Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening everybody. We're going to get this thing started um at 6 o'clock. Um can we get roll call? Zamora Harmon here. Vos here. Larson here. Whitbeck. All right. Can I get a motion to approve the all the items on the consent calendar? So moved. Second. All in favor? I I anybody uh we can ask the commission if they'll hold questions on the application until the applicant has had a chance to present and or limit their questions of staff following their presentation to those they don't think the applicant will be able to answer in their own presentation. Uh the opening statement a quas this is a quasi judicial hearing involves the consideration of a land use request such as annexation reszone 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 hearing to the hearing being declared open. When providing testimony, please come to the podium. State your name, your address, which will be included in the record. Staff will first present a report regarding the applications application or applications being considered. Public testimony. The applicant or the applicant's representative will present a summary of the request, no more than 10 minutes. Testimony of those in support will be taken, followed by those in neutral position, and finally those in opposition to the request. Note, all public testimony will be limited to 3 minutes or less. The applicant will be offered the opportunity to provide a rebuttal testimony. After the rebuttal testimony is given,

the public testimony portion of the public hearing will be closed and new and no new oral or written testimonies will be followed. And I would I would ask the public in in the house to uh no clapping, no cheering, all that. This is a you know, I appreciate that. All right. Old business action item. Public hearing quasi judicial case number 24-000014 CPM24- 00005 SP24-00005 sup--000022 for the Cane Center. This item was a continued from May 14th and staff has requested another continuation for the Cane Center application for the July 9th meeting. Can I get a motion to it? So moved. Second. All in favor? I I. All right, we'll get on to new business. Action item case number SP25-6 and Z25-01. The applicant is requesting a zoning map amendment for the portion of parcel R3279 5 000000 from H-C to R-2 as well as a preliminary plat approval for Enclave subdivision. We get staff presentation. Yes, sir. Good evening. Thank you. Perfect. Let's see if it works. It works tonight. Yay. Um, just for the record, my name is Joe Dodson,

principal planner here at the city of Caldwell, 205 South 6th Avenue. This is the June 11th PNZ commission hearing and the first project is Enclave Subdivision. The site is generally located along Carter Highway 55 about midway between Lake and Midway. No, the site's only frontage right now is along Carter. Technically, they do have some right ofway adjacent directly to the west with a little step street, but generally their only frontage is to Carter. Conditions around the site include a number of city as well as county parcels. To the north is some city residential um as well as some undeveloped county land. Uh to the west is some city R1 and I guess R3 to the northwest. Uh to the east is one parcel that would be technically in the city and then the subdivision you see that's built out to the east is actually in the city of Nampa. That's our boundary and then to the south is actually city of Nampa as well. Those areas are zoned from my understanding within the city of Nampa and have an approved project that is roughly medium density residential. As far as approved developments in this site, there's just two major ones associated with this one. Number one would be the Charles. It's a mixeduse that was uh approved a few years ago. It is a mix of residential, commercial um and a multif family homes. They're currently in process right now for I believe final plat for some residential. We actually have a meeting with them tomorrow about some commercial. Uh number two would be the Paragan Estates subdivision that was approved again some years ago. They're on about phase eight of their final plat right now and you'll hear later tonight some additional phases that they're trying to preliminary plat but that is a single family only subdivision

that does include a school lot. Let you know. Let's move on from that. As far as the applicant's request, as noted, the applications before you tonight are a reszone and a preliminary plat. The reszone is for approximately 36 acres from the highway corridor zoning to the R2 community residential zone. The new and then includes a new preliminary plat over the whole site of 40 and a half acres. Should be noted, as you probably saw in your packet, this site already has an approval. It was annexed and zoned and then with a preliminary plat. They did a number of other applications at the time, but the main point is that it had has an existing plot that is valid right now. the applicant or I should say the property has changed hands in recent months slash years and the new applicant has tried to market it and tried to sell it as was previously approved has not had luck and so they are proposing a new preliminary plat that has reduced the density um at least the number of units by half and then included I should say remove the storage component that was proposed previously and it maintained commercial along the frontage of highway Highway 55. As far as the zoning and the land use, this reszone does include a reszone from again highway corridor to R2, which is the community residential zone. Uh the frontage is to remain highway corridor. The purpose of the R2 zone is to provide areas in accordance with the comp plan that accommodate a variety of um residential lot sizes and housing types with some commercial uses, community commercial uses, res, you know, neighborhood commercial uses if they're permitted within that zone. This is not applicable tonight. They already keeping the commercial zone or commercial uses within the highway corridor zone. The purpose of the HC zone, which is actually, I apologize, it's no longer called highway quarter. It's called

mixeduse/ regional commercial zone. It's to provide uh zoning procedures in accordance with the comp plan that accommodate more intense commercial uses and activity centers serving the needs of Caldwell as well as a region. So, hence the placement of those along highways along major corridors. Staff does find that the proposed reszone and inclusion of R2 is compatible with the existing development as well as the proposed development nearby and should serve as a transition of land use and land use intensity from highway 55 south to well south generally to city of Nampa but also west to the existing R1 subdivision. Comprehensive plan designation of the site is community center within our new comprehensive plan. As you can see to the west there is mixed use and then the other designations within the area are neighborhood 2. City of Nampa's future land use out here is medium density residential. Uh the development is actually a low to medium depending on how you want to look at what those density ranges are. Uh the proposed reszone as well as the proposed preliminary plat are consistent with the comp plan except for the density. Community center has a minimum density of 8 units per acre. The proposed density of this is actually six which is less than the comprehensive plan. However, because of the existing approvals and a proposed reszone, they are required to and have to do a development agreement modification. You're not hearing that tonight because that goes before city council only and they will apply for that formally following this hearing. Um therefore there's no need for count commission theoretically and through the process cannot be a recommending body on that anyway. So it go straight to council that will this and the DA mod will go to council after this. Now, through that DA, they are going to be requesting that they not comply with the minimum density requirement of the comp plan for the noted reasons of just the overall plan

and just wanting to transition to the existing subdivisions as there's a lot of residential planned right here at this boundary of the city versus commercial. Um, through that analysis and what I just stated, staff has found that that we're supportive of that. I don't want to fight them on two units per acre in a place that is already largely medium density residential, but ultimately they'll be council's decision to determine that through the development agreement if they want to do that. Otherwise, they'll be required to amend their proposal and come back through the process. I would assume be remanded back to you to amend the plat. We'll see if we get there. it for the specific development. The proposed land uses are single family residential detached and some non-residential. The specific non-residential uses are are not proposed right now. So, it's just commercial property along the frontage, but single family detached is a permitted use by right, principally permitted use within the R2 zone. The plat includes 152 single family lots and as noted, a gross density of approximately 60 units per acre. Uh the plat also depicts a transition of lot sizes from the internal and and adjacent to the commercial to the perimeter. As you can kind of see on this picture, the internal lots are a little smaller. They're averaging 4,300. They're over 4,000 foot, which is compliant with the R2 zone. The perimeter lots are about 5,500 give or take. There's some larger ones. There's like a couple smaller ones, but they are transitioning to a slightly larger lot size as they're moving away from Highway 55, which is frankly planning 101. That's what we look for when we move into transition from internal to external sites. The applicant is also proposing 5.8 acres of qualifying open space which is approximately 14 and a.5% which is more than the minimum 10% required. Uh they are also proposing a number of amenities well above code. So strict baseline subdivisions that do not have a PUD. Our

code does not require amenities at all. They are proposing a regional pathway, a dog park, a fire pit area, a wild fly a wild, that's a word I can't say, a wild flower garden, a multi-use lawn area, a playground with a shade structure, and a monument sign location that is reserved for the city to have like a welcome to Caldwell sign. Um, so again, there's a number of amenities that they're proposing and an open space well in excess of code. as far as dimensional standards, open space, landscaping, parking, all those things. Staff finds that they're compliant with everything except the landscaping code. And that is because when this was submitted versus when we're hearing it, it was old code, new code. The landscaping was just reviewed under the old code. So, they just need to update their landscaping plan, which I believe they're actively working on to comply with the conditions of approval to just meet the new code. There's no issue with the buffer widths. So, there's no need. They're not going to have to modify the plat really, but it's just the plantings. So, the amount of grass, the amount of shrubs, and the amount of trees, that type of thing. Um, there are some couple conditions regarding the pathways. They've already amended those um and working with me to make sure that those are compliant, too. So, staff has no concerns with those. They are going to meet all of those conditions prior to city council. As far as access and public services, the proposed development, according to engineering and other staff reviews, all public utilities and access are or will be available As far as the notices, we noticed the project in accordance with state law, both physically on the site as well as through the agency notifications. The city of Nampa, ITD, and Valley View responded. City of Nampa stated that they had no concerns um and because it is adjacent to us, they said they uh agree with I should say the proposed medium-density residential development as that's what is adjacent in their city. ITD did not respond specifically because the proposed deviations of this

