Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

It is six o'clock. This planning zoning commission regular meeting um Wednesday December 10th 2025. Roll call please. Zamora here. Harmon here. Bros here. Dyer here. Larson here. Whitbeck here. All right. We have a full commission. Um so we'll move on with conflict of interest declarations. Any conflict of interest from any commissioners?

No. Seeing none, we'll move on to special presentations. Um, Morgan, good evening, Commissioners. on the commission and we have a little plaque made for your service. Oh, thank you. Thank say thank you. Enjoyed having you as

Thank you. Well, I appreciate my time and my ability to serve the Caldwell community over the last six years and work with some really high caliber staff on the planning and zoning commission over the last six years and work alongside some highc caliber commissioners. So, thank you. [applause] All right, we'll move on to um the next agenda item, consent calendar. Uh, I would entertain a motion at this time if somebody's wanted to make one. So moved. Approve the consent calendar. Sorry, Commissioner Larson made the motion. Was there a second? A second for Commissioner Harmon. Uh, any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. I. I.

Any opposed? Motion carries.

All right. So, that moves us on to the review of the proceedings. So this is the regular uhly scheduled meeting of the planning and zoning commission. We serve in both a decision-making capacity and advisory capacity to the mayor and city council. There are two types of public hearings that this commission conducts. The first is a legislative hearing whereby we formulate recommendation on certain land use requests or recommendations are then forwarded onward to the city council who makes decisions on the legislative manner or matters excuse me. The second type of public hearing is quasi judicial um which involves um the consideration of a land use request such as an annexation resone classification or approval of a subdivision preliminary plat. The public hearing procedures as required by Idaho code are as follows. Oral and written testimony will be accepted for those who have signed to speak prior to the hearing being declared open. When providing testimony, please come to the podium and state your name and address which will be included in the record. Staff will first present a report regarding the application being considered. This is followed by public testimony which begins with the applicant or the applicant's representative presenting a summary of request for no longer than 10 minutes. Testimony of those in support will be taken followed by those in a neutral position and finally those in opposition um for no longer than 3 minutes. The applicant will then be offered the opportunity to provide a rebuttal testimony um followed up by the planner if necessary. After rebuttal testimony is given, the public portion of the public hearing will be closed and no new or overwritten testimony will be delivered. And so with that, we'll move on. There's no old business, so takes us to item eight on our agenda, which is new business. So, um, declare this hearing open. It's a public hearing for case number SUB24-12. U staff report, please.

Thank you, chair and commissioners. Katy Wright, planner 3205 South 6th Avenue. Before you tonight is deal subdivision SCB 2412. Uh the date on this presentation is inaccurate. Um it is December 10th, 2025. Um this application was originally submitted in early 2024 prior to the current code and prior to the current comprehensive plan. So it has been analyzed against the code and the comp plan that was in place at time of submitt. The project location is a.3 acre parcel located southeast of Third Avenue and Gillette Street. The project site's currently surrounded by single family residential in all directions as well as some industrial to the northeast and some commercial to the southwest. Because of the reszone that was approved in 2024, this site is zoned traditional neighborhood and staff finds this development is in compliance with the traditional neighborhood zoning code. The comp plan designation and development is TN and is and it meets the density is called out in the comprehensive plan. This is a request for a preliminary plat for a parcel outlined in red. The applicant submitted for a reszone Z2401 from uh from R2 to TN in 2024 which was approved. This approval included a development agreement that included a concept plan for single family attached subdivision which is what they're proposing today. The applicant submitted the preliminary plat application at the same time as the rezone. They just had a few things to button up before coming to hearing to subdivide. At the time of the reszone, they had the intention of bringing this application before you today uh to align with the comprehensive plan at the time of submittal. The applicants proposing a preliminary plat for six single family attached homes. This plat is in alliance in alignment with the development agreement

