnium Development My address is two nine seven six East State Street, Eagle, Idaho eight three six one six and as I mentioned I'm here on behalf of wild oak wedding venue Derek and Carly Olson The project is as you stated has been approved in Canyon County. It is currently under construction however With the expansion on Middleton Road, there has been a water line and a sewer line that have been extended. There have been sewer services that have been extended out. And in order for the project to connect, we have chosen the annexation avenue to be a part of the city of Coldwell and so that we can connect to city sewer and water services. So a little bit about the venue. It is... A wedding venue that they have also run or currently are running in the state of Utah as well. They have moved their residence up here and they would like to open a wedding venue for the area here. So it'll host weddings, receptions, events. They're looking to run it, have the ability to have it run at any day of the year and not have a restriction through Mondays through Saturdays. So that is an annexation request as part of the development agreement. So as I mentioned, why we're annexing, the prominent reason is to connect to the public water and sewer. We are going to be requesting, it's a neighborhood three future land use designation. We are requesting C2 zoning, which is a compatible zoning designation. However, the wedding venue would need to be conditioned as or would need to be approved as a development agreement. which we've worked with staff on throughout it. The surrounding areas are, it's the adjacent mixed-use center to the north, and then it's a little bit of residential to the west and to the south, and then it's commercial to the east. So I feel like the wedding venue is a decent pocket right there. It is generally hidden from the road. As you can see, there's only, I think it's a 20, maybe 30-foot street frontage for us to be able to go in. There's trees that are lining both sides. So it's kind of tucked back in there. It's a nice little private area for where the venue would be. This is a layout of the site. You can see it comes in. Middleton Road is currently being or has been widened. So there's the roundabout that's right there. The current site would take access kind of directly off that southeast corner. That would be into the roundabout. So the roadway has, or the driveway has come in further to the south. It kind of loops up around and then we take that access. So it creates an additional kind of buffer from the road. There is a greenhouse that is proposed or shown on this. In the last couple of weeks, the applicant has chosen to remove the greenhouse. So we're looking just at the wedding venue that's right there. As I mentioned, the construction is currently, or the project is approved, the building permits are approved. It's building permit 2025-0805 in Canyon County. So that construction has already taken place, or not taken place, but it's currently underway. It should be completed in the next month or so. As far as parking and access, there is 105 spaces that are required as part of the wedding venue. We've provided 106. There's also Fred Meyer that's going in to the northeast. And the applicant has discussed with them about any potential overflow. There's a walkway that comes in across. So if there happens to be an event where they need additional parking, there would be no parking along Middleton Road. And any additional parking, should there be additional over the required, would be across the street over there. And there is safe pedestrian access to get across. As I mentioned, the development agreement would be required as part of this. So we'd be annexing in as C2 zoning with the development agreement. As part of the development agreement, we would be requesting that we would be allowed to have Sunday events and that there wouldn't be a cap on 150 events throughout the year. Are they going to do 150 events throughout the year? Most likely not, but they would like to be able to keep that as an option depending on how many events that they can end up having. We will meet all of the city conditions. One of the conditions that was already requested was to pave all or not requested but required was to pave all of the parking. It was approved through Canyon County with gravel parking. So we've already updated our plan set to do that. It also was approved. There was no kind of parking islands on that south side. You can kind of see at the bottom of the screen there. There's two little white fingers. So that way we meet all of the city of Caldwell's landscape requirements for parking as well. So with that, that is the end of the presentation and thank you commissioners.

All right. Thank you. Staff.

Thank you commissioners. Garlene Davis to five South six Avenue application number and 26 dash zero three Josh Schroeder on behalf of the property owner is requesting annexation of parcel R three four three one six within city limits with initial zoning of C two community commercial, um, with an associated development agreement. The subject site is approximately 3.849 acres and located on the west side of Middle Sand Road, south of the intersection with Highway 2026. The parcel is within Kenyon County in its own agricultural. Kenyon County has approved the Wild Oak Wedding and Event Venue through conditional use Permit CU2024-0013 and has issued a building permit for the venue. Construction is underway and the building is currently in the framing stage from our last conversation. The venue's proposed operating hours are 10 a.m. to 11 p.m. with no outdoor music. The applicant is requesting annexation into the city to connect to city water and sewer. The surrounding area includes both commercial and residential development, north to the site of vacant parcels and commercial uses, with Highway 2026 nearby. across Middleton Road to the east is the approved mixed-use development Valencia Village, which includes some future commercial development. Residential developments are mainly located to the south and west of the site. The proposed, the property is designated neighborhood three on the future land use map, parcels to the north and east of it are designated mixed-use center. West and south and southeast are designated neighborhood three. Neighborhood three is primarily a residential designation, but it also anticipate medium intensity commercial uses at major intersections and areas that transition to surrounding commercial place types. The site fronts Middleton Road, a designated key corridor, and it is located near Highway 2026. Commercial uses exist to the north of it, and approved commercial development, Valencia Village, is located to the east. The proposal is therefore compliant with the comprehensive plan. The surrounding area includes, sorry, the parcels West and south of the site are zoned residential, R1 and R2. On the east, they are zoned regional commercial. The applicant is requesting initial C2 zoning, which is a compatible zone with neighborhood three. The C2 zone is intended to accommodate medium density commercial uses. The event center use is a specially permitted use within the C2 zone. the applicant is requesting approval of the use through the development agreement. Through the DA, the applicant is also requesting two changes to the county approved conditional use permit. One, the removal of the restriction on Sunday events, and two, the elimination of the 150 event annual limit. The site is accessed from Middleton Road. The event venue building is located on the western portion of the site, more than 150 feet from the closest residential uses with most of the parking located to the east and south of the site. The approved county plan provided 108 off-street parking spaces At the request of city staff, the applicant has included some island, some parking island, which has reduced the parking to 105. However, this meets the minimum. But I do want to point out that the venue, as approved by Kenyon County, was approved to a maximum of 220 attendees, which is a different occupancy than presented earlier by the applicant, and 12 employees at any one time. And in my staff report, I recommended that those limit be kept as conditions of approval. The proposal meets the applicable city requirements for setback, lot size, building heights, and vehicle parking with the 220 occupancy size. 11 bicycle parking space are required by code and must be shown on the site plan prior to city council. The applicant submitted a landscape plan after my staff report was completed, so I included it as a late exhibit tonight. The city code requires a street landscape buffer along Middleton Road, a 20-foot landscape buffer along the residential use to the south. Parking lot landscaping and building facade landscaping. After initial review of the plan, street landscape buffer, parking lot, and building facade landscaping are shown. Along the southern property line, the plan shows a 10 foot wide land use buffer, whereas a 20 foot wide land use buffer is required. that'll be further clarification needed from the applicant prior to city council. Sewer irrigation service can be made available to serve the proposed development. Fire and police identify no significant impact on their service. The engineering department has required a water availability analysis prior to service connection. Political subdivisions were notified and provided opportunity to comment. Comments from city departments and Kenan County Development Services were included in my staff report. Staff received one public comment in opposition to the proposed annexation citing proximity to residential development. With the recommended conditions of approval in my staff report, the proposal will comply with all applicable city code adopted comp plan, Idaho code, and other city adopted master plans and city policies. The commission has the authority to recommend approval of denial or applications based on the approval criteria in city code, review of the record, evidence, and public testimony. I will send for questions.

Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions?

Yeah, I have a couple quick questions. Why is there a 150 event limit? Or what was the, do we have reasoning on that?

As discussed earlier, the use itself was approved by Kenyon County through a conditional use permit and the site was constructed with that number of parking spaces approved and it exceeded City's minimum parking at that point with

Yeah, sorry, the number of events. Oh, sorry. The number of events per year.

I thought you meant parking.

Events, sorry. Yeah, so it was 150.

That was completely a county decision that has nothing to do with city.

Okay.

Yes.

And then one other question. What is staff's thought on Sunday events? Why would that need to be a deviation?

Again, that was a county. The city has no such requirement in our code.

Okay.

Yes.

Just double checking. Thank you, Chair.

Yep.

Any other questions by commissioners?

I have a question for Seth. As the building was approved under county code, but it's still under the national building code, but it meets all requirements for our code, correct? As far as the building itself.

So at this time, we have not reviewed the building permits. They've been issued building permits under the county, and so the intent is to keep building under those county permits and have the county review them. However, most of the building code is just adopted at a state level. So I would imagine that I don't think we the city have any building codes that go above and beyond. So I would imagine, yes, that they do meet.

I just want to make sure that as the applicant comes forward, if he was going to be surprised with any new codes or anything like that.

No, so staff has reviewed it in relation to planning and zoning codes. And so we have requested a few site plan modifications to accommodate our land use buffer codes or landscaping codes or parking codes and things like that, but we did not review the building permits for the structure itself.

Because it's already in construction.

Because it's already underway, yes.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Go ahead. Why don't you ask the applicant the question?

Yeah, I think there's no public testimony, right? So the applicant can come back?

Yep, you can come back up.

And then I have a quick question for you.

The only one signed up for public testimony was you.

Okay. Just a quick question. Just for lighting for the neighborhoods, there's not concerns that you're going to have light shine out into the neighborhoods nearby or you're going to have it just pointing down? That's the only concern. I don't think it's a big deal because you look like you're kind of far away, but That's the only question I have.

Correct.

It's pretty hidden back in there as well, but we will be in all city codes regarding that. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. I wanted to interject to say that we do have a condition of approval in our report addressing lighting.

Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions, Commissioners, to staff?

No. Okay. Thank you.

Yep, I'll make a recommendation for approval.

Oh, sorry Any final clarifications by my staff at all, are you good? Okay, thank you All right. No final questions by commissioners. So I have a motion to close public testimony.

So moved.

All right second second all in favor aye aye aye Public testimony is closed. I don't think we have a deliberation. You look like you're ready to make a motion.

Yeah, I'm ready to make a motion. Chair, based upon the testimony, evidence, and record in this matter, and upon the finding of facts and conclusions of law set forth herein, I do hereby determine and move the request for ANN 26-10 for Wild Oak is recommended for approval subject to the conditions of approval as presented or amended. Second.