project with half of the units and what was already approved is they didn't change the trip count very much really nominally if you saw within my staff report. Single family actually generates more trips than multif family according to all of the uh transportation guidelines. So it actually went up by 30 trips a day which is very nominal in the case of these projects. And so ITD did not say anything in response to this application. And there also is already an agreement between the property owner and ITD outlining where access is going to be, timing of development and things like that. So there's they did not respond to that. Valley View School District did respond said that they're grateful for all the bond passing and schools being built, etc. Said through existing and proposed development, they do anticipate there could be a elementary school capacity issue in 2029. That's all that they said. Um, they did also submit the donor agreement uh between the applicant and the school district. As I noted before, all of the uh sight specific conditions were actually regarding landscaping. There was no other items that they weren't complying with and so they just have to meet that new code. Like I stated, staff has no concerns with them meeting that. It's just a matter of updating the plan, making sure it's clear in the record. So with that, if um commission recommends approval of the request that it be subject to the conditions of approval in here uh and the findings of actclusions and order decision and with that I will hand it over to the applicant and then I will stand for any questions for you guys. Perfect. Thank you. Yep. Can we have the applicant present? Get the PowerPoint up. I've rehearsed. I'm a little bit over the 10 minutes, like 30 seconds. I'll try to rush though, so I Okay. Okay. Just a heads up. So, are we ready? Okay.

Chairman, members of the commission, hello and good evening. For the record, my name is Sabrina Durie and I am here on behalf of the applicant. My business address is 5179 South Boven Avenue, Boisee, Idaho 83716. And I am super excited to be presenting to you our applications for Enclave Subdivision. So, first let me welcome you to Enclave. Um, Enclave is envisioned as a welcoming, thoughtfully planned community for future residents to call home. This site design incorporates creative elements such as generous open space, carefully created amenities and a variety of well-sized lots. Together, these features are designed to foster a high quality of life, and a strong sense of community for future homeowners. Here's a picture of one of our great entrance points into the development. On the left you can see our future commercial signage for Enclave and to the right the subdivision monument. Both have elements of metal and brick for a fresh modern feel. With Enclave, as Joe has noted, we are requesting a resone and a preliminary plat. The lot breakdowns are as follows. Commercial, five lots and single family, 152. Our net density will be six units per acre with our residential lot sizes ranging from a little over 4,000 square feet to um a little over 9,000 square ft. As noted in both our application and staff report, this site was previously approved for a mix of uses, including six commercial lots, 192 apartment units, 19 single family lots, and a combination of two and sixlex units for a total of 301 residential units. This is also not including the self- storage units. So despite diligent efforts, the property owner was unable to successfully market or sell the site under the previous entitlements. After thorough consideration, it became evident that the extensive mix of uses created complexity likely did not align

with the current market demand or appropriate land use for this parcel. So as a result, we are proposing a more simplified and cohesive approach to our application. Specifically, we're requesting to to maintain the existing H2 highway corridor zoning along Highway 55 and reszone the remainder of the site R2. As you are well aware, city of Caldwell recently adopted a new comp plan and updated zoning code. This new framework introduces more flexibility for this area which is now designated as community center. And as staff has noted, this designation supports low inensity commercial uses along major corridors like Highway 55 with an emphasis on integrating commercial development into the surrounding residential fabric. We believe our proposal aligns beautifully with this vision. And while our proposed resident residential density does fall slightly below the suggested density range, we feel it is well suited giving the context of the area. Now, let's take a look at the broader context and surrounding land uses to better understand how the site fits in this area. And as Joe um went over, so I'll be quick. Um to the north, we are bordered again by incorporated Canyon County lots and platted single family subdivisions within Caldwell. So, we have Phil Crest, Dakota Crossing, Calamoth Falls, and the Charles. As um Joe had mentioned to the east there is the city of Nampa, and that is the Brownstone subdivision. To the south is Mberry North subdivision. Also within the city of Nampa. This neighborhood has a net density of 5.07 units per acre. And to the west adjacent to the site is Canyon View, a single family residential subdivision located in Caldwell. So taken together, these surrounding uses really represent a mix of medium density residential neighborhoods along with

emerging commercial and higher density development. Our proposal complements and transitions well with the surrounding area, reinforce forcing the vision of a connected, livable, and approach appropriately scaled community. We recognize the importance of maintaining a strong commercial corridor along Highway 55 in Carter. This is a vital gateway and economic corridor for the city of Caldwell. As part of this proposal, we were are reserving 15.27 27 acres of commercial development across five commercial lots. These lots are strategically located along the highway frontage to ensure visibility, access, and long-term viability. Recognizing that this site lies along a key entry corridor, the applicant has thoughtfully proposed a gateway sign at the city limits to create a strong sense of arrival and community identity. The concept design for the gateway feature has already been submitted to the mayor's office for review and feedback. And our goal is to create an attractive, welcoming feature that reflects the character of Caldwell and enhances the visual experience for those entering into this important entrance. ITD is currently working on the expansion of Highway 55 with improvements scheduled to be completed at the end of 2027. We have been coordinating with ITD throughout the process to ensure that our access points align with their long-term transportation plans. Our site will include two access points along Highway 55, which will be constructed constructed in coordination with current roadway improvements. Number one is Celeste Avenue Extension. This will serve as a primary entrance. It will include a dedicated left turn lane from the highway into the site and a right turn exit for outbound traffic. This design supports safe and efficient traffic flow for future residents and visitors. Number two is our proposed

secondary access which will be located farther east along Highway 55 and will be limited to a right in ride out configuration. This design complies with ITD's access management standards and supports safe ingress egress along this corridor. On-site utilities are near or adjacent to the site. Water service is prov is already existing within Highway 55. Sewer we will connect to the existing manhole located in Dakota Crossing which is directly north to the site and pressurized irrigation will be provided for the entire site and will be coordinated with Pioneer Irrigation. In coordination with Highway 55 expansion, we are also working to have water and sewer sleeves installed now during the roadway construction. This forward-thinking approach will help um allow for a seamless connection during development while minimizing future con construction impacts and traffic disruptions. This site will be um constructed in three phases. Construction timing will be determined by market conditions. However, we're estimating that phase one construction potentially could start in fall of 2026 or early spring of 2027. Now the fun stuff. So in every community I design, usable open space is a top priority for it sets our foundations for our community's amenities, pathways, and interconnectivity that really makes our community special. In Enclave, we have thoughtfully designed 6.1 acres of open space, which represents 13.84% of usable open space. This space has been strategically placed to support recreation and gathering areas, walking and biking paths, and seamless interconnectivity throughout the neighborhood. Pathway connectivity and walkability is also as a priority as seen in our exhibit. Purple depicts our um community

sidewalks. Orange and green depicts our micro pathways that fan out through the site. And blue illustrates our major pathway that will run along the Wilson drain. Enclave has been designed to have to include four pocket parks. This slide shows each park's location. Our first park will serve as a focal point for Enclave. This park has thoughtfully been designed to con um to encourage connection, activity, and outdoor engagement among the residents. An active learning playground will feature a shade structure, picnic area, swing sets, and two distinct play areas, each tailored for different age groups. Biking, bike parking, and seating area for parents to relax and supervise. Park 2 is envisioned as a peaceful wildflower garden, offering residents a tranquil place to unwind and connect. So, this park will include a dry riverbed feature, raised planters filled with vibrant wild flowers, and built-in seating integrated into the landscape, creating a quiet oasis for reading, reflection, or just simply enjoying the outdoors. Park 3 will have a more intimate setting. This will feature a community fire pit. This was designed as a cozy environment, inviting gathering space for neighbors to connect. It will be framed by natural boulder retaining walls, screened with evergreen trees, and purposely placed as a serve as a social hub for evening conversations and gatherings. And finally, our last amenity will be our um dedicated dog park located the south southern end of the site just south of Wilson Drain. This location was intentionally selected for several reasons. It offers ample space, 3/4 an acre. It is separated from the residential lots and it really kind of activates an otherwise underutilized area creating a beneficial well-rounded amenity for pet owners in the community. A neighborhood meeting was held on March

10th of this year at Lake View Elementary School and I had five community members in attendance. The meeting was positive and productive. attendees really appreciated the proposed change from the higher density uh multifamily to a more compatible single family residential use. And to summarize, um we strongly believe that Enclave will be a premier residential community within the city of Caldwell. Every aspect of the design um from the layout and lot diversity to the open space and connectivity have been carefully curated to create a a wonderful neighborhood. And that I'd like to thank staff. I just went over just a little bit and thank you for your time, your thoughtful consideration and I'll stand for any questions that you may have. Thank you. Thank you. Any any questions? No questions as of now. Thank you. Thank you, Sabrina. All right. Now, we'll move into our public hearing part. Um, we have Dominic Rossi who signed up in favor and wishes to speak. Yes, sir. You have three minutes. My name is Dominic Rossi. I have two residents in that area. One's in Excuse me. Hold on. Can you say your address, too, please? 12645 Sunstone in Canyon View. Thank you. 83651. Um, I have another residence that's over in the lower part of that in the new section that CB Homes is building. Um, I'm in favor of the new proposal. I don't want any apartments built around our houses. Traffic is already outrageous. One of the questions I would have for the developer is there a bridge going to be built over Wilson Creek that goes into uh I think the name of the street is Flag Stone that empties into