on this parcel again that was approved in 2024. The proposed development project has been analyzed for compliance with city codes and policies and staff finds. to the pros development with uh will be in compliance with all parking and landscaping requirements, all bulk standards for lot size, setbacks, furnage and height of buildings and with all other zoning and subdivision ordinances. The proposed development will have adequate site access and all utilities are available or will be available as outlined in the engineering staff report. Public agencies were notified and asked to provide comments. The only agency that had comments was Caldwell School District. They did mention they believe this would provide attainable housing opportunities for families within the school district and the schools in the area have plenty of capacity. They also did mention they're wanting more crosswalks and signage for safe walking routes adjacent to this development and there have been no public comments submitted. The site specific condition for this application is the development shall have shall also comply with all applicable conditions from Z2401 and the associated development agreement DA2501. And staff recommends that if the commission recommends approval of the request that such request is subject to the conditions as specified in the findings of facts, conclusions of law and order of decision. Thank you and I'll stand for any questions.

Thank you. And as commission, we typically hold our questions. So after the applicant's presentation, then um so with that, I invite the applicant to come on up. Name and address to begin.

All of a sudden, frogging my um I'm Kathy Deal. I'm with Ideal Custom Homes. My address is 15777QS Lane, Wilder, Idaho 83676. And um yeah, we'd like to uh build these homes. This is something that we have been doing through the um Caldwell. We've we've done a subdivision of town homes in Nampa that were really successful, really beautiful development. And then we've done several um smaller developments in Homedale that um we're really proud of. Uh we I don't know if this is an official term, an infill. uh to the city, but it's providing housing in larger lots and providing multiple housing that allows families to a first of all afford a home by the reduced cost of sharing a wall. Um, also they're, you know, I've I'm I'm a I'm also a realtor, so I get to meet a lot of the clients that we sell to and it's just we've sold to a lot of, you know, young families that aren't in a position to want a home to with maintenance needs, um, elderly people. I mean, just a range of people that this is just really kind of a better product for than, um, a traditional home with a yard. And not that this won't have grass, but some of the units we we've built don't. And um it just makes it it's more affordable housing and we just feel it's better than using up farm ground. Why don't we use these lots that are larger in town and build multiple [cough and clears throat] homes? And as a mother of young adult children, um seeing the inability of kids being able to afford a home, these are some of the they're very very well built. We built very quality homes with not entrylevel appliances and things. These are nice

homes, but they're more affordable because of the ability of density with the shared walls and whatnot. So, I brought some pictures. So, I go now. Um, is it working? Sorry, I can't see it.

Should I back up? Oh, over here. So, this is this is one example in Homedale. This is four units. Um, so they each have a single car garage and but you can see they just look really nice and they've just sold really really well. Um, anyway, that's one unit, one group. This is some we built a few years back in Homedale. This is right across from the bowling alley in Homedale. And then this is a new development that we just put in in also in Homedale. So, uh, we're just we're we're proud of our product. we feel it meets a need and um we're willing to meet any needs you guys require for us to do it. So that's all I have.

Well, thank you. Um so at this time um open it up to questions for commissioners. I do have one question. I'll begin. Um I just there's been a couple places I believe it was in the initial letter to your application and then I think it was also in the um um agency notice. it referred to seven units. Um, a couple times I think in at least two or three different places, I just want to confirm on the record that we're referring to six units. Chairman, that is correct. Originally, when they applied in 2024, it was going to be seven, but due to other requirements to meet all of the requirements and be compliant with code, they did reduce it to six. Thank you.

Uh, if I can add a footnote to to what you just said. Um, so, so Katie, I'm I'm going to be asking you about the history of this application, and I think that needs to be added, and and I had a note that when you do add the application history, it should clarify that the plan has been changed from 7 to 6. So, yeah. Continue. Questions for commissioners? Chair, I have just a quick question for the applicant. Um, just for the shared grass and all of this, who how is that worked out for you guys? How is that generally managed by these?

Well, these these are these this isn't a duplex or apartment. These are actually town homes which are individually owned. So, they own the land they're on. They loan their own house and so any grassy area would be theirs to maintain. Um, in the you in the we built 24 of these in Nampa and we did contract with a we didn't we just So, there was common areas that we dealt with with through the HOA and the uh landscaper that did that, we put in touch with each person and then he charged them like $6 a week to m their little lawn. So, they do own and are required to maintain their because they it's just like another residential home. They own it all.