Roll call.

Larson?

Yes.

Whitbeck?

Yes.

Harmon? Yes. Vance?

Yes. All right. Okay. So that one's taken care of. All right. We're going to go on to our next action item in new business, public hearing legislative and quasi-judicial for case number ANN 25-000015, SPP 25-000017. SUP 25-000019. The applicant, Bonnie Layton, on behalf of Endurance Holdings LLC, is requesting annexation of five parcels, R34134, R3413601, R3436010, R34133, and R34136010AO. with proposed zonings of R2 community residential, R3 urban residential, and HC mixed-use regional commercial. With a development agreement concurrently, the applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat for McAllister Manor, a mixed-use subdivision with five commercial lots, 300 single-family detached lots, 52 single-family attached lots, 88 four-plex units and 384 multifamily units with a special use permit for the multifamily portion of the project. The current city comprehensive plan future land use designation includes mixed-use urban residential and neighborhood two and 127 acre development is located on the east side of Middleton Road approximately 425 feet north of the intersection with highway 2026 in Caldwell, Idaho Applicant State your name and address for the record and you got 20 minutes

Good evening, Commission. Thank you for your time this evening. My name is Bonnie Layton. I'm at 3324 West Catalina Lane in Boise, Idaho. And on behalf of the owner and the development team, I'm here tonight to request your recommendation for approval of our project known as McAllister Manor. As the chairman mentioned, this is an annexation and zoning for a mixed-use subdivision with a preliminary plat And we have some multi-family units that require a special use permit. And just to give you a little bit of an idea of where this is located, you can see the star on the map here. We're just on the eastern side of Middleton Road and just north of Highway 2026. Right at the corner of that intersection in the northeast corner, there's a gas station there. And then there's a canal that separates this property from that. Just down the road, you can see the North Ranch Business Park, the new St. Al's facility that went in not long ago, Sky Ranch and Skyway Business Park that's south of that, and of course, pretty direct access to Interstate 84. This slide is to show the future land use map and how our property fits into that map. Um, so, uh, as it was mentioned in our application, we are in the neighborhood to neighborhood three and, um, the mixed use centers zones for this, uh, for this property. Um, and just as a refresher, the neighborhood too, I, I put some highlights here, density ranges and the compatible zoning districts, um, that we could request. along with the neighborhood three and the mixed-use center. So with that, and I apologize, I'm not sure why that background image is so blurry, but in our neighborhood two, that actually provides for a density range of 27 units to 109 dwelling units in that area. We've actually... That area is approximately 13.6 acres. The darker yellow below that is about 45 acres. And that allows a density range on the low end of 180 dwelling units up to 900 dwelling units. And then in the mixed use center, the density range goes from 694 to 1,734. On the low range, we could be at 901 dwelling units if we took all the low ones. And on the high range, we could be well over 2,700 dwelling units for this particular project. We are nowhere close to that. So as it stands the way in what we're proposing, we are looking at 33 dwelling units in that neighborhood two zone area of the future land use map 230 in the neighborhood three and then 561 dwelling units In the remainder of the project For a total of 824 dwelling units so again well below what the max range would be and and even below what the minimum range is. And that's part of our request for a waiver from the standard, which I'll get into in a moment. So as you can see from the City of Caldwell zoning map, we are surrounded by city limits on three sides. You can see our parcel there with the red star. I have an error on this map that I want to quickly change. So I've got R1, R2, and HC, and that should be R2, R3, and HC, and the colors should be shifted a little bit. I noticed that. I tried to send it over to Katie, but it looks like she didn't get it. So what we are requesting, and this will be updated. Oh, perfect. Thank you. You proofread everything, and inevitably, once in a while, something slips by. I appreciate staff being able to do this. Maybe. You want me to, okay, perfect. Thank you very much. There we go. Okay. So again, consistent with the future land use map, we're requesting an R2 zone in the very northern portion of our project, R3 sort of in the center, and then the HC zone shown in red there at the bottom portion of our project. This is another close in of how this project would actually fit into the surrounding context. So you'll see at our southeast corner, we've got a large area that's left blank. That's intended to be a commercial big box development potentially. That would be at some point in the future once there's some access that connects out to Santa Ana Avenue. However, there's parcel in between us and that, so it may be a few years. But being that it's along Highway 2026, we believe that that's an appropriate location for that. Next to that, to the west, we have some fourplexes that would have been up to the canal that separates us and the gas station that's in the corner. We're providing four commercial pads along Middleton Road, which again is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the future land use map. Some apartments central to that. and then a mix of housing types as we move through the site, going kind of transitioning the density from higher density uses in the south to lower density as we move north. As you would have seen in your application package that we had submitted, This is a better view of that. Of course, the plan is turned so that north is to the left here in this screen. But really what we're providing is a mix of housing types in what we believe is a really active and growing area. There's a lot of commercial activity in the vicinity. Of course, there's Valencia Village and Escalon Park just on the south side of Highway 2026. So there's lots of shopping and services coming to the area and jobs, of course. And so having a mix of housing types, again, is consistent with the comprehensive plan for the area. The fourplex area portion of our project is completely self-sufficient. It will have a small management office and shade structure clubhouse. It has all of the amenities and open space that's required for that to be a standalone piece. Same with the apartment portion of the project that's in the center. Again, that will have its own clubhouse pool that can function completely independent if need be. And then we've got open spaces and trails sprinkled throughout the site and Those would be, let me just skip ahead. We've got trails that will connect. There are some conditions of approval in the staff report regarding some of the landscape conditions. We're in agreement with making those updates. Some of the standards had changed when we had submitted and so we're fine to update anything, but really trying to provide a lot of connectivity We have a large, as you can see in the center of this, a large open park that would be accessible to everyone that's got a couple of sport courts and a half basketball court and shade structure picnic area. So open space exhibit, I won't spend too much time on this. And here's the details that we had submitted As I mentioned for the fourplex portion of the project, it qualifies with its own set of open space and amenities, bicycle parking, parking, save and separate from the rest of the development per code requirements. And same with the apartments, the multifamily plan. And you can see in the bottom there, bottom right hand corner of the screen, the red areas is where we're looking at. And again, just a lot of green space for people to recreate. The code is pretty specific on individual units having their own open space as well. We comply with all of that. We've worked with our architects on that. We're looking at the phasing plan now. And so we're proposing to develop this in seven phases. There was a recommendation from staff that the open space, a large portion of it, would need to be done by the second phase. And that center large kind of park area that you see in phase three, we're amenable to including that in part of our phase two plan. So we would anticipate revising this phasing plan. It's gone through a number of revisions already just to address fire access concerns that the fire department had. But upon reviewing the staff report, staff had requested that we have that larger park be part of the first couple phases of development, and we're fine with that. Phase seven will, as I mentioned, be the last phase and probably take some time to develop. Retail follows rooftops out here, and there's some other retail that's going on on the south side. But we believe we've really created a community where you've got some of the retail along Middleton Road would be very walkable for residents in that area. I kind of picture some of the retail uses that you have when you're on Eagle Road and you drop down the hill there. And I think there's even a cinema now. But there's restaurants, massage place, just little retail shops that would serve the local community that folks could walk to. The single family residential lots, very typical to what we build throughout. Caldwell and the Treasure Valley. So these are single family detached homes. Some of our single family narrow lots. We've got a few alley loaded, look quite charming. And then our fourplex units, again, very standard to what we had built in the past. Here's what our clubhouse structure would look like for that part of the development. And then the multi-family units for the apartments, again, complying with city code in terms of breakup and elevations and amenities, and then a pretty significant clubhouse for that area. And I think with that, Yep, that is my last slide. So I don't know why the last one didn't come up in that picture, but I'll flip back to this one, and I'm happy to stand for any questions.