Canyon View Estates. If that's the case, then they're going to run a lot of traffic through Canyon View Estates and also down through Ligite over to the elementary school that's on Sirius. So, those are the concerns that I have, but I'm in favor of the project as proposed. I think they put a lot of thought into this. They care about the community talking to the developer via email. He's very concerned about the traffic. Sorry. You got three minutes and state your name and your address, please. So, my name is Troy Janeire. I live at 12686 Slatestone Way. It's in the Canyon View subdivision. Sorry, my handwriting is not the best. Um, no worries. I know for the most part some of the people went to the meeting that they had and were in favor especially since they got rid of the apartments. That was one thing of a big concern to us because the traffic. However, we still are concerned about the bridge. Um how they're going to do the bridge, who's paying for it. I am the president of the HOA of Canyon View Estates. So, we're trying to because they already took our front entrance out and we've only had the one entryway into the subdivision through Paraguin. Um, my concern is now I see the maps that they had up here with Celeste, that bridge, the entryway they're going to put into Celeste. I see it goes into like a culde-sac. You're going to get a ton of traffic. People trying to cut the light to go that way to get to the elementary school. Same when it comes the other way to skip the light to pick up kids. Uh, one of the concerns we have as far as in the subdivision is traffic flow. We don't have any stop signs as it is between us and Peraguin and we've had some close calls with Rex. I live right on Sllaystone, so I'm right near that intersection and I see it from time to time, including myself almost being hit. So, when they put that bridge and stuff in there and they connect the new subdivision, are they going to put stop signs or can they get stop signs to help with traffic flow so that way it kind of slows the people down? Um, concerning because there's quite a few kids that play in that area and ride bikes, let

alone parents and family members walking their dogs, is one of the questions we have. and we're willing to if the developer is willing to try to work something with the city on that, it'd be great uh for us. Other than that, we are in favor of what they're going to do. I think it's going to be a great project next to us and hopefully we can work together so that way we can kind of make up for a mutual benefit and community service to each other. And if they have any questions, they're more than welcome to reach out to me as HOA president so that way. And that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We have one signed up neutral. Uh Diane Riggs uh does not wish to speak. Okay. And we have one that is opposed. Chris Frasier, if you want to come up, you got three minutes if you state your name and your address, please. My name is Chris Frasier. I live at 12247 Carter Road. Um I'm the only east neighbor to the subdivision. They skip over me to go to Brownstone. Um, I'd like to speak in opposition based on a few concerns of safety. Um, Carter is already an accident happy road with speeders using the right lane at the intersections to pass up vehicles. The area roads infrastructure are not in place for the number of families and road users in the area already with the new apartments and subdivisions popping up all around the valley. based on the amount of traffic concern traffic coming around westbound. Um with the expansion of Carter, myself and other residents on Carter Road, Brown Stub subdivision, the other uh named subdivision uh to the east um difficult to enter right exit uh westbound also exit right onto Carter from our roads. It took me 3 to 5 minutes just today to get off my road to get on the Carter um on a normal day. Um, the new subdivision will make it

more difficult to enter Carter and exit Carter. I believe it will it could also have a blind spot like with their uh sign because I come off a dirt road to the to the uh city uh entry. So, that sign will be like right there next to my road. Um, and landscaping and sidewalks from the Carter and also from the subdivision being up front next to Carter. Um, so I believe it'd be a blind spot for me to be looking left if two lanes are coming to the right at higher speeds. Um, another concern is I have a number of civilians. Uh, they are now trespassing on my property around my property from the subdivision to the east and to the south of me. Uh, they're running motorcycles and up and down the canal roads. Uh, people are using them for uh, recreation and they're also feeding my livestock and harassing my animals. Um I just don't want to see more of that. Um I did talk with um Mr. Coleman uh who is part of the subdivision and he said there will be a stub road at the base of my property from there furthest east road to my property but no fencing, no blocking minus a barricade and usually the barricade safe road will continue in the future. So it allows people to come through and just walk around. Um, last concerns I have is the same what was just heard. Um, also about the commercial lots. What kind of lots are we talking about for commercial wise is going to be uh office complex, restaurants, shopping. That would be something to know because the only entrance to those uh commercial lots are through the subdivision also. So that causes more traffic from inside the subdivision. Also, um, having that Celeste Road go that direction and then come through. I have other friends that are in that same subdivision who are also concerned about the traffic coming from that subdivision

over to their subdivision to exit over by lake versus trying to exit Carter. Carter is hard enough to get out on. Yeah. So, thank you. Thank you. Um, I think Sabrina, would you like to come back up and Okay. Um, thanks again, um, Sabrina Dery for the record. Um, I also want to note that KDson, our traffic engineer, is on a Zoom call if we have any technical questions about the TIS or anything. Um, she's Becca's available to answer those to anyone. Um, real quick, let's talk through some of the neighbors concerns. So, um, can we bring up Joe? Can we bring up the site plan just real quick, Eddie? That would be great. So, um, they're talking about one of the road connections, um, Flag Stone that's going to be connecting to the subdivision to the west. That stub road's been there, um, since the subdivision has been built. And, as you know, as a stub road, it's supposed to be continued. And so the developer will have to pay for the expense of the bridge and that connection point that is also going to be part of our phase one development because that will also be our secondary access for fire. So that will that connection point will be made it will be made at the expense of the developer. Um as far as traffic flow um we understand that once the the subdivisions interconnect and thank you. I'll get to it. I can get it from here. Um, some people are going to be running through the subdivisions, but that's the whole point of having the inter being able to integrate the subdivisions together so that traffic flow can not be on Highway 55 that can integrate into the to both.

Okay, that's fine. Oh, I got it now. Great. As far as um the standards, so right now Highway 55 is being expanded um currently as we speak. That's why we were trying to coordinate the sleeve coordination with ITD and this is going to inc improve the you know the flow of the and increase the lanes so that there's better traffic flow for this area. We're going to meet all of ITD standards. Um and that kind of show we can go back to this one ITD standards as well as the city of Caldwell. And you can see that there's two connection points, two bridge crossings that um the applicant's going to have to do. one um to the west that will be connecting that was the um the crossing that the neighbors have discussed and the second crossing will be to the um to the south to connect to Mberry to that city of Nampa um Cory Barton's project and that does align with his um current proposed road. Um as far as um Chris Frasier's concerned um we are stubbing we're going to be actually stubbing an additional road two roads to the east. They will be fenced. There'll be a a a sign saying to be continued as any stub road will be, but it will be fenced and we'll hope, you know, we don't want to encourage anyone trespassing onto other people's um site. So, the perimeter of the subdivision will be fenced. And as far as the commercial, um right now it's already zoned commercial and so it's already allowed for those whatever is allowed in that the H2 highway corridor. Um, and we're not asking to change that. That's still going to stay the same zone. Those allowed uses for that within that zone are going to be um um applicable for for those commercial lots. And real quickly, just to summarize, um

we feel strongly that, you know, the site has a unique history and we're confident that the updated design and um layout kind of brings it back on course. Um, we feel that we're providing thoughtful transitions and appropriate density for this enclaved, it's truly an enclave site, an enclaved infill parcel, and that um the original application um we're really reducing that density by half. So, we're hoping that the traffic will be less um impacted, schools will be less impacted with this application compared to the previously approved one of 301 um um units. The surrounding subdivisions, our neighborhoods to the east, south, and west are predominantly medium density, and our proposal is carefully aligned with those existing land uses. And our plan respects and the established character for the area while advancing the vision and goals outlined in the city's new comp plan by providing a mix of uses of commercial to real for um for the um um mixed community. And from the beginning, our design intent was always to create a community that feels cohesive and inviting and well planned. And upon entering the neighborhood, residents and visitors will experience a place that is only not only visually appealing, but also purposely designed to support a high quality of life. And so with that, we um are again so excited to present this to you this evening. We feel it's going to be a great addition for the city of Caldwell. And um I will thank you again for your time and consideration. and I'll stand for any questions that you may have. Thanks, Karina. Commissioners, uh, I do. So, it sounds like you're willing to address the fencing issue with your neighbor to the east. Absolutely. Yes. Um, is that something that we should ask a condition of approval or is it something that uh can