So, it's theirs to care for. But, excuse me, but there is an HOA. Is there an HOA in this? I I am the I am the lowest person on this to totem pole. Everyone else is out of town, so I'm going to refer to chair and commissioners. Um, when we go through and look at the final plat, we'll make sure that there's a footnote um or a note, a plat um and it does clarify that the common lots that they do have, which they do have, I think two um that those be owned and maintained by an HOA.

Oh, okay. Because I when I looked at at the roof line, I thought you've got to have somebody who's responsible for the entire roof line. I guess I have a question to that. So you're saying that these each person would own have six individual addresses, correct? Does that include does that mean six individual parcels? This is be divided into six parcels. Okay. Um Okay. Question I have sure.

So I I just have a question about the design of them. I noticed what you have up there in Homedale has a little bit more aesthetic designs where this looks like it's pretty stuckco looking. Can I say that? Is that kind of what you're looking at? Is this is this your final component of of a design? Um, is I I feel like is [laughter] Steph could you pull up the rendering for to see what we're looking at? It's on page 45. This is a rendering um that that we've that our build that our uh designer has put together and we're open to, you know, critique from you guys. Um but

to to second Debbie Guyire's concern, when I first looked at this, I kind of had concerns that it looked like the barracks that we drive by on tent that are solid green and it doesn't it doesn't look exactly the same, but at first glance, that was my first thought. Well, it's just the aesthetics of it need probably just have a little bit more variation in the design and that's what I'm asking here because um let's let him bring it up so you can see what I'm referring to. Here we go. So, as you can see, it's it's it's pretty plain at this point.

And for a new design, especially as in my estimation, this is kind of a trend setting in this area over here. And I would like to see some variation in design. And obviously staff can work with you as the applicant on that when it comes to that point. But let's let's bump it up a little bit. We're we're great with that. We'd be more than more than happy and open to do it. The one the subdivision we did in Nampa again, we did two town homes space. Two town home space. Two town homes. So, we did I think we did man I think almost every single one of them was a little different and so and we're open to that bees being together

you um [clears throat] we need them to be a little more cohesive I think than than different but um we're we're open to anything you suggest

that would be great. So then I have a few more questions then on your CCNRs you're going to have drawn up as well. Is there going to be some limitations as far as what can be viewed for from curbside that there isn't going to be an accumulation of items that are beyond just a good look at it? Is there going to be some CCNRs that address that? And then parking as well. Um sometimes you you've got single single car garages on these so they can't park on the grass. I mean those sort of things that there's going to be some limitations that keeping a good state of management I guess.

Yes. And then also [clears throat] the HOA will they'll self-govern themselves as far as they'll be a board of who says exactly you know that kind of thing. Yeah.

Okay. Um then my next question probably is going to be for staff Haley. Um I I do know in the past that we've had some concerns with some irrigation in this area and this appears to be Black Canyon would be the provider for the irrigation. And I noticed from the staff report that it appears that it's going to be a pressurized irrigation which has not been necessarily the component that we've dealt with Black Canyon in the past. It's been more flood irrigation I thought with them. So how is that going to be handled if you could help me?

Yes. So typically for the irrigation what we have for these new developments is they um deanex from the irrigation district. They drill a well and then they annex into CMID. If they can be given the guaranteed water supply from their current irrigation district, then they can continue to receive that water supply from the irrigation district, but it would still go through a pressurized system. So, it would be a gravity flow into a pump to pressurize have a pressurized irrigation system for the development. So, I know that there has been some concerns with this particular provider providing that water

to residents in the area. Have those details been worked out? I mean, has there been some change as far as Black Canyon being able to provide that?