All right, we're going to hear staff, and then we'll do questions. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you, Chair and Commissioners. Katie Wright, Senior Planner, 205 South 6th Avenue. Before you tonight is an application for McAllister Manor. The applicant, Bonnie Layton, on behalf of Endurance Holdings LLC, is requesting the annexation of parcels R34134, R34136010B, R3413601, R34136010A, and R34133. And the initial zoning of highway or HC mixed use regional commercial which will total sixty seven point five two acres are three forty seven point eight six acres and then twelve point five six acres of our two preliminary plot consisting of five commercial lots totaling seventeen point zero five acres of total buildable lot space three hundred single family detached lots fifty two single family attached lots And two single family lots, those consist of 384 apartment units on one lot and 88 fourplex units on the other lot. And a special use permit council level to allow the multifamily large scale use within the highway corridor zone and a development agreement associated with the annexation. The site is 128.17 acres and is located north of the northwest corner of Middleton Road and Highway 2026. The subject parcel is currently vacant land. I believe some of it is used for agriculture currently. And it's surrounded by several approved developments. Vassar Heights is to the north, which is an approved single-family development. Valencia Village and Escalon Park are approved mixed-use developments south of Highway 2026. Brighton 2026 project is east along Highway 2026 on both the north and south side of Highway 2026 and approved Mason Creek commercial on the northwest corner of Middleton and Highway 2026. There's also the existing Chevron on the south of the project site and existing residential to the west. The parcel is currently located within the county and within the city's impact area. The parcel is contiguous to Caldwell City limits, therefore an annexation request by the property was permissible. The applicant's proposing three different initial zoning designations. They're proposing the north 12.56 acres to be zoned R2 with 33 single family detached lots, which conforms with the purpose statement as specified within Caldwell City code for community residential R2 zone. which states that the R2 zone shall accommodate single family housing types with a variety of lot sizes. They're proposing the middle 47.86 acres to be zoned R3 with 267 single family detached lots which conforms with the purpose statement as specified within Caldwell City Code for urban residential zone, which states that the R3 zone allows for small lot single family development And then they're proposing the Southern 67.52 acres to be zoned HC with 52 single family attached lots, 384 apartment units and 88 fourplex units. And then also those five commercial lots as well fronting onto Highway 2026 and onto Middleton. And that conforms with the purpose statement as specified within Caldwell City Code for the mixed use regional commercial HC zone. which states that the HC zone would allow for a heterogeneous mix of uses and are intended to be more mixed use in nature with frontage along major arterials. The parcels located along the key corridor overlay, the purpose of the overlay is to connect people and help them move through the city but also serve as a distinct place that's high profile. They utilize streetscape elements with distinct landscaping, signage, or similar placemaking elements to create a sense of place as one moves along the corridor. As part of this development, the applicant is required to submit designer view for commercial buildings fronting Highway 2026 and Middleton Road that include buildings fronting the streets with parking in the rear, specific street landscaping and elevations that are compatible with the area. The subject parcel is located within three different place types in our comp plan future land use map. The north 13.67 acres is within neighborhood two place type in the comprehensive plan. The neighborhood two place type is the primary residential place type in Caldwell. This encompasses residential areas that provide an array of low and mid-dense housing options. These neighborhoods are located outside of most commercial centers, but should be well connected to nearby services. The density allowed within neighborhood two place type is two to eight dwelling units per acre, and the applicant is proposing a density of 2.4 dwelling units per acre, which meets the code and the comp plan. The middle 45 acres is within the neighborhood three place type in the comprehensive plan. The neighborhood three place type is a primarily residential place type with a variety of denser housing options. The applicant's proposing the property within neighborhood three place type be zoned R3, which is a compatible zone within the comp plan the density allowed within the neighborhood three place type is four to twenty dwelling units per acre and the applicant's proposing a density of 5.1 dwelling units per acre which meets the code and the comp plan and then the southern 69.37 acres is within the mixed use center place type in the comprehensive plan mixed use centers accommodate a wide array of commercial uses that serve residents and visitors applicants proposing that the property within the mixed use center place type be zoned both R3 and HC which both are compatible zones within the comp plan the density allowed within the mixed use center place type is 10 to 25 dwelling units per acre and the applicant is proposing a density of 8.1 dwelling units per acre which is below the allowed density called out in the code and the comp plan therefore it does not meet The applicant is requesting the reduced density of 8.1 dwelling units per acre within the mixed-use center through the associated development agreement. The preliminary plat request is for five commercial lots, four fronting Middleton and one big box lot fronting Highway 2026, 17.05 acres of total buildable lot acreage, 300 single-family detached lots, 52 single-family attached lots, and two multi-family lots. Again, 384 apartment units on one lot. That's the lot that's more towards the center of the development. And 88 four-plex units on the other lot, which is up against Mason Creek to the southwest. The project's also proposing 54 common lots with 15.9% open space within the single-family development which exceeds the code minimum of 10 percent and is exceeding the open space in both multifamily parcels. The development will construct Joplin Road which will connect to Middleton and sub to the east. The intersection of Joplin Road and Middleton Road will be constructed as a roundabout and there will be three accesses from the development onto Joplin Road to the south will be Aspen Hill Drive. An internal local street, which will provide access out onto Middleton Road. As of now, there have not been any direct accesses granted onto Highway 2026 that staff is aware of. And there are two stubs going to the north, which will connect to the previously approved Vassar Heights single family development. And three stubs to the east to connect to the future development. Due to the size and scope of the development, a traffic impact study was required and approved by the engineering department. As mentioned previously, the applicant is requesting through the development agreement that the mixed use center density be allowed below the minimum allowed density to be 8.1 dwelling units per acre to allow for additional commercial acreage without increasing the scale of the multifamily. Aside from that, staff has recommended several conditions that will be required to be met by prior to city council to bring the proposed project into compliance with code. A majority of these are landscaping requirements or the multifamily code sections. Also review of setbacks, height and architectural requirements will be done at time of building permit with the applicant meeting the recommended conditions. The project is compliant with required codes. All utilities will be reviewed by engineering to determine if there is capacity to serve the mixed use development. Political subdivisions including school districts were notified and provided opportunity to comment. The only agency with certain concerns were Valley View School District. They provided information about previously approved projects within Caldwell and Nampa and they just asked that Caldwell consider the cumulative impact. And public notices were sent to all property owners within 500 foot radius of the property and no public comments were received at this time. Other than the items previously mentioned, staff's initial review found that the proposed project is in conformance with all applicable city codes as amended, all applicable approval criteria per city code and Idaho code, the adopted comprehensive plan and future land use map, all other applicable city codes, master plans, Idaho code, and all other adopted city policies. And Planning and Zoning Commission has the authority to recommend approval or denial

the applications based on the approval criteria within the Caldwell City Code once they've reviewed the record and evidence and heard all public testimony and thank you I stand for questions all right commissioners any questions for the applicant or staff no okay we're gonna move into public testimony Joe Tronte um, is opposed, but doesn't want, doesn't wish to speak. Sure. Come on up. State your name and address for the record. And you have three minutes.

I have a couple of concerns. One of them is, The biggest is density. And then again, traffic. We can't get out of Middleton now. So I'm just wondering what the street improvements are. I don't see that anywhere on here, what the street improvements are going to be along Middleton and the access to that subdivision besides Joplin. So those are my only concerns, density and traffic.

Great. Great.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Sue Koshland. Is that correct? Cushelon? Okay. No. You're opposed? Okay. Daniel Van Patten? Opposed? Wishes to speak? Yes. Okay. Come on up. State your name and address for the record, and you have three minutes. Thank you.

Yes, thank you for attention. My name is Daniel Van Patten, address 20206 Carbondale Avenue, Caldwell. My house is adjacent to Middleton Road. My backyard will be looking out at this development. One of the reasons why I chose this neighborhood in Mandalay Ranch is because there was not multifamily development there. I understand that that was a field that potentially might sell. I'm okay with it. you know, development. I'm okay with progress. I spent 20 years in the construction industry, owned my own company, ended up selling my business, came out of retirement to do it again, and I am currently doing that now. So I love construction. I love progress. This is not about progress. One of the issues that I have, of course, is just adding up the number of residents there, I came up with 824 residents with the apartments, the houses, and the fourplexes. If we take an average of three people per residence, we come up with nearly 2,500 people in that neighborhood. I'm not okay with that. If we average 1.5 cars per residence, We have 3,700 vehicles in that neighborhood at 1.5 cars per residence. Now, I don't know if you know, in today's day and age, most residents have two cars, so I was being conservative. I'm opposed to that. I can't tell you how I'm opposed to that. If this was just single-family homes, I'd get progress, and the lots weren't too small. I would be okay with that. But when we throw in Apartments and four plexus we have people that literally have no skin in the game here as a resident There are apartment dwellers. I get it. I used to be one. I was there for a lot of my life But again, the reason I chose this development was because there was no multifamily here I think a lot of the residents in Mandalay Ranch would agree with that and And when we're looking at 3,700 cars and right at 2,500 residents in that small of an area, no, that's too much. So I am definitely opposed to that. I don't know what the special use permit was. Maybe I missed that, but it said for the Three hundred and eighty four multifamily units with a special use permit If that is government subsidies, I'm even more opposed to it.

I wasn't sure what that was about that was addressed Chair and Commissioner the applicant is just required to submit a special use permit That will be decided on by City Council to allow for the multifamily use.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification So again, those are the main reasons why I'm opposed to that traffic is bad The last thing that I would like to throw in I know this body may not have or know how to address that issue Again being in the building industry for 20 years. I've lived in different places of the country Atlanta Seattle Dallas Fort Worth area my in-laws lived in the Phoenix area what I appreciate about the Phoenix area is I can drive around that city and there are roads that go to nowhere and brand new roads and sidewalks because they're planning on the development that's coming there so that during development or shortly after development, they're not now going and expanding the roads, making traffic even more of a nightmare. To me, it seems very backwards when we wait until construction is done and we add 3,700 cars before we decide to expand the road, making it an absolute nightmare. I think most of us in this room can realize how bad the traffic is getting here in the Treasure Valley. We understand that it's going to get worse. That's growth. But the way that it's done should be addressed because that would relieve the traffic. It would cut down on emissions, let people get home to their families sooner if we could get the roads done and expanded before we actually throw 3,500 more cars on the street.

Thank you. Thank you. Applicant, would you like to have five minutes of rebuttal?

Thank you again, Mr. Chair and members of the commission. Again, Bonnie Layton for the record. First of all, I want to say that I appreciate the neighbors that come out when I held this neighborhood meeting. I think there were just a couple of gentlemen that had showed up for the neighborhood meeting. But the concerns that are expressed are ones that we hear often. Yes, I agree with the gentleman. It would be great if the roads would be built and then development would come. That's how it works in some other states. Unfortunately, that's not how it works in Idaho. And so it's really on the developer coming in and improving, widening road sections, creating landscape buffers, turning lanes, contributions to like the roundabout at Joplin and Middleton. The county highway district as well as ITD had studied Middleton Road. I actually worked on the project on the northwest corner of Joplin. And Middleton, where that developer was also required to reserve some land for that roundabout, and there was some cost sharing in there. Of course, the city of Caldwell has recently implemented traffic impact fees as opposed to the mitigation fees. Again, trying to work towards helping improvements throughout the entire community. But a lot of it is born, those improvements are born on the developer. And as you can see, we're improving a fairly lengthy section of Middleton Road as we head north. Our frontage along Highway 2026 is quite limited, and that corridor is being improved as well. I did want to clarify for the gentleman also, per the staff report, it's projected that there's 2,000 residents. That would be if you look between the estimated population between the two different housing types. So just sometimes numbers can get higher. He was pretty close, but per the staff report, there's 2,000 residents. Overall, you know, we've looked at the conditions of approval I did want to mention there was one about a flashing Pedestrian traffic light. I think we want to talk to staff a little bit more get a little bit more clarity on that prior to City Council but generally speaking You know as Katie mentioned one of our main requests was that waiver to provide a little bit less density and It would either require in the HC zone that we do a more intensive type of building there that economically doesn't make sense. And then the site does have some constraints in terms of access points for making that more commercial. So we felt like we had a good balance there. Where we ended up, yeah, we could cram some more units in there. We didn't think that that was... For this type of location because we have some constraints That going falling just below that we we would hope that the Commission would see that that was a reasonable request Other than that I We've appreciated working with staff as always they're very professional and answer questions in a really timely manner very responsive, so With that I'm happy to stand for any last questions you have for me, and I think thank you for your time this evening Thank you Staff do you have any final okay commissioners any questions for staff or the applicant?