be done informally? Um, I I'm I'm seeking some staff guidance on this. Mr. Chair, commissioners, my understanding is the subdivision already proposed some perimeter fencing, so I don't know that a condition of approval is required. Is that accurate, Sabrina? That is, but um we'd be happy to have that condition of approval if that um helps alleviate a concern. So, so we we don't want to apply an unnecessary condition of approval, but I think it would be appropriate if you commit to working with that neighbor to ensure that the fencing solution is satisfactory. Absolutely. Chairman, um Commissioner, um we have his information. We'd be happy to coordinate with him. Absolutely. So, yes, I I had another question. I'm not clear about the issue with regard to the bridge. It looked like there was concern over who was going to pay for the bridge and whether or not the bridge had some consequences for increased traffic. Um, city engineering, is that a topic you can address? Um, commissioners and commissioner Bros. Yes, the excuse me, the bridge I believe I heard the applicant state that the bridge will be fully funded through the project, which is what our anticipation would be would be that the developer funds the bridge. So, they will be completing the bridge themselves. Um, regarding the additional traffic, there is always there's certainly going to be the possibility that residents from this neighborhood utilize the bridge and drive through the existing neighborhood, just as you would expect residences from the existing neighborhood to drive through this proposed neighborhood out to ITD's uh, rightway. So, there could be added traffic into the uh, new res or into the existing residential area because of this bridge. Um, as the applicant noted, there is a traffic engineer online who did the traffic study, so she may have

some better numbers for you if you would like to actually hear what some of those anticipated numbers would look like. It'd be nice to very briefly address that. Um, can we get Becca on she's on Zoom call? Oh, you don't. Oh, okay. Okay. I will look at the traffic report then and um I'll get those numbers really quick. Okay. If you want to press on. I just I got um uh two questions. Sure. One, if you can just clarify. You guys probably will not even be starting this until 55 is pretty much done at that point. Correct. Um chairman. Yes. So, as far as timing, um I don't anticipate us starting till 2027 just due to, you know, um construction plan review and everything. So, yeah, they're anticipating my traffic engineers thought they would be done. They're doing it in stages. So, they're doing right now the closest to Enclave, they're going to create another um another lane so that the two lanes and then they'll go across the street and do the remaining two. But she told me the end of 2027. So, I think we should be along that time frame. Okay. Thanks. Second question. Yes. This may be a hair controversial, but um I see that you guys have agreed to do a donation to Valley View School District. Yes. Could you allow or would they tell you what that money will be used for in the schools or do you just give a quote unquote donation? So, um chairman, um we um I was not in conversations with Joey. we have in the past um done um contributions, volunteer contributions that we are um have in the past been paying. I am not exactly sure where that

money is designated. I know that Joey um sincerely appreciates it and I'm sure um that I mean that would be more of a question that was between Mr. Coleman and Joey at the time. Yes, no worries. Yes. Thank you. I'm good. Mr. Chairman, the standardized donor form does specify that the donation can only be used for capital type improvements. And I did review the traffic study really quick. It doesn't look like the number of vehicles running through the neighborhood was specifically contemplated as part of this report. However, in just doing a quick review of the area, I would anticipate that the majority of residences would utilize the Carter access points since um ITD did grant one full access into the site and one right in right and then um right in and right out at the two other sites. Um so I would anticipate that the majority of the traffic that would be going through this subdivision would be going to this through the subdivision just for the school. Um, I don't see a large amount of vehicles that I would anticipate going through the residential outside of just going to the school. Any more questions, commissioners? No. Okay. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you. We have a motion to close public discussion. So moved. Second. All in favor? I. All right. and let's deliberate. So, uh like always there traffic is a concern and tonight as as with every development that we hear. However, noting that uh this modification drastically reduces the density and it really looks like one of the better planned developments that

we've seen. I think it's a good thing. Yeah, I agree. Yeah, I'm in favor of this. I'm I'm with you on the the agreement. Do we have a motion? Sure. Uh based upon the testimony and evidence and record in this matter and upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth herein, I do hereby determine and move that case number Z25-1 for the reszone of a portion of parcel R32795 with a zoning designation of R2 medium density residential as well as a preliminary plat approval SP25- -6 for the Enclave subdivision is recommended for approval subject to the conditions of approval as presented or amended. Second. All in favor? Roll call. Sorry. Harmon. Yes. Bros. Yes. Larson. Yes. Okay. Let's move on to the second action item. This is case numbern 255-04 SP25-5 05. The applicant is requesting annexation of parcel R32807 with a proposed zoning of R1 where the current city comprehensive plan future land use designation is neighborhood 2. Additionally, the applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat for Peragan East subdivision, a residential subdivision with 48 single family residential lots. Can we get staff? Thank you, Mr. Chair, Commission. The way we start these out, I don't even know why I talk. You guys said the whole project right there. As noted, this is for Paragan East tonight. My name is Joe Dodson,

principal planner again with the city of Caldwell, 205 South Thick Avenue. Is June 11th, 2025. Subject site is located north of Orchard Avenue, uh, east of Lake. It's approximately half a mile east of Lake Avenue and Orchard intersection. Site does have frontage along Orchard Avenue. Technically, there will be, I guess you could say, frontage to Roper Street at the very, very northwest corner of the site, but it's a local street. You typically don't count that as frontage the way that you would otherwise a orchard which is an arterial roadway around the site there. It's similar. It's actually not too far south of the previous application we just heard. Um it has undeveloped city of Nampa land to the east and to the south. Both of those again are within the city of Nampa and residential in nature. The properties directly to the west there's a little cutout. Those are in the county as well. To the south county and not within the city of Nampa, it's just county. To the west is Paragrin West proposed tonight, which is this application and well, I should say the next one that you'll hear, but directly to the west is the original part of Paragrin Estates, which should be their phase 8 and nine. And then to the north is also Paragan Estates and the Lake View Elementary School. As noted, this is very similar to the last application, except you include the last application. So you have the Charles, which is number two, number one is Paragan Estates, and the number three would be Enclave, which now the description of Enclave is no longer accurate, at least for the recommendation. See if they get their final approval from council, but that would be changed to 152 single family residential lots and five commercial lots. Should be it for that. As far as the request before you tonight, both this application and the next you'll hear is for an annexation and a preliminary

plat. There's an annexation request for approximately 20.3 acres with a request for the R1 zone and does include a preliminary plat. The proposed R1 zoning district, as noted, is anticipated to provide zoning procedures in accordance with the comp plan that accommodate single family residential and/or town homes or duplex type of residential. So, lower density residential, mid to low depending on how it goes. Um, the proposed development is surrounded by R1 to the north and to the west. Again, that would be Paragrin Estates. And then a little further to the west, the only other zoning is the RS2 zoning. Uh the property zoned RS2 from my understanding does not have any active application. I believe they had at one point, but it has since expired. The city of Nampa impact area to the east actually includes RS6 zoning within theirs, which is about a medium density residential zone. As noted by the previous applicant, it's about 5 to six units per acre depending with the request for annexation and the zone of R1. Staff does find that the R1 zone and the plat is are compatible with the existing development in the area because it is a low density project and so are the adjacent subdivisions and the proposed density of 2.36 units per acre should provide a good transition to undeveloped county land. As far as the comprehensive plan, this property is at the border of our area of impact. It is labeled as neighborhood 2, which anticipates residential densities in the range of 2 to eight units per acre. Again, this is about 2.36 units per acre. So, they are at the very bottom end of the recommended densities within the neighborhood to place type. As far as the project itself,

it is proposed with wholly single family detached residential uses within the R1. Again, principally permitted use within that zone. They're proposing 48 single family lots with 3.35 acres of qualifying open space. I'd like to note on the open space, I noted this within my staff report as well, their open space exhibit only notes two. They, again, similar to the last applicant, confusion on old code, new code regarding the open space qualification. So they're allowed to count more of these areas as qualified open space because frankly the storm watered lots are being vegetated with grass and the slopes are calm and within 3 to1 ratio to be specific and therefore those areas could often be played in. So we thought that they should count for qualified open space. In addition, they're allowed to count 50% of the buffer to orchard which they did not previously count. So between those two major changes they do not have two acres of qualified open space. They have actually over 3 acres of qualified open space which equates to approximately 16.5% which is twice what they would have to be to meet code because of the lot sizes they be required to do 8% open space. So they're proposing twice that as far as all of the codes and ordinances. Uh staff finds that they're compliant with everything except for the landscaping. As I mentioned there are some specific conditions regarding that within my staff report. I think there were only four. I'll get to that in a second. As far as amenities, again, standard subdivision code does not require any amenities. They are proposing approximately three within this subdivision. They're providing a shade structure as well as a playground and then a pathway along the irrigation canal along the entire east boundary that will connect internally through micro pathways and as well connect to the sidewalk along orchard to provide better connectivity to the north. that will eventually connect to Paragrin State's pathway and then we'll have a very nice pathway system almost from Orchard all the way up to Carter if you