Yes. So, we have been working closely with the irrigation district. I believe this irrigation district is Canyon Hill or Golden Gate, I'm sorry, Golden Gate. Um, yeah. So, we have been working with Golden Gate. There are still some concerns with Golden Gate supplying water to all of the residences, but they've been making great strides. To the point that there has been the concern, I anticipate that this development will be one that drills a well for their irrigation supply. And that's something that we work through at time of um construction documents of how we get that water to the residences. Okay. So, just to clarify, you're going to be working with the irrigation provider. Nine chances out of ten it will be where there's going to have to be a well and then it'll go through our pumping system. So it'll be managed basically through called a municipal irrigation. Is that true?

That would be my anticipation for this project. Okay. That gives me a comfort zone. That's why I was wondering. Thank you. Coupled with Commissioner Guyire, these are all singlecar driveways. Where are and and in this type of home there's going to be two people at least always. Where where is additional parking? Well, um a lot of in my experience, we've sold a lot of these to single people. But that being said, um I it is what it is. I mean, you can only park so many on the street, you know, of what it is. But if there were additional But there's no street parking either, right?

There's no act. There's no room to park on the street. It's nothing. I just wondered if there's any consideration for additional parking. Yeah. So, if you park one in the garage and then one in the driveway and you wanted more, then that would be a problem. Okay. Thank you. Other questions from commissioners? Commissioner But if everybody else has had their say, you know how I go. Go ahead.

Okay. So, it appears this this application was originally submitted in February of 2024 and the application doesn't include the history of this property regarding previous PNZ review and conditions of approval. Did we This looks familiar. I feel like we saw this and there was Can you tell me was it recommended for approval and were there any conditions?

Yes, chair and commissioner. So you did you did see this the it's the same exact plan almost to a tea um as the reszone when they came through for the reszone they did submit a concept plan and a site plan um and it at that point in time it was limited back to the six units. Um so nothing from when you've heard it has changed. Um it's it's pretty much the exact same project. It was approved for just a reszone though where this is just going to be for a preliminary plat. Okay. To comply with the plan they came forward with before.

So my recollection is that there was concern about the sight line to the property to the east of this from the second floor windows of this development. Um and I think we had a condition of approval regarding fencing. Dave, you may remember this. It originated with you. I don't think this is the one you're talking but yeah this has those same those same that same situation and I wanted to make sure that if there was a condition of approval regarding fencing that we captured it here as well

I guess I just a point of clarification for staff whatever conditions of approval would have been conditioned by council anything that came from this body would have been a recommendation to council council would have clearly did approve the reszone and the DA because there is a DA attached to this.

Chair and commissioners, I believe um I'm pulling it up, but based on my memory, I believe that there was a condition that the fencing was labeled. There is existing cedar fencing along that that the rear lot. Um and that has been met. They did put that on the plan. It's an existing fence. It's planning on staying. Um, but I'll pull up exactly what the condition was, but I I think based on my memory that might have been what it was. And again, any condition that they are obligated to would be anything that council had conditioned.

Correct. And also with the condition that um staff has put on this project, any condition from that approval also is still applicable.

Okay. Well, if if the fence is included in the plan, then they've met that condition of approval. So, it's not an impediment. Um, to to move on a little bit, um, the proposed six attached homes are different from anything nearby, including the church on the south side of the intersection. Other instances of large building develops, building developments have been inconsistent with the surrounding area. And yeah, I thought about the same the barracks down on 10th Avenue. And this needs to be considered in the context of the recently recommended for approval by PNZ urban renewal area. So, so Katie, this property is in that urban renewal area, is it not?

The new one that P that the commission recommended for approval by city council. I believe that the urban renewal area is just south of the interstate. It does not cross over.

Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Um uh so so when when you look at this property, it's clearly an improvement. However, it's inconsistent. Is there a plan for the remainder of the neighborhood to be brought into a more consistent structure like this property that you're proposing? Um um it's not clear to me that there's any plan that that this still it's it's a nice development. All the reasons you gave for building something like this are valid, but because it's that much different than the rest of the neighborhood, it would be nice if there was a long range plan that the rest of the neighborhood could end up looking like this. And I realize you go two blocks in any direction you're getting industrial or you're over you're by the freeway it's it's a difficult situation. I also note there's nobody here from those single family homes to raise objections. So that that either they're not aware of it or they've given up. Um, but for consistencyy's sake, it would be nice if there were more buildings like this so that it looked like a cohesive neighborhood.