Commissioner I have a question for staff. Mr.. Vance The roundabout there, and I believe it's Middleton Joplin is that part of there is that part of the applicants?

Responsibility or is that going to fall on to that is on the applicants? Responsibility to construct that roundabout as a condition of approval for the engineering department. Okay, so that would alleviate some of the hardships of getting on to Yeah, it is actually the Middleton Road everything along the frontage of this is is has to be improved to the Middleton Middleton Road corridor policy that has been not already adopted by council They will do their portion of those improvements including center center medians turning looms turn lanes what-have-you so By the time that this development goes in, the city has also recognized that as developments like this come in, it's inherently that they do the first phase right up against their frontage for access. The city has also imposed A POLICY THAT AS DEVELOPMENT PROGRESSES INTERNAL TO THE SITE WHERE THEY'RE NOT ACTUALLY TOUCHING THE FRONTAGE, THEY'RE STILL REQUIRED TO DO THEIR PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF FRONTAGE BASED ON THE AREA OF THE DEVELOPMENT THEY'RE DOING INTERNAL TO THE SITE. SO THERE WILL ALWAYS BE FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING DONE AS THEY MOVE INTERNALLY, NOT JUST ADJACENT TO THE SITE. SO THAT WILL GET DONE RATHER QUICKLY. IN CONJUNCTION WITH ITD THAT'S DOING A BIGGER PORTION OF THE and along ITD right-of-way.

I guess I have another part of that question. You said the Milton Road development will be done as the phases go. Is that correct?

Correct. Typically, the applicant will be required to do all frontage improvements along the first phase of development because they're adjacent, correct? As they move internal and they move away from the frontage, Engineering has applied a new standard that says even though you're not adjacent to the roadway any longer, you still have to do your proportionate share of frontage improvement as you move internal to your site. That way the frontage gets completed before the internal of that development gets completed. So we're getting all of the roadway improvements to control traffic and not leaving that to the very last phase of development. Can we pull up the phase map?

Would you switch to that? Thank you. Am I going in the right direction? Wrong direction.

I think it was at the beginning.

It was. Wrong direction.

There we go. There we go.

Phase one is going to complete the roundabout, and they would also complete the right-hand turn lane on the southwest corner of this site on Middleton Road at that location. Obviously, a portion of their frontage improvements will have to include that turn lane to get into the site there. We would not just say you can not do your widening improvements to access that point there. Phase two, again, because it doesn't technically front the roadway, because phase one is doing this, they would be required to do a portion of their frontage improvements along Middleton Road, which we would tell them that they have to do a portion of the frontage for phase six. when they're doing phase two, just for clarity here. And so I also understand that ITD has a big portion of this because ITD right-of-way does extend north through the Middleton corridor. They'll be doing some of those improvements as well in conjunction with this development as well. So I think that most of these frontage improvements will get done rather quickly, long before they get much more into probably phase three, I would say that you would probably have most of your frontage completely done out here.

That definitely answers my question. I have a follow-up question for the applicant. Go ahead. Based on that and the phases, what do you propose for phase one and two, your projected completed time would be for those two phases? Those are the single-family homes, am I right? Mostly.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Vance. We typically... I mean, if we were to get through approvals by the end of the year through city council, that's kind of optimistic. Then we've got to submit construction document plans. If there's any irrigation issues that we have to work around, of course, that puts us out longer. I anticipate that each phase, I mean, in our submittal we set a 15 to 20 year build out of this. It's not going to happen overnight. Phase one, probably three years, I would anticipate. And then we'd move into phase two. Sometimes that's dependent on the market and what we're seeing happen. But it'll take some time. And Steve, I just wanted to clarify for you. On that roundabout you had said that we would be responsible for constructing that but it's proportionate share of that So I know there's been some funds as I mentioned from the other correct you guys will be on that Yeah, this development will construct that however proportionate of those funds are coming from adjacent development That has already been put into the roadway trust fund for that So I just wanted to make sure that everybody was clear that there's a Usually a team effort out there So I just wanted to make sure everybody was on the same page on that Thank you that I have my questions Well, you took my question.

I was gonna have her do a timeline too. So Any other questions from commissioners?

I just have one for staff. It's more of a clarification for everyone to be Thank You chair Just for clarification for the traffic or single-family phones homes versus multifamily homes which has more generally higher traffic just for everyone to be on the same page and

historically Yes, that would be correct that you're gonna have more traffic for for those It would just depends on a density honestly I think when you do the traffic impact study I think they figure more trips per day for a single-family residential versus multifamily.

Okay.

Yeah

I just wanted to make sure that was still the case. Yes. Thank you. Thanks, staff. Thank you, chair.

Yep. Any other questions from commissioners? Okay. All right. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yep. All right. Do I have a motion to close public testimony?

So moved.

Second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Okay. Public testimony is closed. Time for us to deliberate. I think the area that it's in is a good spot for it. I mean, as far as all the commercial going in on 2026.

There's already multifamily on the southwest side.

And where they put it down towards 2026.

And I like how it's tucked in a little bit more versus out there right on the road like it currently is on 2026.

I mean, and we're not looking at this thing even starting and being done for quite a while.

density is always a concern, but it's going to be everywhere. I mean, that's correct. That's where we live.

And I feel like this one's going to be spread out over years.

Yes. It sounds like 10 to 20 years projectively. Yes. And I do like that. The fact that, um, that during phase two, that the roadway section of phase six will get, in conjunction with ITD would be under construction at that point. So those traffic impacts would be alleviated a little easier right there. I guess I have a follow-up question for staff on that. Looking at the traffic impact study, it looks like there's also a roundabout projected at Lincoln?

That's correct, yes.

And is that part of that Middleton Corridor construction plan or is that also part of other developments?

It's a combination of both, actually. The Middleton Corridor Plan has already anticipated those intersections to have roundabouts or traffic signals. In this case, it's roundabouts. That is projected. I believe that the city is already working in conjunction with a design for that roundabout at Lincoln. And again, Vassar Heights has already been approved up there, would also contribute to a portion of that roundabout as well as part of their development.

Okay, any other questions No, but I'm I'm ready to make a motion perfect Based upon the testimony evidence and record in this matter and upon the finding effects and conclusions of the law set forth herein I do hereby determine and move the request for an n 25-15 SPP 25-17 and sup 25-19 McAllister manner be recommended for approval by

Subject to the conditions of approval as presented or amended second All right roll call Larson yes, what Beck yes Harmon yes, yes All right So we will move on to our last item. I Public hearing legislative and quasi-judicial for case number ANN 26-8, SPP 26-9. The applicant, Wendy Shreve of KB Homes, on behalf of Paula Carter and Eldridge Living Trust, is requesting annexation of parcel R327-640-1100 and R327-640-12AO. with a proposed zoning R2 community residential where the current city comprehensive plan future land use place type is neighborhood two. Additionally, the applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat for the North Celeste subdivision, a single family residential subdivision with 104 single family buildable lots. The 19.54 acre development is located on the south side of Moss Street. approximately 2,000 feet west of Midway Road in Caldwell, Idaho. So if I can get the applicant to come forward. Please state your name, address, and you have 20 minutes.

Good evening, Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Wendy Sharif. I am a planner with KB Home. My business address is 2487 West Navigator Drive in Meridian, Idaho, 83642. I'm here. I'll try to keep brief. We've been here a long time tonight. Our project is fairly small and fairly straightforward. Okay, KB Home, we've been in this market since 2022. We are a national builder, definitely locally staffed. I've been a planner here in the Treasure Valley since 2001. I used to be a Caldwell planner back in the day. So it's nice to be here with this project. Our first project opened up in Radian several years ago. We currently have two projects here in Caldwell, Maple Hill and the Charles. And let me show you where... the project I'm going to speak about this evening where it's located. We are really a relatively small, essentially an infill project. We are proposing 104 residential lots on a little over 19 acres. We are proposing R2 zoning to the north. We have medium density residential designations to the north, to the west, to the east, There are two projects coming up. I know you've seen Gideon's Landing or Gideon's Place recently came through hearing. They are two parcels over from our project and we recently submitted a project which will be between the proposed Celeste project and Gideon's called Cope. So we will hopefully be here in a few months for that project. Again, this is an area where your comprehensive plan designation is for NEIGHBORHOOD TWO, WHICH IS KIND OF A MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. IT ALLOWS A DENSITY OF TWO TO EIGHT DWELLING UNITS AN ACRE. WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE. WE'RE AT ABOUT FIVE. AND WE ARE PROPOSING 14.79% OPEN SPACE. AND WE HAVE AN AVERAGE LOT SIZE OF 4,962. SO HERE'S A PLAT. YOU HAVE TO KIND OF ZOOM IN TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS. A simple PowerPoint. I had my teenagers help me with this at the kitchen table last night because I had trouble with my computer. So it's kind of a basic PowerPoint. But here's a copy of our subdivision plot. I want to point out here that north is not at the top. North is pointing to what would have been the west. So north is here on what would have been the western end. And we are at the intersection of Celeste and Moss. We will have access points. We propose two phases with this project. We will have an access point on Moss and Celeste. We have done a traffic study. I think we have a couple revisions that we'll be doing prior to council, but almost all of our traffic will be funneled to Celeste. We have a right in, right out at Celeste, and that allows movement where people can go to the north to make a right onto Moss. They can go to the south down to Karcher, which is to the south of this project. And we imagine, well, that one didn't really help. We imagine that most, we actually have a memo from Kittleson if we have any clarifications on the TIS, but most traffic will be routed towards Celeste and then down towards Karcher. are here to speak about that this evening also. Again, we are meeting all comprehensive plan designations. We do not have any revisions we're requesting with the conditions of approval. Staff has been very lovely to work with. Carlene has been great. We are not recommending any changes to conditions or deviations. We will meet all dimensional standards for the zoning that we are applying for R2 for this area. So I am here for any questions. I know Garlene has some photos of our houses that we are going to be showing in her part of the presentation. With our projects, a lot of our homeowners are young families. We kind of have a mix. About 60% of our homes end up being single-story homes. We have a fair number of empty nesters who come out to the area. They've got grandkids out here. we'll purchase smaller single-story homes. So we have a mix. About 60% of our homes tend to be single stories. The rest of them, two stories, traditional homes. All of our homes are at least four bedrooms in size. Our footprints, our score of footages range in size from 1382 for this project to 2755. So we are here with, I'm here with any questions when we get to that, but I think this, Again, this is a really straightforward project. And again, I'll show you where. We have Karcher Road to the south. The area immediately to the south of our project has been designated as kind of a community center, community commercial. And we are surrounded to the north, west, and east by all medium density residential, which is what we are proposing. So similar lot sizes, very similar single family detached homes. PROPOSED WITH THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'LL ANSWER QUESTIONS LATER ON.

ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO LET STAFF DO THEIR REPORT AND THEN WE'LL DO QUESTIONS.

Thank you, commissioners. Garlene Davis, 205 South 6th Avenue. Before you today is application for annexation and preliminary plot approval. Sorry. ANN 26-08 and SPP 26-09. KB Home, on behalf of the property owners, is requesting annexation of two parcels with an initial zoning of two. The applicant is also requesting approval of a preliminary plot for no-sealer subdivision, a single-family residential subdivision with 104 buildable lots. The site is approximately 19.53 acres and located on the south side of Moss Street and east of Celeste Avenue. The subject site is zoned agricultural and located within Kenyon County jurisdiction. The site is within the city impact area and has a touch with already annexed parcels. City records show two prior development applications associated with the property. In November 2022, City Council denied the application for annexation and preliminary plot for Banner Ridge subdivision. And to 2025, the annexation and preliminary plot application for High Pine Ridge was withdrawn by the applicant prior to city council. The parcel is currently non-active agricultural land surrounded by a mix of residential and agricultural uses. Gideon Landing subdivision west of the site is also currently seeking entitlement approval for a subdivision. The subject parcel is designated neighborhood two on the future land use map. Neighborhood two is a residential place type and support low to minimum density housing. Staff find that the proposed subdivision is consistent with that designation. The proposal consists of detached single family homes that are compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The proposed density is approximately 5.33 dwellings unit per acre, which falls within the neighborhood two density range of two to eight dwelling unit per acre. The applicant is requesting R2 zoning, which is a compatible zone with the neighborhood 2 place type. The proposed detached single family residential development is an allowed use within the R2 zone. zoning district. The preliminary plot proposed a 104 lot single family detached subdivision with 15 common lots and approximately 11.46% of qualified open space, which is different from the 14.7% general open space. Nonetheless, the 11.4 qualified open space is in compliance with the city code minimum of 10%. The development will connect to Moss Street and Celeste Avenue. Both are collector roadways. Individual lots will take access from local streets. The engineering department has identified three parcels along Moss Street. The applicant will be required to provide internal all weather access and utility connections to those properties. If sufficient right of way can be obtained from the parcel frontages, from the out parcel frontages, the applicant will also be responsible for the required roadway widening and frontage improvements. for the art parcels. The proposal complies with the applicable lot size connectivity, safe route, and parking requirements. Additional shrubs are needed along the neighborhood pathway and have been conditioned. Sewer and irrigation services can be made available to serve the proposed development. The engineering department has required a water analysis prior to the city council. Water capacity and fire flow will be established once that analysis has been reviewed. A traffic impact study was required for the project. The study estimated approximately 1,500 and five daily trips, a project build out with 75 a.m. peak hour trips and 100 p.m. peak hour trips. After review, the engineering department requested revisions and additional analysis, so a final decision on the traffic impact study has not yet been made by the engineering department. Political subdivisions including school districts were notified and provided opportunity to comment. The fire department estimated a response time of approximately nine minutes exceeding the four minute benchmark. Caldwell PD estimated that approximately .37 additional sworn officers would be needed to maintain the city's current officer to population ratio. The Valley View School District identified the schools that would serve the development and noted existing capacity concerns associated with residential growth in the area. Staff also received two written statements from the public in support of the project, including one late exhibit that was entered into the record tonight. The letter stated that the development would fit the increasingly residential character of the area, which has made rural and agricultural uses less compatible with the surrounding development pattern. After staff's review, It was found that the proposed annexation and primary plot as conditioned complies with applicable city code, adopted comp plan, Idaho code, and other cities adopted master plans and city policies. And the commission has the authority to recommend approval or denial of applications based on the approval criteria and city code. review of the record, evidence, and public testimony. With that, I will stand for any questions.

Okay. Commissioners, any questions for staff or the applicant?

I have a question for staff. Okay. Can you tell me why the other two parcels were either denied or withdrawn?

I do not have that information.

It's up to the applicant if they want to withdraw and so I think that they had the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission for denial and instead of taking that recommendation forward to council they chose to reject to withdraw but that is just My interpretation and they're not here because it is a different owner at this time Thank you Any other questions

Commissioner I have a question for staff back to this this Project runs adjacent to one. We just heard recently um Over there at Schmidt and that for Schmidt investments and right we had a lot of issues with that one because of the Access that only had a single access if I remember right correct it is West of Gideon Landing um Looking at this map, it shows that on the west side there is a road going to connect to the other portion, other project that was proposed that ultimately got denied. Am I reading that correctly when I look at the map? The one you just had up a second ago on the plot map?

The project that you saw last month was not denied. You guys continued it?

I know we continued it. I'm not talking about that one specifically. The one that Phil brought up here, the one that was denied, is the one just directly to the east of this?

No, it is this site. And nothing was denied. So this site did not go to council. It was not denied. It was just withdrawn, and it was this particular parcel.

Okay. So would that...

So it doesn't connect to it because it... I have it. So you'll see Banner Ridge was denied and it included this site plus additional parcels west of this site. Correct. And the one that was withdrawn is exactly this site.

Okay. And why was Banner Ridge... We don't have it. Why is it denied?

I don't remember that was it was several years ago.

No, were you asking about I'm asking about spirit investments where rut which which is directly To the east as well of the banner Ridge whole project and everything.

That's the Gideon landing the Gideon landing Thank you.

That was it. Thank you Would that one, with this one going, with the potential of it going forward and that roadway access going to the east, Gideon Landing, would that be reevaluated to have an access going out of it to the west, potentially?

These two projects don't touch. There are some undeveloped parcels in between the two. The applicant has stated that they are submitting an application for that middle parcel. And this project stubs to that the other project stubs to that so it'd be anticipated that when this new parcel comes forward if it does all three of the projects would have Connections to each other.

Correct. I'm looking for the infill here and filling it up because we did have some issues with that that last one we I could be wrong, but I think that Gideon Lanny had a stub there.

It did it was ready to go Keep moving forward perfect. Okay.

I just want to make sure Okay

Any other questions for staff or the applicant?

Yeah, I guess a quick question for staff, and I don't think we have the answer, but I'm still going to ask it again. Do we know how much impact is needed per development to get one officer if we need three? Like theoretically one development of X number of size or X number of housing units or X number of square footage or X number of something could say how many we need to get a one officer. officer based off impact? I think the answer is no, but I'm asking.

No, I was just trying to pull up a staff report because fire and police do comment, but it's a very, very small fraction. And so I don't want to quote it improperly.

Okay. That's my only question. Chair, you can move on while she does her research. Thank you.

All right. There's no other questions. I'm going to go to public testimony. We good. Okay. All right. We're going to start public testimony. Um, bear with me a little on this. So we have a two in favor. We're going to start there. Uh, Paula Carter in favor and would love to, would like to speak. Okay. If you could state your name, address for the record and you have three minutes.

My name's Paula Carter and I live at 12411 Moss Street, which is one of the parcels that will be Celeste North. It was formerly Moss Lane and I moved onto this property along with my family in 2019, viewing this purchase as receiving long-term peace of mind and stability. It was a rural, quiet, dead-end lane that suited our lifestyle. My family rodeoed and my retirement plan was to raise registered quarter horses. Shortly after moving in here, we were made aware that this area was planned for future development. We came under contract with the developer and have actually appeared before Canyon County twice, once in 2022 and again in 2025, both times having disappointing outcomes. I find myself here again asking you to consider the changes that have happened in the last six to seven years. In spite of our past rejections, the area on all four sides of us has experienced a subdivision surge and sprawling growth. Our quiet dead-end lane was opened up and the name changed to Moss Street. It now meets that definition, being a public urban roadway lined with buildings on both sides as well as sidewalks. with the exception of our small stretch that makes up this proposed subdivision, Celeste North. I can no longer use my front pasture, that front small street. We are often picking up trash and objects that make their way into it, making it unsafe for livestock. I can also not justify improvements that I would like to make, such as building a foaling barn, a garage, and even a simple front porch. In closing, I would like to say, that this property represents my long-term life investment that I had planned to pass down as a family continuity plan. The environmental changes has made this unrealizable and is beyond my control. This is why I wish to sell this property and relocate so that I can continue with my retirement plans. My goal now is to simply align this property, which has now become infill, With the exact standard of development, this commission has established and approved for my neighbors. I believe this project meets those standards and blends in well with the current landscape and, in fact, enhances it. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Next in favor, Audrey Eldridge. Correct. Okay. State your name and address for the record, and you have three minutes.