follow the sidewalk all the way up there. Access to this site as well as public utilities have been reviewed and approved by all applicable departments including engineering and fire and they have stated that all um site access and utilities can or will be available for this site. As far far as public notifications, again, this project is notified both physically as well as through notifications in the mail and newspaper. According to state law, um highway district number four and the Valley School District responded. Highway District 4 provided some uh conditions that they requested be a part of the application and just generally were already provided for within the engineering staff report. So, there's no heartburn there. The Valley View School District um again doesn't state yes or no on any project, but noted that with by 2029 they do anticipate that Lake View Elementary in the area may be over capacity. We did receive one public comment in opposition prior to this hearing and that was from um Nicole Montalvo and they opposed it due to just traffic and overdevelopment overall in the city and specifically anything that goes out to Carter. The noted sight specific conditions, these are the only four and again they're related to the first one's just a general condition. I always add to make sure that people know in the future if somebody reads the conditions for once, they know that they have to comply with the conditions in here and then the rest of them are regarding the landscaping and just modifications they have to do to make sure that they're compliant. My understanding is the applicant has already reviewed that and are well underway to make those revisions. So if commission recommends approval of this, I ask that it be you recommended approval contingent upon the findings of fact conclusion of valid order decision contained herein. And I'll stand for any questions after

the applicant has done their presentation. Thank you guys. Thank you. You have 10 minutes. State your name and address, please. Thank you members of the commission. My name is Bonnie Leighton with NV5. My address is 690 South Industry Way, Sweet 10, uh, Meridian, Idaho 83642. And, uh, thank you again for your time this evening and for staff's uh, assistance in this application. As always, um, they've been great to work with. Um what we're bringing uh forward tonight is a request for an annexation and a preliminary plat of Paragrin um west and um pardon me east. Thank you. I looked at the screen I was like wait a minute I've got um so anyways uh so we're here tonight to request um your recommendation of approval to the city council for this annexation. Um the project site is 20.38 acres. We're requesting um a zoning designation of R1 with 48 single family uh residential unit uh home sites. So, quickly just um to recap on the vicinity map. Uh we're bordered, you can kind of see uh the little blue in the center of the screen there. That's the site. We've got Orchard Avenue along our southern boundary. There's school to the north of us. Um we're kind of in between uh Lake Avenue and uh Midway Road. Um so surrounded by um development. Um to our east is the city of Nampa's um uh city limits and you can see that there's the middlebury subdivision which is um in the process of being constructed I believe at this uh moment. And uh here's a little bit closer in

view of that. So along our eastern uh boundary, we have the upper embankment uh drain. Again, we've got Orchard along our southern boundary and then Roper Road kind of we're tying into that. Um it turns into a private lane. So um but along our uh northeast northwest corner is where um we can take some access as well as off of Orchard, excuse me. Uh just a quick recap of the Caldwell city limits and the zoning map. Um so you can see the red box with the star is this project site. Um we are adjacent to the uh Paragan Estates number eight um subdivision which will be we will be connecting into um again with an R1 uh zoning designation. And then I think Joe did a good job of sort of describing what else is going on around in the area. Obviously, this is a uh growing part of the community and has been um comp planned that way. Um again, Joe already covered some of the surrounding developments. Um we've got uh the proposed Paragon West subdivision, which you'll be hearing next. We've got Paragrin East, Middbury which is in Nampa, um and then our Paragan Estates, uh which we're currently underway on. So, future land use map. Again, this was a neighborhood 2 design zoning designation. Um and with that we really looked at this um when we were working on these plans and uh knowing that the code was or the uh comprehensive plan was coming forward with revisions. We saw that we could um have the opportunity to actually request for a higher density zoning designation

in the R2, but felt that it was appropriate to stay um with the R1 in this um provide a little bit less density, but something a little bit more consistent with what was in the area. So um while we understood that there were some goals of the city um we we went with the lower um density uh which is still um available in the neighborhood 2 designation. So as I mentioned we have um 20.38 acres um a total of 58 uh lots however 10 of those are common lots. Um, we've got, uh, again, as Joe mentioned, with the calculations of the open space and where the code landed, we ended up with actually double what the open space is for um, for the requirement per code. What we did really try to do is take a look at um, our the adjacent properties. And so you'll see in the um off of Orchard on the left hand side of the street as you're heading north um we did those lots bigger. They're extremely deep. They're 185 to 193 feet deep. They're almost a half acre in size. And that again was to respect some compatibility. We understand that there are some parcels that are sort of bigger county parcels. Um, so feeling like we'll um transition the density I think more appropriately with those larger lots next um to those uh existing county um lots. And then um as you'll see again, we've got the um the pathway along the drain. It's almost 1300 feet of pathway that we'll be um

constructing. that's part of more of a regional plan for the area and really worked with staff again on what that uh what those expectations would be um per the planning maps um there. Um as Joe mentioned, we'll have a playground and a shade structure for the residents of this community, ample areas of open space um to be able to recreate in. And again, these are larger lots, so it's very likely that most of the residents, they'll have amenities of their own in their backyards, but we are providing um the required open space and and amenities per code. As Joe mentioned, these are going to be single family residential lots, not duplexes at all, um single family homes. And so, uh, we submitted, um, some examples of what the developer is planning to do, um, for this project. Uh, a lot of articulation in the elevations, both, um, singlestory and two-story homes, uh, all in compliance with the bulk zoning standards and setbacks, uh, for the R1 zone. And with that, um, I would like to thank you for your time and I can stand for any questions you may have. Thank you. Commissioners, if we're ready, um, could you describe that part of Paragrin Estates, which is in between Paragrin East and Paragrin West? So the application package identified it as paragrin estates, but the only information I had was it was 449 homes. So the diagram you showed a couple of slides ago that it extends substantially to the north explains that that it's not horribly high density, but can you talk about what it's look it looks like in

between these two? Um, yes, Commissioner Bros. So, what we do have in Paragrine Estates number eight, and I don't know if staff has a map that they could bring up, um, it really ties in, this project would tie into that street network, and the lot sizes are compatible. Um, you're right, it includes not only number eight, but then, uh, there's numbers six and seven above that that that's being platted. So, um I I wasn't previously part of those applications, but um you'll see a development pattern very consistent with what we're working on um in this application. Okay. And and it's fair that you're not necessarily familiar with that. Um Joe, can you talk a little bit about the density in Paragan Estates number eight? U Commissioner Bros Commission it's going to be similar to this if not maybe a little higher density just because their lots are not quite as large as these but at the time it was annexed and zoned it would have been low density so they would have been around the three units per acre if not right at three. Very good. Thank you. Um I'm going to go nerd on you here. Okay. On page 376 of the application packet, there's a letter from the applicant to city staff and it contains a project design description that matches Paragrin Estates, not Paragrin East or Paragrin West. So I would please revisit that letter that was submitted and write it to describe the project under consideration and it the content of that letter even though it's incorrect is not reflected in the overall application package. So there's really not a material problem here but the letter should be fixed before it goes to city council. Okay.

Um, another question is on page 403 of the application packet, there are handwritten notes associated with the neighborhood meeting. Can you talk about those topics on those handwritten notes and what is or is not being done with regard to those? Uh, Commissioner Bros., so um, I held a neighborhood meeting back in January of this year. Um the neighbors were curious about the phasing of the project. Um and then there were some comments because there was some development that was happening to the north in um some of the earlier Paragrin Estates um uh project and there was some timing with a construction window I believe and some weather. And so, um, originally in the previous one, not this application, um, one of the neighbors had said, you know, we were told that these streets were going to be paved in October, and that hasn't been done that yet. So, that was a note for me to follow up with the developer to say, hey, you know, the neighbors were concerned about this issue, what happened here? And so, I was passing that along. So, of course, without the pavement on the streets in that previous um development, there was mud on the streets and um there was some concern at that time about delivery vehicles being able to get in. I believe that's been remedied. Those were just my notes, not specific to this application, but more so what was happening in a previous phase of of the um subdivision. Um drainage ditch improvements. That's a a typical question that I get. You know, am I still going to get water delivered? Is that going to be interrupted? Of course, the irrigation districts um they make sure that we comply and that our

designs comply so that we don't interrupt um delivery of the water service um to any adjacent parcels um in the area. Um so uh some of the neighbors they you know we noted what the fence the fencing would be along um kind of the the southern boundary as I mentioned that's sort of next to those um there's like two or three parcels there that are a county um they they were asking about doing some sort of 15 foot wide landscape buffer. Um we felt that um it was more appropriate because uh of the um depth of those lots over there and also because of the city's plan with more of a regional pathway along the ditch on the eastern side that um we not do that extra 15 feet. We want to make sure that the public that's using the regional pathway understands where that is. And we felt like if we did that um in this one area kind of in the south um west boundary of uh adjacent to Orchard that might create some confusion and break up the flow and now you've got people trying to find their way through the subdivision because they're maybe getting on a pathway um that's not really what it's meant for um when we've got such a major facility with a 10-ft wide pathway on our eastern boundary. um comments the lots need to be one acre to ma match the property values in the homes around. I mean that's a typical comment that we get um they didn't want low values. I think what we've demonstrated you know um for these homes they're larger lots larger homes um for

for this uh neighborhood. And um one of the neighbors said that the uh the middle parcel, so the Paragrin estates number eights, needs to be um farmed and maintained. And so I just pass that along. Sometimes um farmers are either in the site or it's too small of a site for them to farm. And so then it's it was just a note to um for my client for me to follow up with my client to make sure that they had somebody out there to do that. Thank you. Yep. No, Dave. Nope. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anything for staff? Are we good? No, I'm done. Okay. I will make a motion to close public testim Oh, I'm sorry. Never mind. Thank you. Let's go to public testimony. Um, we have three opposed, none in favor, none neutral, and three opposed. Uh, is it Ros roster McCauley. You'll have three minutes. State your name and your address, please. My name is Robert McCully. I reside at 12643 Knight Drive. Uh, Mr. Chairman, the issues that we had have been adequately addressed and I'd like to remove our our uh opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Donna McCauley, do you still wish to speak? No. Okay. Thank you. And then I got um is it Shane and Charity? Jason Jensen, they don't want to speak. She's home in a back surgery. Okay, perfect.