I I hear your concern. I we'd love to do more of them. Like we've they've like I said, we've been very successful building them in Homedale and and they've really provided some housing for people that couldn't afford housing otherwise. So, we're we're about, for example, um in this in that one that had the three that was on there just a minute ago, those are about 1300 square feet, three bedrooms, two baths, onecar garage, and that we're listing them about 314. Uh I I think I've sold one at 310, I think. And um but the 314 one has a bigger yard, and so we're listing it for more. A single family home across town with a yard and everything is again 1300 square feet is going for 350,000 and that's quite a bit of difference for somebody coming in and buying a home to qualify between a basically 300,000 to 350,000. And so it just it just is providing housing for people that can't afford housing. So I do hear what you're saying. It's different than anything around. And I would love to do more over there if I found more lots. This was a good one just because it was I don't know if you've seen pictures of what's there now. It's absolutely a

broken down drug house and but it's a big lot. It had some fruit trees on it and what so it it fit our criteria that we could afford the land and get this project done. So I hear what you're saying that is different than what's around them. Question. I don't have any other questions Mr. Chair ask. Um, so just to clarify, I didn't know [laughter] it was time. I'm so sorry. So your company does not own any other land in the area. This is what you Oh, yeah. That's This is the only piece we own. Yeah. That area right now. Okay. And um I I'll just make a comment as to the improvement of the area because there has been some developments over the years, but it's been a while

since there has been any improvement in that subject area. So, thank you for that. I think it will be a great improvement. And if we can just in context of this, if you'll recall, probably about maybe six or eight years ago on Denver Street, there was um Caldwell Housing Authority went in and did some duplexes in that area. and their starting point of that has made vast improvements in the surrounding area because other property owners have taken interest now in

improvements and I think that would probably happen in this situation. I'm hoping so. It didn't look like you had anybody attend the public um neighborhood meeting that you had. So, I'm I'm not sure what they're saying out there because they didn't attend and obviously they didn't attend here tonight. So, I'm going to take that as no news is good news on your behalf that they are saying, "Hey, this is a good thing for our area." But I again, I still am concerned with the design that it just needs to have some more aesthetic interest to it. we want if we're going to improve the area which that's the goal in that is let's put the the best foot forward that we can that others might come along and say I can do similar

all right so no problem those those are my comments chair Mr. Commissioner Vance.

Yeah. To agree with Debbie. So maybe what I think what Debbiey's talking about a little bit more. I know there's about 3 feet of rock, but you had one of the ones in Homeell that was the whole frontage on the lower section was rock. Maybe a little more like that. Okay. You know, not much more in cost and everything because you're doing Hardy Backer sighting, right? Basically, so concrete for concrete essentially. Um another question I had and this might be for staff. Um, one thing I noticed about this area and especially in the traditional neighborhood and I'm looking at, um, some of the the areas the utilities, um, have those been address like right now all of the properties in this area are served by overhead lines. Is it not is it now common practice that these are going to go underground [snorts] and in the construction these would be brought in um, you know, safely underground instead of overhead

for like the electrical? Yes. So typically the the developer would pull a line from the overhead to a sector box and then they would route to the individual units accordingly. Well, I'm looking at at one of it right now and actually um there's three-phase power. No, no, it's not three-phase. There's actually overhead power going right through through the side of this feeding at least eight or nine other um places or uh properties behind it and everything. So, most likely a substation or some something is going to have to go in to to fix that. Is that right? Can you What's the page you're looking at right now?