Thank you. Audrey Eldridge, 12479 Moss Street, formerly Moss Lane. And I am the other parcel owner and 30 years on this land. I first just want to echo everything Paula shared. It's extremely challenging to own acreage when everything around us has been approved. We feel like we are now getting squeezed out. We've been managing with the growth, but I feel like it's time for this board to finish what they've started. The vision is obviously growth. It went from Moss lane to Moss street and now is the time. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. We have one, um, signed up neutral, uh, Jamie Simmons and you wish to speak. Okay. State your name and address for the record and you have three minutes.

My name is Jamie Simmons. My address is 12498 Moss Lane, Nampa, Idaho, 83651. We are across the street from this property. We purchased back in 09. It got punched through. We bought on the dead end. Like our entire lives are impacted at this point. FYI, it's your guys' fault. Not super happy about it. Putting this through, I put neutral. I'm kind of opposed, honestly. It affects my property. It affects my family. It's not just about if infrastructure can handle it. Clearly, it can't. I work five miles away. It took me 33 minutes to get home today, to go five miles. The traffic, there was no wrecks. It wasn't due to road closures. It is the roads cannot handle what is already been, what's already built, number one. We, she talked about, Katie Development talked about one of the massive plans or whatever, I don't remember what it's called. And that's gonna be another 1,000-plus homes that aren't even built yet. We have another developer that wants to buy. They've got apartments plotted across like diagonal from us. They're asking to buy part of the property along with the city. They want 35 feet across our frontage. That's my garden. That's my well. That's our fire pit. That's our bees. THEY WANT TO DEVELOP OUT THAT ROAD. RIGHT NOW IT'S NOT A LEGAL ROAD. YEAH, IT GOT PUNCHED THROUGH. IT'S A COMPLETE SHIT SHOW. WE HAVE PEOPLE HIT OUR PROPERTY ALL THE TIME. RIGHT NOW I DO HAVE A SMALL DITCH BETWEEN OUR PROPERTY AND THE ROAD. EVEN IF IT GETS WIDENED, PEOPLE STILL LEAVE ROADWAYS. WE ALL KNOW THIS. EXCEPT I DON'T HAVE A DITCH AS A BARRIER ANYMORE. I have a lot more to say, but my time is up. Yeah, Moss should have never been punched through. The growth that we have going on in this area, our infrastructure can't handle it. Just because it fits on a map doesn't mean it fits for the area.

Thank you. All right. Opposed? Terry Lindberger. Did you wish to speak? Yes, okay State your name an address for the record and three minutes.

My name is Terry line burger I live at one two one five two Moss Lane Nampa Biggest concerns been brought up in traffic. Okay, that couldn't be Junction of Celeste Avenue and Moss Lane is an absolute disaster The lady that just spoke earlier, the property's right there. That road makes a dogleg there the last 100 feet or so, and it is like a single-lane road, and it's a disaster for traffic going by there. The other end of Moss Lane, up Moss Lane and Midway, two-way stop. Midway's crazy, and all the traffic getting in there. I know there was a traffic study done. I looked at that, and I'd be the first to admit I confused with it. But I did my own traffic study this morning. I'm an early riser. Between 5.15 and 6.15, there was 104 vehicles that went by my road, by my house, okay? This afternoon when I had my lunch. Between 2.30 and 3 o'clock, 98 vehicles went past my house. In the morning, early morning hours from like 5 to 8 o'clock, most all the traffic is headed east To midway. Anyway, the traffic there is just it's a disaster Schools, yes, there's crowding but I'd like the action of the police was brought up that I think what was the value? Point three officers are needed. Anyway, I have read this Recommendation from the police the letters and stuff that I've seen in a number of different subdivisions that I've come and testified before and they all say basically the same thing We cannot support this. We need 0.5 officers or whatever. But all of them virtually say we have to have more equipment and more police to be able to support these subdivisions that are going in. One of the comments that was in one of them that I read, they mentioned the fact that, hey, as the city limits move out, like the previous subdivisions that brought to the commission this evening, as the city limits move out, that stresses the police force They're further out and that's going to increase their response time So the impact of the schools the traffic in this area is crazy on that Moss Lane It's just unacceptable at all and it can't support anymore, especially with another 248 houses single-family dwellings going in with the proposed subdivisions in this area and so with particularly especially with the traffic to schools within the police if we continue to allow these subdivisions to go in like this without proper support from the police department We are placing our neighborhood our community in the city of Caldwell at risk for a lot more Problems when it comes to the safety of our community. So with that in regard I would just urge the Commission to deny this application. Thank you.

Thank you I Real quick to staff. We did have police and fire both commented and didn't have any concerns.

I included fire and police's response. Fire pointed out that they would have a nine minute response time compared to the four minute benchmark. And police commented that they would need an additional .37 officers to maintain the current officer to population ratio. Perfect. Thank you.

And I was just going to ask or finish answering Commissioner Larson's question from earlier. It would take almost 1,000 new citizens to warrant a new officer based on our current ratio.

Thank you.

Okay. So we're going to move on to Hector Vasquez is opposed. Did you want to speak? Okay. Please state your name and address for the record. And you have three minutes.

Thank you.

My name is Hector Vasquez.

I live on one, two, four, five, six Karcher road. Even though my address is on Karcher road, my access to my house, to my property is on Celeste and I'm about, 200 feet south of where the soft part of this proposed subdivision will be. Like some of the other citizens that have come up to express their concerns, I think the issue with traffic is a serious one. The corner of Celeste and Moss Road is not even a road. It's like a small It's a small passageway and I never seen this. The speed limit, there's a speed limit sign on it and it's 10 miles an hour. That's how tight it is that the city decided to put a 10 mile an hour speed limit there for vehicles going through that intersection or through that part of Moss Lane or Moss Road. So that's the main concern. In my property, my exit is on Celeste's side, so it's going to have an impact in two different ways. The traffic that's going through by my driveway, and then the fact that my driveway is a long driveway, it looks like a road, and people often try to use that as a shortcut to go to Karcher or from Karcher coming in through the property out to Celeste. And so I just want to see if this can be addressed as you consider whether to approve or not or deny this request. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Next, Bruce, is it Winter? Winker? Sorry. State your name and address for the record, and you have three minutes.

So my name is Bruce Winker. I live at 12498 Moss Lane. Real quick, I did do the neighborhood meeting with these people, tried to talk to them, and gave them all my information. They never contacted me. I live would be northwest. My big concerns with this across their north property line, across Paula's and Aubrey, is my irrigation. That runs through their property to my house. One of the big concerns I talked to this gal, I don't remember her name, I apologize, was my irrigation. Where they put in a subdivision, put in a road, they cut my irrigation. State statutes say they can't do that. Will they? Yes. You guys as a city has already taken out a drainage. I don't know if any of you hear about all the flooding at Celestin Moss. Lots of complaints. One of the reasons they took that 100 and it's like 148 feet of property south of my property. and made a 18-foot-wide two-lane collector road for people to get through, and they chip-sealed it so that the potholes weren't there. It's not a developed area. Is it going that way? Yes. I do feel bad for Paula and them. They're doing the same thing to us. They're wanting to push us out. We ain't big enough. We don't have 20 acres. A developer's not going to buy us. You guys as a city, you're going to approve or deny and you're going to nickel and dime us until we have to leave. Whether wherever we go, that's just how it's going to be for us. Um, Traffic, big things. Schools, big things. We've already talked about that. You guys know about that. All the subdivisions, there's apartment complexes that are pre-approved that are southwest of Celeste and Moss. If you go north, east, west, south, there is no collector lane right now. I work for a highway district. I know what a collector, I know what artillery is. When they're one and a half lanes wide, they're not a collector. Do they need to be? Yes. Until we can approve those, they're not. The traffic study, which I'm really surprised you guys did, and I think that's awesome, does that account for everything that's coming in? That's what I want to know. Is it, you know, looks like the High Pine subdivision got withdrawn. Awesome. At some point, they're going to push that. We need to add to that traffic study of what's going and what's already approved. Um, with that, I, I pretty much, my irrigation is the biggest thing. What are we doing about that? Um, like I said, I gave her all my information. They, I was at that meeting back in March, I believe it was, and have not heard nothing about it until I seen a sign in front of their house saying, Hey guys, come here and talk about it. That's not communication. I think it really shitty on the developer for that. And at that, I hope you guys deny it, do what you're going to do, stamp it, whatever. But I appreciate your guys' time. Thanks. Thank you. Appreciate it.

All right. Next is Sue Koshland, and you don't want to speak. No, I just shared the same concerns as the previous three gentlemen. Okay. Thank you. T.J. Russell, do you wish to speak? Yes. Okay. Okay. State your name and address for the record, and you have three minutes.

All right. My name is TJ Russell, and I live on 12249 Moss Lane. I think it's interesting that even the people who are opposed to it and for it, it's for the same reason. It's because they're kind of heartbroken that all this development is coming in. And I have five kids, an incredible wife, three dogs. awesome mother-in-law and we all live on our little piece of property that's kind of tucked back behind the I think Gideon whatever thing so we share an easement with that so that's a whole thing that we're trying to figure out but long story short we bought that house on Moss Lane because we wanted to be out in the country and we wanted privacy we wanted safety for our kids and now we When we moved there, there was no subdivisions. And now our kids can't ride their bikes on Moss Lane because it's too dangerous. And people are driving, throwing beer bottles out the cars. And I don't even know what the speed limit is on that street. I don't know if there's a sign or not. I mean, people have brought up the end of Moss Lane that goes down to one lane. And I don't know if you've seen it or have driven on it, but it's literally like you can't get two cars on the entrance of that street at the same time. Um, so I just don't understand or fathom how it's possible to put in three subdivisions on a street that two cars can't even fit down at the same time. Um, I know there's technical numbers and there's jargon and there's ways to get around things, but yeah, I just wanted to share my heart and, um, Yeah, I know that growth is inevitable and that keeps getting brought up, but my question to you guys is, is that a good thing? How fast should we grow? Is it bad to grow too fast? Because I feel like we're growing too fast. There's a lot of opportunity for developers right now. People are selling. People, rightfully so, want to move out because they're getting surrounded by subdivisions. I don't think there's anything wrong with development and subdivisions, but I think that there is a way to do it better because it just seems like they're cramming as many houses as they can. They all look the same. There's no character, and the parks that they create are kind of a joke, and they get trashed. Yeah, I grew up in Detroit, in the inner city, and I always wanted to raise my family in a safe, beautiful area, and it just feels like all of that is being taken away. But you have two options. You can stay and try to be like the house and up. I don't know if you've ever seen the Pixar movie. But you can stay or you can hope that someone will buy your property and move out to the mountains or wherever. But yeah, we'll walk up and down a driveway and just pray. It's like, God, at least let us keep the driveway. Let us keep our privacy. So the only thing I would ask is that you just consider that question like, is it bad to grow too fast? And are we growing too fast?