You did. I just misread it. So, sorry. Thank you. Okay. Make a motion to close public testimony. So, moved. Second. All in favor? I. Okay. Guys, ready to deliberate? Talk this one out. It seems like pretty straightforward. Yeah, I I think it's a good development. Yeah, the only the only piece that I am uncertain on I'm I'm I'm leaning towards Yes, as well is that I'm not sure where city council is because I know that one of the last ones they had um I don't know what their estimate is for how big of lots they want for near county land near the lake area. And so I'm assuming halves are big enough, but that was the only question that I don't think we have an answer for from city council's direction on how they want density size near larger county properties where there's farming type area. I mean, I think there's good um open space, too. So, I mean, they doubled that size and and kept that good. I I'm I'd be Yeah, I think overall the project for yes on this one. So, um I have a motion. I'll be happy to do it again. Based upon the testimony and evidence and record in this matter, and upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth herein, I do hereby determine and move that case number ANN25-04, the request for annexation of parcel R32807 with a zoning designation of R1 as well as a preliminary plat approval SP25-05 for the Paragan East subdivision is recommended for approval. subject to the conditions of approval as presented or amended. Second. Roll call. Budros. Yes. Larson, yes. Harmon, yes.

All right, let's move on to the next action item, which is case numbern 25-05, SP25-04. The applicant is requesting annexation of parcel R32805 with a proposed zoning of R1 where the current city comprehensive plan future land use designation is neighborhood 2. Additionally, the applicant is requesting approval for a preliminary plat for Paragrin West subdivision, a residential subdivision with 45 single family residential lots. Staff, thank you. Commissioners Perfect. Katie Wright, associate planner, 205 South 6th Avenue. Uh, you get to hear it all again. This is Paragan West and 2550 and SP2504. The project location is 16.57 acre site located generally north of Orchard Avenue and east of Lake Avenue. The site has frontage along Orchard Avenue and will have frontage along Roer Street. The project's currently surrounded by county land with some county residential. To the north and east is the approved Paragan Estates single family development and east of that is the proposed or what you just heard Paragan East single family development. There are three developments within a onem radius of the subject site that are either actively under construction or have been approved for entitlements. The applications before you tonight are for an annexation of 16.57 acres of land into the Caldwell city limits and a preliminary plat for a subdivision out as outlined in red. Tonight's request consists of the

applicant's proposal for annexation with an R1 zoning designation. The purpose of the R1 neighborhood residential zone is to provide areas by zoning procedures in accordance with the comp plan that accommodate single family residential including accessory dwelling units, town homes, and duplexes. The proposed development is surrounded by R1 to the north and east, Canyon County A to the west, and city of Nampa area of impact to the uh south. Staff finds the R1 zone is compatible for this location due to the low density of the area. The existing and proposed development is consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan neighborhood one place type and the proposed densities are in compliance with the comprehensive plan. The proposed land use is single family which is permitted use within the R1 zone. There they're proposing 45 single family detached lots with 2.36 acres of qualified open space. The proposed development project has been analyzed for compliance with city codes and policies and staff finds the proposed development is in compliance with all parking landscaping lot dimensions and all of their 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 agencies that had concerns were Boise Project Board of Control uh just wanted to confirm waterways will not be obstructed to neighboring properties and Valville school district submitted a letter stating more elementary schools are being constructed but Lake View uh is projected to be over capacity in 2029. We received one public comment in opposition from Nicole Montalvo uh due to traffic and overdevelopment in the city. Staff recommends the following sight specific conditions. Prior to city council, the applicant shall provide an updated landscape plan with additional code requirements. And at time of final inspection, wayfinding, signage,

benches, and traffic recept or trash receptacles shall be installed. And at the time of final plat and final inspection, no more than 40% of the required trees may be the same species. 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. And I stand for any questions. Thank you. We'll do hold questions off till after the applicant. Thank you again members of the commission for your time this evening. My name is Bonnie Leighton with NV5. My address is 690 South Industry Way, Sweet 10, Meridian, Idaho 83642. and I'm here again this evening uh to request your recommendation of approval to city council for the annexation and preliminary plat for Paragrin West subdivision. Uh as Katie mentioned, this is a 16.57 acre uh site that we are requesting an R1 designation with uh 45 residential home sites. And so again, just to briefly recap the vicinity map, of course, um we are almost adjacent to Lake A. So just just east of Lake A, um Orchard Avenue is on our southern boundary and Roper Road is on our uh northern boundary. Uh we are also bounded on uh the on our western boundary by the Phyllis Canal. Um across from the canal there are um what appears to be some um county subdivided lots. Um and then

obviously to the east is going to be the uh Mberry or pardon me not Mberry um Paragan uh number eight uh development which we discussed previously. Um so again we're adjacent to the city limits. We're filling this piece in. Um what we've got here, you can see the surrounding development again. Um and really again looking at how we can transition and fit into the neighborhood. Um again, we had a future land use map designation of neighborhood 2 for this parcel. uh which did give us the opportunity to request a higher zoning density of the R2, but again we decided to stick to the R1 to be more compatible uh with that area um with the area. So overall um we've got a little over 16 and a half acres of land. Uh total of 55 lots. Of course, 45 of those are for um home sites and um a residential density of 2.71. So again, we're on the low end given the new comprehensive plan which ranges from two to eight dwelling units per acre for this zoning designation. So we're still uh really on the lower end of that again with the changes in the landscape um some of the landscape requirements um that are part of the conditions of approval that we uh agree with. And then also um just in terms of what actually counts for open space um we adjusted some of our numbers but again you can see we are well over the required uh 8% um that is required for this zone. So um what we did is uh really tried to um design something that provides for

connectivity. There is a pathway along the Phyllis Canal. Um that again is more of a regional pathway uh for all the residents in the area. Um we have wider lots again on our souththeast corner which is the top uh right corner of the screen there. Really trying to make sure that we're providing a buffer with what's going on um in to the adjacent uh parcels. Um, excuse me. We've provided uh ample open space in this particular development. We are providing workout stations um and a picnic shade structure, picnic shade structure kind of in the center and then workout stations um kind of in our northwest corner. So again, trying to provide some variety for the residents. These are quite large lots. they'll probably have a lot of their own amenities but still complying with uh the code in terms of uh making sure that we provide amenities for the entire community. Um again, same program as the last application I brought before you. Um single family standard lots. These are examples that we had submitted for our application. Um, again, one and twotory homes, a lot of articulation in the elevations. Um, these will look beautiful on these nice uh large lots in this area. And, um, with that, I would be happy to stand for any questions. Any questions? I I just have a comment that everything that was said about Peragrin East applies here. Nothing else. I agree. Thank you. Thank you very much. We'll move into public comment. Um, none in

favor, none neutral. We have one opposed who wishes to speak. Scott uh Glubet. You got three minutes. State your name and address, please. Scott Glue, 12814 Orchard Avenue. So, I am I'm directly east of this development. And I guess I should have signed up to speak for the Paragrin East too, but I didn't think I would need to. Anyway, I have something here from the previous developer that I would like to give to you. So, it's it was some it was something that the city asked the developer um because there would be developments on both sides of me and if we if they would talk to us about putting at least a sidewalk and gutter in front of our property on Orchard since that's what's exactly going to be on either side of us. So to make it a little bit more congruent and and so I'm thinking, you know, if if we are, you know, if we're sitting there and we got this, you know, nice sidewalks and everything on either side of us and we still just have our gravel driveway, then it would be much more appealing for the whole surrounding area if there is at least a sidewalk and curb and gutter because that's what's going to be on either side of us. So, I also have um a situation or I have questions about the irrigation water. So, um I've not been able to get in touch with anybody that can answer this from the developer, the the construction people, and her comment and her communication is horrible in in this in this manner. Several property owners around us have tried to contact her and the developer to figure out what's going on with the irrigation because we need to know what's going to happen with the

ditches around us because part of the ditches is on my property and where they're developing in eight right now. They just dug up the ditch and plugged it off and I had water running through my property twice. We got it resolved finally. So, um but it took a whole lot of effort, way more effort than it should have. So anyway, and because of the irrigation ditch that ex that is on the east side of me, um it acts as a dam and um and when when there's a lot of snow or rain, I have some pictures here. I get a lake that builds up um on my property. So, um, at the end of of that ditch near Orchard Avenue, there is a piece of cover there that drains drains my property out into where they're developing now or will be. And it runs down to the drainage canal. That's the way the water has always run, you know, for the last several hundred years. So, so I have not been able to get any answer from anybody how that's going to get resolved or what's going to happen with that. And I also have um I don't and I don't know what what to do with this and maybe you can give me some suggestions. Finish up your last thought, please. Okay. Thank you. All right. So, um the northeast corner of my property, which which um they went through and I bought a little piece of property w next to me um from a previous neighbor and everything. The previous developer went and put in a pin, a 5/8 pin for a marker. It is in the wrong place and there's no survey attached to it. My halfinch pen is in the right place.