Oh, I'm looking at just a Zillow map right now. I pulled up for the property and um I can see the overhead lines cutting right through a third of the property. Um and that you can see the power poles in the back of other people's yards. This hap this happened on me on a couple of our properties. And then utility easements come in, take giant sections of the property. So, if you're going to try and sell it, it's kind of hard to do, you know. So I just make sure that that was pointed out. Yes. So the developer will work with Idaho Power. That is outside of the the city does not own power. So we don't have jurisdiction over it. But typically, as I stated, they would pull a sector box. Um a substation. Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

Yes. So they would pull a sector box to continue feeding any of the necessary properties as needed. We p we the city would not require that they change existing homes from overhead to underground. But if that's something that Idaho Power requires, that would be something that would occur during the design and construction phase.

Would this incur any cost to the existing residents in the area that if they make these changes that Idaho Power would have to go back and make changes to their existing power? Typically, Idaho Power would put that on the developer, but I have not encountered this specific instance in my career. So, I'm I'm not certain, but I would expect that if the developer had to make changes to an existing system, it would be on there. I mean, we're just changing from a 1950s process to, you know, a 2000s process. So, I mean, it's just there's going to be some change. I just want to make sure it's not going to impact the neighbors around too much, you know, un unnecessary cost to them, you know. So,

chair and commissioners, it does look like on their plans they point out that the existing overhead power is to remain, it isn't a common law separate. So, the housing the the construction of the houses won't impact the lines directly. And so, it does look like they're planning on keeping those as of now. How they're going to do that is going to be really interesting. Okay. Other questions from commissioners? Mr. Chair, commissioner.

Um, my question is probably for Morgan on this one here. I know there has been some questions in regards to parking or the lack thereof possibly for that. Um, what would restrict anybody from street parking on this if there was a need for that? I mean, we don't have anything that was red curb in this area or something that says no public parking. I It's a public street parking, right? Right. Planning and zoning Morgan visa. Um, parking meets code. Code requires two parking spaces for a single family dwelling. The garage and then the driveway count is two. So, it does meet code. And you're correct. Public street parking is open to the public. So, guests or anyone would be allowed to park on the streets in that area unless they're a red curb like you said.

Thank you. Other questions, comments? If not, there nobody else signed up for public testimony. Um, so do you have any final comments before we close public with testimony? I know. I really I appreciate what you guys do. I wouldn't want to be one of you. [laughter] Well, thank you. Any final comments from the planner? Nope. All right. This point, I would entertain a motion to post public testimony. I would move that we I would move that we close the public testimony. A second. Uh, Commissioner Greg made the motion and a second from Commissioner Larson. Uh, roll call. Would you need my roll call, please? Right. Is it roll call? Oh, it's I don't know where I'm forgetting things now already. All those in favor say I.

I. Any opposed? Um, public testimony has closed and now it's time for a commission to deliberate. Commissioners thoughts. I mean, I I agree with Debbie what she was talking about everything like bringing it up because the whole idea if we did just approve a plan. I do think this is in the urban renewal area that we just approved last week. It's not. It doesn't go. No, the urban renewal plan that came to you last week is on the south side of the interstate. This is on the north side of the interstate. And that urban renewal plan has not yet been adopted by city council. It's going to city council on Monday.

On Monday. Okay. All right. I just I think that you know the whole idea is like D said, we're trying to improve these areas and everything like that. And so we if anything we would require of new developers in other subdivision areas we should require here. So again like they said the power I mean keeping the overhead power. I understand that's cost cost savings but again overhead power poses a problem. We've seen more problems with it um in feeding uh services and stuff like that. And I know uh for getting the electricians out there to work on them. It's a lot more problematic. So if it were to be redirected underground, I would like to see that done because we would require that from any other new developer. Do you want to add that as a condition of approval? I would say so. Yes.

Other questions or comments from commissioners? Well, I just again would like to emphasize that I think it's a great idea for the improvement of the area and I do consider this an infill project. I mean there that's an area that has needed um some attention for a while and I think it's only to our betterment that um we look to to assisting them with approval of this. I just have a quick question I think real quick I know we can't ask you can ask for clarification points of staff. Yes, Commissioner Armet.