Thank you. And I have, I have just have a quick question for you.

Yeah.

You said there's better ways to do the growth. And I'm just asking, do you have that better way to bring to the city as an option or anything to help?

I would say prioritize the wellness of people over the amount of houses you can fit into a subdivision.

Thank you. Yeah.

I appreciate it. Thanks.

Okay. Lee Rosson Rosson now. Is that right? Okay. Pretty close.

My name is Leah Rosnow, and I live at 12249 Moss Lane. And I just want to say that I wholeheartedly agree with all the previous statements opposing this project, especially the concerns of the intersection of Midway and Moss Lane. There were six accidents occurred there before the end of January 2026. It needs a four-way stop. Uh, that intersection is frequented by the Brown school bus company. That's up on Moss. So an extra concern there, uh, the traffic impact, I think will get worse, especially since there's the part two being planned, uh, between this one, there's another one of 74 more houses and then our house. And then there's, um, the Gideon one. And, uh, I just, I, again, the traffic impact, but, um, since I have some people are here, I have enjoyed so much looking out over the pasture land and the ranch houses that the copes have there and their horse, all their horse things. Anyways, it's in the sunsets. And I wish them well, but I will miss that view out my window. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Emily Douglas, did you wish to speak? OK. State your name and address for the record, and you have three minutes.

Emily Douglas, 12572 Dakota Crossing Street, Namba, 83651. And Commissioner Vance, to address your question about why these were denied before, I've been to every city council meeting where these have been discussed, and I was at both of them when they were. discussed before and why it was denied and I will tell you it is for all the exact reasons that have been presented to you tonight. Traffic, schools, all of that and I have lived here for 10 years now. I have seen the growth and I am a realtor. My heart goes out to you guys trying to sell that property because they obviously want to move on and we all know that houses will eventually be there but there are some pretty critical things to be looking at right here and I hope to bring those to your attention First and foremost, the road widening that would need to go all the way down Celeste. I hope that they are not stopping the road widening, if you do approve it, that they're not stopping at the end of that subdivision. Because if you're funneling all of that traffic onto Celeste, the way that Karcher is going to work, you will go down Celeste, headed south it will be a right turn only which is exactly the opposite direction of Nampa so there will have to be a complete turn and come back to Nampa which creates a bottleneck and a lot more traffic issue then moving along to schools I just wanted to mention here schools unfortunately are the unintended consequence of all of this growth and to let you know Valley View Middle School out of 676 schools in the state of Idaho they are ranked 439th Lakeview Middle School I'm sorry Lakeview Elementary which is the the elementary school that this particular subdivision will feed into its ranked 444th I didn't bother to look at the high school, but it's just slightly better than that somewhere in the 300s and So when you're adding that many students to an already overcrowded school, it's not going to get better. Going on, we do have apartments that are already approved right there at the intersection where everybody keeps talking about Moss is that one lane. There are several, and I encourage you guys to ask staff about that apartment complex when you have the discussion as to how many units are going in there that are already approved. We already have a traffic crisis there just with what is there. then you add those apartments that are already approved, and then you continue to add houses and all of these others. I would encourage you guys, at least if nothing else, to table this discussion. Take yourselves, get in your car, go over there and drive around. Take a little trip down Moss Lane and see what all of us who live there and deal with this on a daily basis deal with. Please go experience it for yourself. I don't expect you to take my opinion. I appreciate the consideration that you have given to all of us tonight. But please do go and take a look at what it is that we deal with on a daily basis before you make your consideration. And I appreciate your time. I know it's very late. Mr. Chairman, commissioners, you are very much appreciated. I know it's a thankless job.

Thank you. Appreciate it. And that's all for that. There was an exhibit put in. It was a letter, and I think staff already talked about it. Huh? It came from the applicant. Oh, OK. This came from the applicant. OK. Sorry.

Yep.

So all righty. And let's move on to applicant. You got five minutes for rebuttal.

It's a brief summary because I know that a TIS can be complicated and difficult to read. I wanted to summarize the traffic impacts on Moss and Celeste. I thought this was a very good, succinct explanation. Basically, the summary that the project is estimated at approximately 14 trips during the weekday a.m. peak and 11 trips during the weekday p.m. peak hour. This represents a 9% traffic currently using the east leg during the peak and 6% during the peak hour. This is from our traffic engineer. It is stamped by our traffic engineer, and it is a summary of what's already in the TIS, which has been submitted. But I thought this was kind of good in layman's terms, a good summary. And what I think a lot of these comments were about with Moss and Celeste, and we will be doing all road improvements as recommended by Public Works and Engineering. But most of the traffic is going to be routed south on Celeste to Karcher, not on to Moss. And that's summarized in this memo. And I wanted to go ahead and address, and I want to appreciate, I appreciate everyone who came out tonight as a citizen and who cares about their community. I know it's been a late night. Um, but let me go ahead and just kind of address some of the comments that came up. First of all, we had Paula Carter and, and Audrey and, and I'm someone, I am a staunch private property rights advocate. And these are folks where their property, this is, this is their retirement and what they're giving to their children. This is something they own and it's very much their right to sell this property. And they want to move on. They want to stay in the country. And this is very much within their rights to try to sell this property for future development. And what they're proposing is in keeping with what Caldwell's comp plan identified for this area several years ago when they did the comp plan update. And I realize that there are neighbors who have questions about traffic and concerns. And it's an area where there are a lot of changes, especially people who are on some of the county parcels, on some of the larger homes and parcels off of Moss, like this is a change. When Caldwell adopted the comprehensive plan and updated their sewer and water plans for this area, this area changed and it is becoming no longer a rural area. It is an area with suburban type development. So it is a change. There was a neighbor who, had questions about the traffic at Midway. We will be paying in traffic impact fees as a part of this project, and that money is distributed to projects throughout the city of Caldwell. And if that's where Steve Pendleton and the engineering department decides that's where that money needs to be spent, then we are putting in money with each home that will be constructed. I do want to point out with some of the questions on emergency services, in the fire letter, They also talked about there is a station 14, which is currently in design, which would decrease by quite a bit that response time for this area. Again, if we are just starting our entitlement process, we wouldn't actually have any homes in the ground for several years. And that fire station is already in design. We also can be served potentially by Nampa in the case of an emergency. So I do want to, that is, Qualified in the letter. We have a meeting with the school district tomorrow And mr. Farmer's pop Joe Palmer is popular. It's hard to get in We are meeting with him tomorrow and we will have a letter prior to counsel from the school district But we will talk with them about our impacts and in paying our fair share So I'm I am here for any other questions All right, I have

A question that might be for engineering. How much of Celeste will you guys be developing down your property line and what would that look like for Celeste?

So the applicant is required to do the frontage improvements along Celeste. They're required to do their half street frontage through the boundary of their development.

Okay. So I'd be curbing gutters.

Curb gutter sidewalks, street light facilities, full street widening. This would be a, it would be widened to a 70 foot width, full width right of way for Collector Street.

Okay. Thank you.

Oh, and Chairman, Councilors, I wanted to apologize to Mr. Winker. We, after our neighborhood meeting, we had our head of land development and our civil engineer go out and walk the property to make sure we were addressing his irrigation issues. And we didn't get a hold of Mr. Winker to tell him we had done that, but we promise we will not interrupt his irrigation. There are all sorts of statutes protecting him, but we did neglect to touch base with him. We will make sure that we meet with him on site prior to council.

I have one more question to staff. I know we keep hearing developments on this Moss and Celeste, and I think some of the biggest things I keep getting out of it is irrigation. Is there anything that is in any of the agreements or anything that makes sure that these people don't lose their irrigation or it gets replaced? Because I keep hearing this, so.

Yeah, and I'm not familiar with any irrigation that's actually been cut off or anything like that. State statute does require the continuation of irrigation facilities. for anybody that's using it out here. It is something that we try to pay special attention to when we do civil plan review to make sure that those needs are addressed. Anytime that we find out that there is an issue or that somebody doesn't have irrigation, we instantly hold up all building permits and everything until the issue is resolved on the engineering side. So it is something that we are very aware of and we take very seriously.

Perfect. Thanks. And just the final for me is I am a big advocate for property owner rights too. It's in our constitution of the United States. So, so thank you for saying that. Yeah. Any other questions from commissioners?

Yeah. Chair, I have a question for the applicant. How is it an a loss rating on Celestin Moss? How is that possible? I'm like not thinking, cause I have driven on along that road. And I don't know how you could have possibly calculated an A. Can someone help?

Either you or... Commissioner Larson, are you referring to the memo or are you referring to the traffic study?

Yeah, page 599, the year 2030 background traffic intersection operation, weekend AM and PM. Even the one before when it was by the previous development, it still said it was an A. And I'm wondering how on earth it's an A.

That's a good question.

Like... It's not a blight against you. It's just a it's not possible like it's Commissioners yeah, unless unless there's some magic that happens.

There's no way it can be So the the traffic impact study has not been finalized by engineering and the comment that she had made there was one of concern for us and And so we did kick this back to the traffic engineer to reevaluate this because those numbers don't jive with what we're seeing.

Correct.

There's a lot of A's. Yes. And so. In an enlarged amount. Yes, correct. And again, we have not approved that traffic impact study. That was returned back to the traffic engineer for reanalysis by Nikki in our engineering department who handles all of those. Okay.