Their survey people never saw it. So, I brought it up to JUB, which is the engineering firm that's dealing with. And they said, "Well, anything pre-existing, we don't have to touch." So, but there's two pins there. Okay. And I don't know if I have the right to go remove the pin that is 5/8, which is what the plot says there is there, a 5/8 pin. There is not in the right place. And I called the surveying company. I have to pay $2,800 to get a 58 pin put there. I don't know that I should have to pay for that. So, so all right. I Okay, wrap it up. Thank you, though. Okay. So, do you have any suggestions on that on how to deal with that? We'll have we'll have the applicant come back up and respond. All right. Thank you. Okay. want to come up and respond. Thank you again for your time this evening. Bonnie Leighton for the record. Um in response um so we do have some comments that are in contained in the staff report specifically in the engineering staff report that address um some of the frontage issues. I do want to note that um we are um we are in agreement with the staff's comments and the conditions of approval um contained in the staff report. One of those includes um a comment on page three of seven of uh from the engineering department I believe um where it states let me let me me just double check here. Um yes. So this was from Steve Pendleton dated May 19th. Um if the city is able to obtain sufficient rightway along the front edge of the south parcel located

in the south um southwest corner of the development, the applicant shall complete road widening improvements. So um there's already staff is looking at some of those frontage improvements and making those connections. Um, it goes on to state if the city is not able to acquire the right of way, lesser improvements may still be required that fall within prescriptive right of way in those out parcels. So, I think as we move forward with this and get into um construction document phase, should this project be approved this evening, um that's we understand that that's an expectation and we would be working with staff to figure out those frontage improvements. It's a very common thing that I've seen here within the city um on other projects that have been brought forward if there's a way to make some of those connections. So um that one was addressed. The irrigation um again as I mentioned in my previous testimony um our plans are not only reviewed by city staff but then also um the irrigation district. And so I understand that there were some problems out there in the past. Um, of course, any development that we do um would improve. Uh I I hear this a lot from neighbors. You know, I've had problems with water or flooding um sometimes things aren't constructed right or over time or um they degrade. um obviously we'll be required to make sure that water is still delivered appropriately uh to the neighbor and um our plans will be signed off. So um that would be also developed under um in the construction document phase. As for the document that the gentleman handed to you, I'm I didn't see it, so I can't uh speak to it. Um, so I would hate to guess what that was or where it came

from. Um, he mentioned a previous developer, but uh, um, so I was able to to read the letter and a very troubling thing that is in the letter is that the gentleman's property is in unincorporated Canyon County and there may be jurisdiction issues. I don't want to overreach the authority of the city of Caldwell in making any kind of an agreement like this. I I think it's complicated. I did give the letter to staff. I saw furoughed brows which which means it's there there's some research that's going to have to be done by staff to dig into this and to see what is the responsibility of the city in this regard. I'm not sure that there is any responsibility or authority and I can speak I read through this very quickly commissioners um I this is the first time I'm seeing it so I would like to review it a little bit more closely but in looking at this agreement it appears to me that the property owner and the developer came to an agreement that um the developer would complete all frontage improvements for their property and repair any damage if there was was any damage caused during construction. To me, that seems um just fine that for a property owner and a private developer to come to this agreement. I don't think that the city would need to be involved in that agreement. We do include in our staff report that the private developer is required to complete frontage impro improvements along this out parcel. So, that will be one of the engineering requirements that we track during construction. Um this document does contemplate the developer bringing the out parcel water and sewer services. Um however later on in the document the

property owner contemplates that they will are going to be unwilling to annex. Um this is something that a private developer has no authority or control over. Um certainly service stubs can be provided. However, if a property is annexable and water and sewer are servicing a property, then our the typical would be that the property would need to be annexed in order for water and sewer to service a lot. Um, that portion of this agreement I didn't appear to be signed. the only portion that was or the I guess the the property owner wishing to not annex. I did not see a signature on the um portion that was signed and notorized was just the agreement between the private developer to complete frontage improvements and to provide services and and I believe any conveyance of the right of way on orchard for the gentleman's property would be in unincorporated county and so that conveyance would have to occur at the county level not at the city level. The city can work with the property owner on the dedication of rightofway because it is along um because because it is along the roadway. So, the city can assist with the dedication of the right of way. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Well, make a motion to close public testimony. So moved. Second. All in favor? I I All right. I'm in agreement with the same one. Same. Same. Yep. Okay. Um, somebody want to make a motion? Sure. We're going to let you do it, Ramsey. Based upon the testimony and evidence and record in

this matter, upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth herein, I do hereby determine and move that case number AN25-05, the request for annexation of parcel R3280 with a zoning designation of R1 as well as a preliminary plat approval SP25-04 for the Peragrin West subdivision is recommended for approval subject to the conditions of approval. as presented or amended. Second. Roll call. Bros, yes. Larson, yes. Harmon, yes. All right, that moves us to our last action item. Public hearing, quasi judicial, case numbern 25-00006. The applicant Caldwell Housing Authority is requesting annexation of parcels R34658 000000 R3465801 1 0 0 and R3465801 0000 with a proposed zoning of R2 where the current city comprehensive plan future land use designation is neighborhood 2. Additionally, the applicant is requesting approval of a development agreement with the approvals for specific uses to accommodate their master plan for Farmway Village, an affordable housing residential community. The 78.92 acre development is located on the southeast corner of Highway 44 and Farmway Road in Caldwell, Idaho. Staff, thank you. Commissioners Katy Wright, associate planner 205 South 6th Avenue. Before you is Farmway Village Annexation, ANN2506.

The project location is 78.92 acre site located on the southeast corner of Highway 44 and Farmway Road. The site has frontage along Highway 44 and Farmway. The project site's currently surrounded by a majority of unveloped land with some industrial to the south and residential about a half a mile to the east. There are no approved developments within a onem radius of the subject site yet. The parcels to the south were recently annexed into the city with M1 zone. The applications before you are for an annexation of 80.16 acres of land into Caldwell city limits shown in red. Farmway Village was built in 1939 under the New Deal and was transferred to the Caldwell Housing Authority in 1957. The uses on the site as well as the proposed uses in the master plan were approved through a conditional use permit through Canyon County. There are currently 248 units or 62 forplexes with 12 facility buildings to support the residents. Tonight's request consists of the applicant's proposal for an annexation with the R2 zone. Staff finds the R2 zone is compatible with the surrounding area as the purpose of the R2 community residential zones to provide areas by zoning procedures in accordance with the comp plan that accommodates a larger variety of lot sizes and housing types. This includes single family residential and missing middle housing types such as town homes, duplexes, triplexes, forplexes, cottage courts, smallcale multifamily or mansion house apartments. Supporting or secondary land uses may include small-cale mixeduse or live work housing types and commercial activity and services that are generally only found at major intersections of arterial and collector roadways. This uh the proposed development is surrounded by agricultural zone within the Canyon County to north east and west with general industrial and general commercial to the south. There's a wide canal to the south of the property that