So um on the power since you guys don't deal with it and it's Idaho power can we even put that as a condition? Sorry. I think because this is a preliminary plat and so it's not a special use permit, a PUD, reszone, annexation, any of those things, we we kind of need to focus on what is in the code. Um, and we don't have any code currently that requires someone to underground all of the overhead power along the frontage of their property if that's what you were requesting. Well, kind of, but that's what Katie said. I thought that's what Katie said that currently the new uh new developments all end up underground. That's the common,

right? So, an individual's power to their project will, but it doesn't mean they have to underground the power going down the street. Okay. So, I I guess maybe I misunderstood the condition you wanted to place on. The problem being is that this where their power is actually coming from is already fed from overhead and so it already is feeding others. So, it it's more problematic. So I know it's a bigger ask but to bring it to the same criteras we ask from any other developer you know I feel like they have to go that extra mile that extra expense of putting in that what would what would you call it sector box to do that to be able to do that so that other developments as they go along would be able to follow suit. I I don't think this is a typical development like that like you're talking. That's true.

This is this is a small deal infill project that's over the top of all existing, you know, around all these existing properties, older, right, properties. So, um, and I guess I would add just we're wondering we can't condition what ID Power is going to require them to do, right? Um, so I guess my wondering is if maybe a condition or request for staff before this goes to council is that we maybe seek clarity from Idaho Power on this topic on how this would um impact either this property and the the adjoining properties um because I think that would be a reasonable ask, but we can't condition something that ID power may not even want them to do.

Right. And staff, correct me if I'm wrong. That makes sense. Does that seem fair? That seems fair to me. Yeah. I just like I said I just want to keep everyone on on somewhat of the same standard and bringing everything back up to current code and current conditions that we're trying to you know for the beautifification of well the current the current codes and current conditions would be to the new property. Right. They'll go down and go underground to theirs. Yes. Right. I I assume that such a condition would only apply on the property. Correct. Correct. They they can't control what's off. They can't control the rest.

Right. Then again, not passing on any because when it comes to those kind of constructions, not passing on any extra costs to any of the neighbors in the area who, you know, wouldn't necessarily ask for that. Again, I know it's double kind of double standard because I'm saying we should improve it, but at the same time, I don't want to cost anyone else any anything else on that uh on surrounding a roads. Yeah, I don't I don't think it would cost anybody else any money. Yeah. I mean, I could be wrong, but I mean, it's it's really only going to deal with the applicant's property, right? alone. Okay. So, so yeah, I entertain that in condition to to get uh clarification from ID power. Other um comments from commissioners.

I would call for the question. Okay. Um there was a call for the question. So, um, like motion based upon the testimony and evidence in on the record in this matter and upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth herein, I do hereby determine and move that the request for SUB24-12 for the deal subdivision is recommended for approval subject to the conditions as presented in the staff report. Chair and commissioners, would you want to motion to add anything for architectural standards?

Yes. Let's go ahead and let me amend that motion friendly amendment here that would also recommend that staff work with the developer and to add elements of aesthetics to the design um similar to facades that we saw um with our Homedale. um development to improve the current concepts. Okay, perfect. Does that help? Yes. Do you want to also add the other condition about talking to Idaho Power or are you okay as I would like I would like to add the condition to talk to any clarification from Idaho Power.

We recommend that contact be made with Idaho Power and that staff work with them as to hiding. Perfect. Okay. Did we get it all? Thank you. Okay. So, that was a a motion made by uh Commissioner Guyer. Is there a second? Second. Second. I think I heard from Commissioner Whitbeck. Um, now roll call. Guyire? Yes. Whitbeck? Yes. Zamora? Yes. Harmon? Yes. Larson? Yes. Yes. All right. She keeps skipping me twice. Sarah, that's it. We're fighting. I'm not here. I told you I didn't want to be here today.

I'm out. I'm going home. [laughter] What did you vote? I did. Yes. Okay. All right. And with that motion carries and we'll move forward um with that. So we don't have the agenda. I think we are adjournment. So with that entertain a motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn. Commissioner W. Second from Commissioner Larson. All those in favor say I. Any opposed? Meeting adjourned.