So Chairman, I would be happy to have that as a condition that that, that that be approved by engineering prior to our council hearing. And I know that we have submitted for the project that is immediately to the east of this project. We have made a submittal. We do not have a hearing date. And I know we do have comments that have come back on that traffic study, too. So we'll make sure that those are both addressed. For this project, we have submitted for our water study. We did that about two months ago. We haven't received it back. From what I understand, this is not an area where it's an issue. We have submitted for that study, but happy to condition that we have the traffic study revised and that it meets approval of engineering prior to the council date.

Okay. And then one last question. I think the answer is no, but you're not, this development has nothing to do with the tiny curve, the 10 mile an hour road, right? None of that will get changed with this?

No, it does not. If you were able to obtain right away, I do want to volunteer, we would pave it if that was up. But I think the right-of-way, it's a historic issue. I sat down with your city engineer, now public works director, prior to us going under contract for this property, and we talked through that. It seemed like that was the holdup, was that they did not have that right-of-way for those improvements. We would be happy to help if the right-of-way is obtained. But due to the traffic movements in this area, really, especially with the improvements of Celeste, you will be able to make a right turn onto Moss without going through that area that is unpaved. And then you'll be able to make a turn to go south towards Karcher. So those vehicles will not be traveling on that dirt road. And the improvements we're doing really help to improve that ability for the residents in that area with the improvements we're doing on Celeste. So you can avoid that area that's unpaved.

Those are my only questions, Chair. Thank you.

Okay.

Mr. Kirchner, I'd like to jump onto that. So what you're saying is you would be willing to talk to specific property owners for... And I know with staff, we have staff that does go out and reach out to property owners to try to acquire property with areas of congestion, stuff like that, to where they could be potentially paid for this property to help improve some of these issues that we actually do have. You would be willing to sit down into those conversations?

Chairman, yes, we'd be willing to help. We have this project. We have another project coming up next door. We are very friendly with the Gideon's developer. So, yes.

I can't speak on behalf of the Gideon's developer. There's staff that does go out and reach out to these people and try to start these communications?

That's correct, yes. We typically don't leave the, we don't usually let the developer go out and obtain that right of way. Usually the city engages in that. However, I know that Gideon has reached out to the city. We have provided additional monies in conjunction with what they're providing to try to obtain the additional right-of-way out there. So it's kind of a co-effort to try to obtain that right-of-way so that we can get the full frontage improvements for Moss at that intersection. We haven't heard what the outcome of that is yet. They were going to work directly with the property owner. And we just provided what we had offered before plus whatever they were going to offer Obviously if KB wanted to enter into that with the with Gideon and that would be up to KB to do that But I think that all parties are trying to do what we can to make this a better and better intersection out here I'm just not sure if that's gonna happen or not.

Okay, I I'm here as a planner, but I can't speak fully on behalf of KB. I do want to point out, yes, we would be willing to help with the paving. I don't want us to have a condition where we have to go obtain that right away. Sometimes those are impossible situations to be part of.

Correct, correct. What I was saying is you're willing, because it sounded like there was a disconnect in communications with some of the property owners, and I wanted to be sure that you're willing to sit down, because that intersection is a chief concern here. Yes. And all parties involved, developers, planners, property owners, the conversation... As all of you brought up, it seems like it needs to be had. Someone needs to sit down and talk about this intersection because it's rough. And irrigation is definitely one of those parts that is going to be addressed because it has to be by state. So, yes, I'm glad.

Any other questions? Commissioners? Okay. Any final clarifications from staff at all? Okay. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Can I get a motion to close public testimony?

So moved.

And a second? Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Okay. Public testimony is closed. Time to deliberate, guys.

We run into the same problem at this intersection every time. But that's why I wanted to bring up that specific because it's just –

I feel like my concern is that this traffic impact study feels misleading. Correct. And, yeah.

I agree.

Like significantly misleading.

And I think engineering and staff got it too, so that's why they're going to redo it or look into it. If we did decide to approve, it would have to be with those conditions, I would think.

To be honest, I think staff needs time, but I think just kind of what I brought up, like I said, we know that this, and Phil, you brought it up, the last one, this intersection, the reason I wanted to bring up that meeting, that conversation, I would almost push to table this, to push this back and table it to where those changes could be made and those conversations could be had with the adjacent property owners, the developers, city staff. Staff can actually resend, I know the actual people that go out and do this they're very good at what they do they talk these they know how to talk to people and it sounds like maybe the property owners are wanting someone to talk to so I think we should table this for down the road Morgan can we can we make a motion to table it until some of these questions are answered yeah and that's what you did for the project adjacent correct so you table them until they could do a TIS so you could table this until

That's been updated, and staff can comment on it.

For engineering, how long? I mean, you guys have schedules. You've got projects you're working on and everything. What would be an adequate amount of time to give for maybe some of these conversations to happen?

You know, that's kind of hard to say for sure. You know, I could say three weeks would be realistic. Again, obviously, that's based on, how easy it is to communicate with the adjacent parcels out here and try to work with everybody to kind of come together so that we can get the improvements that we need out there just to improve the roadway all the way around.

That seems to come up on every project is improving work.

Yeah, I mean, we recognize that there is an issue out here, and we want to try to resolve that issue as quickly as possible. The city is, our hands are tied to a certain extent because we can only offer what property values are, whereas private development can offer more in a lot of cases. So again, you know, these are the things that we'll have to discuss. Three weeks is probably realistic. I can't speak to how long the traffic impact study is going to take for reevaluation. I want to say that that was probably returned maybe a week ago. I could be off on my timeframe. I mean, we're busy, so time flies. That could have been two weeks ago. Right. But again, you know, I know that we've sent that back for the review and what have you. you know, realistically, roughly a month.

Very optimistic. I think more like with four plus entities involved, I would say it would take much longer than that, especially where this project has, or this intersection has impacted multiple projects. It sounds like more developers need to be involved, potentially, and give them time to talk. I would potentially say two months, table this for two months down the road to come back before us.

We don't have to put a timeline on it, do we?

No, and let me, I want to try to be clear here The traffic impact study can only take into account development that's already been approved. It can't take into account the Gideon Landing that's coming in or her proposed development that may be coming in next week or next month. It can't take those into that account because they're not approved subdivisions. So again, traffic impact studies are limited in nature just by what's already been approved and what is under construction. So we can only evaluate the trips per day of what's already existing, not what could potentially be existing. So that can change those numbers substantially if we actually looked at all three developments that were coming in and what the actual traffic flow along this roadway would end up being. Obviously the intersection isn't functioning, so it makes a big impact.

To clarify that, I think Dave's going to jump all over this. The traffic inspection is for this specific project. So it would take into account this project.

Correct. Based off of just existing development that's already existing now. It doesn't take into account the Gideon landing that came in before you guys before. And it doesn't take into account for future development that's going to come in adjacent here. Only what's currently existing plus what they're proposing.

But you're also talking years out, too. Right, right.

But I just want to make sure that they include their project, that it's applied to this project.

And I wanted to follow up. You do not have to continue this to a date certain. You can just table it and then they can re-notice. If they were to go on the next agenda, this commission only meets once a month, the next available PNC meeting would be Wednesday, October 14th. And If there was a chance they could go, it would be helpful to continue it to that date certain, only because if we table it and they have to re-notice, we would need to know by Wednesday, September 23rd, which is just in like two weeks. And that's not saying that we couldn't continue it again. So really it's up to the commission what they feel like doing.

I would think we should give them eight weeks planning for disaster. Because I don't, it sounds like this one has been very, very, very, very painful. So I would not plan on.

What they're saying is we don't have to put a timeline on it. They can decide when they are willing to put their own timeline on it, when they get it done.

Okay. Yes. If I were to do a date certain, I'd do two meetings away. I would agree with two meetings.

If we were to pick one.

I don't think we have to.

Okay.

Because I just, I feel like there's too much to discuss here.

So can I get a motion?

I'll make a motion.

How do we make that motion?

I'd make a motion for continuance, wouldn't I?

I apologize. I was speaking to the applicant who was requesting the next hearing in October. It is up to you, but I was distracted. So can you state what you were hoping to make the recommendation on again?

I would make a recommendation to push this for a continuance to a meeting as staff determines. To a date uncertain. To a date uncertain, sorry.

To a date uncertain. So not to the next meeting.

You don't want to hear this in October.

Yes.

Well, if you guys decide that that's what it should be, then yeah. Then that's fine. Is that not how this works?

No, I just want to make sure that we're good for the public and transparent so they know. So if the applicant thinks that they can be ready by October 15th, which they told me that they think they could, then I think it would be best if we reopen the public hearing and continue this to the date certain of October 14th. If they are unable to make that date, You know, we can post that on the agenda. So if anyone looks at the agenda in advance, they would know that that meeting is not going to happen. And I just want to clarify for the room that if we do continue this, this will be like the application we heard earlier tonight where new testimony at that future meeting, that second public hearing on this, will be limited to the new information of the traffic impact study. So that's how these work when you continue the public hearing. The second public hearing will be limited to that new information. So.

I'm good with putting it to October meeting. Okay.

And then if it has to be tabled one more month. And I just want to make sure that we.

She can't talk to you. You guys closed public hearing and you can't talk to her. She can't give you any information.

Staff is able to talk to the commission at any time.

Yeah. We can talk to that. You guys can. Yes.

I'm sorry.

Can you quit speaking? The public is not allowed to interject at this point in time. Staff?

Sir, we have to have decorum, okay? Or the meeting gets out of hand. So please just... No, it's going to go one way. You're not going to talk anymore. Okay? Thank you.

So it would be a motion to reopen the public hearing and then to continue this to a date certain of Wednesday, October 14th.

I would make a motion to table this for the day internment to allow staff to go over the traffic impact study and Reach out to adjacent property owners for resolution Second Roll call Vance.

Yes, Larson. Yes, Harmon. Yes, Whitbeck.

Yes, okay Motion to adjourn so moved second second All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you, guys, and I'm sorry for that. It's got to be fair.