would provide as a buffer against the property zoned general industrial. The existing and proposed development is consistent with the intent of the comp plan neighborhood 2 place type and the proposed densities are in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Majority of the site is already developed. There are several supporting uses that are existing on the property that would not typically be permitted uses within the R2 zone. These uses include laundry services, a museum, office spaces, a store, a school, daycare, along with several other amenities such as skate parks, playfields, and play structures. Due to the specific nature of this development and the history of the site, staff finds that these uses are compatible with the residential uses on the site. The future expansion of this development would remain within the existing parcels and would continue to provide additional support to the residents of Farmway Village. The applicant's requesting 220 RV park stalls and an additional 72 dwelling units along with various supporting uses through the development agreement. These uses shall be um within compliance of the adopted master plan. The proposed development will have adequate site access and all utilities are available or will be available as outlined in the engineering staff report. There is an MSA for this site that was signed in 2024 for the property to connect to city water where it states that once this property becomes contiguous to city limits, CHA shall support annexation. Public agencies were notified and asked to provide comments. The only agencies that had comments were Caldwell School District which was in support of this annexation. Department in of environmental quality reached out to the applicant um just mentioning that some certain recommendations to stay in compliance with future development and then Idaho transportation department wants to be aware of what will end up being developed at this location to

provide future comments. Um and then staff received no other public comments. Staff recommends the following site specific conditions. All future development on the site shall be reviewed by ITD for review and comments. And development predating this annexation may have been constructed with non-conforming structures and uses. This annexation results in all of these uses being considered permitted non-conforming uses moving forward. All new development shall comply with the associated development agreement and all applicable regulations of Caldwell City Code unless specifically permitted to deviate from code standards through said development agreement. and staff recommends that if the commission recommends approval for the request that such request is subject to the conditions as specified in the findings of facts, conclusions of law, and the order of decision. Thank you. Thank you. Can we have the applicant, please? You'll have 10 minutes. State your name and address for the record, please. Mr. Chair and commissioners, thanks for hearing me out this evening. My name is Mike Dittenber. I am the applicant. I'm also the executive director of the Caldwell Housing Authority, which wholly owns and operates Farmway Village. So, um I think before you is a probably a unique proposal in that we're probably asking for permission to do what we've already been doing for 85 years. And when we get to the end of the presentation, I'll provide you with a reason as to why we're doing it. But um uh Farmway Village was built in, uh 1939 by the federal government under President Roosevelt's New Deal program. It built 100 labor camps across the United States from the uh uh Dust Bowl Midwest to the West Coast that provided uh relief for agricultural workers

looking for peacemail work to uh to better opportunities and better life. It opened to the public in 1940. And down there on the bottom left, you'll see the Caldwell mayor uh welcoming all the federal officials and local representatives to this uh new endeavor. It was home for depression era era a workers. It also housed the Japanese Americans after they were released from Minadoka uh when the Midoka internment camp closed. And an estimated 15,000 families have called Farmway Village home over its 85 year history. Uh in the 85 years we provided workforce housing, agricultural housing, service worker housing and uh we continue to do so in the future. The Caldwell Housing Authority was established in 1946 and it assumed management of Farmway Village in 1952 and it finally purchased it from the federal government in 1957. The very first renovations of Farmway Village happened in 1970. The second renovations happened in 1992 and we were connected to the city's sewer system in 2015 and the city's water system in 2024. So this is just a little fun photo here. I threw it in there because this is a 1955 aerial photo. Farmway D Village predates I 84. So, we were there long before 84 was uh the gun club that you know off of gun club gravel lane out there, whichever lane it is, was actually on the other side of the road at one time. And before there was the uh the little oval racetrack in Meridian, the uh racetrack actually existed out there off of Highway 2026. So, we've been there a long time. Uh the local land lose planning act of 1975 authorized Idaho cities to engage in land use planning to include the

approval of planned unit developments. Farmway Village was a planned unit development in 1939, 36 years before the uh the land use act was passed. Farmway Village has now and has always had in its 85 year history apartments, offices, laundry facilities, convenience stores, child care facilities, community center, storage facilities, repair shops, parks, recreation areas, open areas, barbecue, concession stands, sports field, public water systems, and among a bunch of other amenities. So, we've always been a planned unit development, and we've always just existed out there. And if you look at the way the federal government built these planned unit developments, they were always just out there outside of cities. Well, now we're getting close enough to the city we need to be uh considering our future. So, what do we have? Approximately 80 acres. Somewhere in here it says 79 something and you read 81 point something. So, we have approximately 80 acres. Um we have 62 forplexes or 248 units of housing. Uh we have uh 11 or 12 different commercial facilities depending upon whether or not you want to include the 200 square foot bullying. We put all of our deicer in as a commercial facility. We have 37 acres of undeveloped area. So about 45% of our total land use is still open area. It's grass. It's green. You'll see from the photos there that there is nothing uh overgrown. There's nothing in weeds with with the exception of a small area. Let me see if I can point to it here. A small area right here that you can see up in this corner up here. And this is the uh wastewater treatment facility that the housing authority closed down in 2000 that we closed down in 2014.

And because of the land, the way the land was made up in to to facilitate a wastewater facility, you can't get structurally sound soil enough to do anything else with. So that's why we propose the RV parking. Uh the housing authorities master plan calls for the development of 72 more units of multifamily housing and 220 units of recreational vehicle parking slips on the southern part of the property. Uh the request to designate the property as a neighborhood 2 allows the housing authority to keep and expand its necessary housing inventory services and amenities. Uh, one of the other things that's important to remember is housing authorities operate under IDO code uh, IDO code section 5019 which states that a housing authority will provide housing and we will provide community necessary housing to support those activities within uh, within our housing developments. So, not only are we doing things because it's the right thing to do, we're doing those things at Farmway Village because we're required under Idaho code to do those things. Uh annexation is voluntary uh but the master plan anticipates the additional units being built. So we think it's probably important to uh annex now rather than uh uh rather than waiting. Uh here with me are our architects uh Pat Cwell and Alex Nutman. They have completely engineered all of our wastewater connections, our drinking water connections, and are still doing our drinking water connections. So, if there's any questions that you have about whether or not what we are doing conforms with city standards, I can assure you it probably does conform to uh to city standards. Here's our master plan. You can see on the south side of it the uh the 220 RV slips. Again, that was once previously uh wastewater

treatment facility sites uh which can be used for uh nothing of a of a of a structure of a built structure. Within that master plan, you can see the little red units. Uh everything that is in red and peach is an anticipated new unit. Everything in gray is something that already exists. Uh also noted in the master plan up between the two stars, that little L-shaped red building is the future fire department uh for the city of Caldwell. Uh we completed our sewer line in 2015. The top map, I'm sorry, it's not in color. And the water line loop by the city of Caldwell was completed in 2024. Uh we are connected to both city sewer and city water. And I would like to think that the housing authority was special enough that uh the city contemplated bringing that water line up there just for us. But uh they didn't. They brought it up there because that is the entire new urban renewal north area and there's a considerable amount of development that is planned in that area. I have been to 15 20 neighborhood meetings, met with different contractors, different uh people who are interested in developing that. So, I know there is a lot of movement and there's a lot of interest in developing in in that area. Uh, as Katie said, in 2014, the housing authority signed a municipal services agreement. We've yet to find that when we connected to the city's sewer system and we signed a municipal service agreement again in 2024 when we connected to their water system. Those agreements require the housing authority to request annexation once it becomes contiguous with city limits. The property to our immediate south became contiguous with the city and became part of the city if I'm not mistaken two weeks ago. Uh it says specifically in the uh municipal service agreement at such time the CHA shall become contiguous with the

city limits the housing authority shall support annexation of the property in its whole into the city limits to become part of the same and to and hereby agrees not to raise any objections to set annexation subject to the contingency set forth in uh the section above. Uh, the housing authority intends to bind its heirs and assignees to the same support and non-objections. And I put that little X there in that piece of property there because I think everything you see in that picture with with the exception of that property with an X on it uh agreed to be uh included in the new urban renewal area. So, I think that's it. Uh, I don't have anything more to to add. I don't know how much time I have left. You're probably tired of hearing from me anyway, but uh if you have any questions, I'd be happy to happy to answer them for you, commissioners. Thank you. That's it. Yeah, I think you're good. All right. Wow. Hey, thanks for the history lesson, too. Thank you. Yep. Um, we have two signed up in favor but do not wish to speak. A Dominic Mareno and an Alex Nutman. And for there we entertain the motion to close public testimony. So moved. Second. All in favor? I I All right. It's very straightforward. when the sewer and water were connected and a condition was established that they would voluntarily seek uh annexation as soon as they were contiguous. And we were told two months ago when we approved that M1 annexation, the application package at that time spelled out that it provided a path for

annexation for Caldwell Housing Authority. So, all we're doing now is dotting the eye and crossing the tea. I agree. Yep. Okay. I agree. Yeah. I'm I'm willing to make a motion. Oh, you're going to I'm relieving Ramsey. Based upon the testimony and evidence and record in this matter and upon the finding of facts and conclusions of law set forth herein, Dubai hereby determine and move as follows. the request for annexation of parcel R34658, R34658011 and R3465801 with a zoning designation of R-2 and associated development agreement for Farmway Village is recommended for approval subject to conditions of approval as presented slash amended. Second. Roll call. Larson, yes. Vos, yes. Harmon, yes. All right. Well, that's it. So, I is there a motion to adjurnn? So moved. Second. All in favor? I I