Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, it's six o'clock. We're going to get the the meeting started. Um, can we have roll call, please? Guyire Harmon here. Larson here. Vance here. Whitbeck. All right. Uh, no special presentations. Uh, consent consent calendar. Can I get a motion and an approval of the consent calendar? Uh, so move to accept the calendar. I second. All in favor? I I

uh review of the proceedings. I'm going to read this off. Um, a quasi judicial hearing involves the the consideration of a land use request such as annexation, reszone, classification, or approval of a subdivision preliminary plat. The public hearing procedure 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 prior to the hearing being declared open. When providing testimony, please come to the podium. State your name, address, which will be included in the record. The applicant or applicant's representative will be given up to 20 minutes to present their land use request. The city planner will then follow up with their staff report. Public testimony. Testimony of those in support will be taken, followed by those in a neutral position, and finally those in opposition to the request. Note, all public testimony will be limited to three minutes or less. The applicant will be offered the opportunity to provide a rebuttal testimony followed up by the planner if necessary. After the rebuttal testimony is given, the public testimony portion of the public hearing will be closed and no new oral or written testimony will be allowed. However, city staff are allowed to discuss any questions or concerns with the commissioners after public testimony has been closed. So, we have no old business. So, we're going to get on to new business. Action item case numbern25-09 SP25-12 Summit Grove subdivision. If I could get the applicant to present.

Thank you. You can go ahead whenever you're ready. Yep.

Thank you. Uh my name is Matthew Parks on behalf of the applicant. My address is 251 East Front Street, Boise, Idaho 83701. Um, so we've here for an application for uh annexation of the property into the city calledwell wall, excuse me, Caldwell and uh requesting approval of preliminary plat. Uh, Summit Grove is a proposed uh age restricted uh uh target community 80, excuse me, age uh 55 and over. There's going to be 32 proposed residential lots. 31 are going to be single level single family attached uh town homes. It's going to be located in 2615 Dorman Avenue. Proposed zoning is going to be R2. The location is on the screen right now. It's near our Lady of Valley Catholic Church and the Sanctuary Cowake Church. It's in the uh farmway road corridor. We'll have a little bit more information on the next slide. You can kind of see the property uh you know kind of in that white area. There's other uh applications that have been approved. Three are uh um approved with entitlements. One of those other projects is uh coming back to the um city for another um re uh replat. But as you can see, there's some uh properties just kind of on on the outskirts of uh the developed area and this is well within the um city area of impact and is contiguous to existing uh subdivisions. So the vision of the subdivision is to provide um high quality uh

lowmaintenance homes for people that want to age in place. This is uh all homes are going to be um single level. There's going to be a mix of town homes uh uh ch ranging from two units to four units. There'll be a map later on showing exactly the the layout. Uh the community design encouraged uh independent living and social connection. And this is not a lowinccome uh project. This is going to be a market rate project. Uh there were some concerns and comments uh to the public that this was going to be a apartment t uh project or it was going to be lowinccome. I just want to make sure that this is uh market rate, this is attainable housing and this is going to be for sale units. Here's a kind of a layout. You can see the existing home is on the bottom left and the other uh uh properties are going to be developed around it. Manchester Drive is going to kind of have a scurve through the property to kind of cut down on the traffic impact and there's going to be a open space on the lot uh the excuse me uh uh southern portion of the property. There's going to be a fence around the development and that's going to provide a buffer to the next the neighbors and again I'll make sure this is going to be a single level so there's not going to be any impact on view corridors for the neighbors. Uh currently it's surrounded by single family residential neighborhoods. It's in the neighborhood two area in the comprehensive plan. This is intended for mid to low density uh project. This is fits well within the comprehensive plan. The proposed density is 6.9 dwelling units. Uh you can have between two and

eight. So we're on the uh well within the the limits there. And uh the project is going to uh seamlessly integrate with the existing adjacent property owners. I say that because there's a lot of property that is uh in the um R1 zone right next door that is has comparable um density. It's it's very close. Uh some of those properties are about one to the acre, I'm sorry, tenth one point uh about five to the acre. This is going to be a little bit a little bit more than that, but pretty much the same. Uh I want to talk about the comprehensive plan. How this fits with a comprehensive plan uh neighborhood uh to that zoning. It encourages uh diverse uh housing types. We've got town homes and other really uh town homes are not um well represented in the very uh near uh properties, but this one will fit well well with that. uh and that um specifically indicates that in a comprehensive plan we should encourage uh um aging in place. So allowing people to live in Caldwell, stay in Caldwell. This allows to a transition to people in Caldwell, live in Caldwell, grow up in Caldwell, and then age in place in Caldwell. Uh we're also uh providing infill development um and encouraging uh that kind of development that we've got city services already existing in the property. Uh it's going to be tied in right next door. This is going to be uh not it's not going to be a big impact on the provision of services. there were circum there were some concerns with um the taxing districts or the impact. Uh we didn't get any adverse or opposition

comments from any of the taxing districts if anything. Um staff uh noted that was um uh consistent with a comprehensive plan and there was again no issues with the school district. There were some com comments that this is going to tax the school district and we've got a a project that is going to have um 55 and over residents. So, the impact on the school is going to be negligible. Perhaps one or two residents might have um grandchildren or older children that um might be living there. But for the most part, it's it's not going to have any impact on the texting districts at all. Um, we also have uh a lack of um sidewalks right now. So, this is going to connect that property to the existing neighborhood. They're going to have a there's a school about 3/4 of a mile away, Wilson Elementary. This is going to allow um safe uh neighborhood uh walking to school. And also there's going to be a lot of properties or projects, excuse me, um developments next door or in the neighborhood that are going to allow for uh you know a myriad of um uh I guess uses for the neighborhood. We've got schools, we've got uh commercial development, but a lot of residential in this area. Um and we want to have a mix of housing housing types in uh Caldwell per the comprehensive plan. So this achieves that goal and there's a continuum of care from independent living to assisted living to transitional facilities actually in the area within 3/4 of a mile. There are two facilities that are uh assisted living living facilities and there's a transition um housing right here as well. So, you really do have a school,

you have churches, you have uh a lot of um basically a neighborhood feel to this area. Um I think we talked a little bit about the age targeted design. I really want to focus on um I'm in that area. I'm I'm not 55 just yet, but I'm getting there. Um, but I'm transitioning to a single family just to kind of I'm assuming single level to make sure that um I don't fall. Um, but I think this is ideal housing that allows people to stay in Caldwell, age in place and downsize or stay in Caldwell and not have to worry about um moving to a different jurisdiction or in another city. So, I talked about the attached town homes. We have that one TAT, excuse me, detached home. That's going to be the existing home. Um the other ones are going to be uh have subject to CCNRs that are going to allow or make sure that it's uh kept in um maintained in very high quality. Um the other property even though it's going to be uh outside of uh the CCNRs in itself, we are still going to have this property that one attached home is going to still within the the platted subdivision. We've got a a mix of two to four uh unit project. So this is again not for sale units. I want to make sure this is not apartments. This is uh single um owner. Um maybe there's going to be uh some some rental allowed with the CCNRs, but it's not going to be a forale product. Uh there's a lot of uh we we took a look at the um open space uh on this common area lot. It's going to be 10% actually it's a little bit more than 10% of the

open space. So, we're meeting the the um city code here. And that uh open space, it's not going to be a um uh pickle ball or anything like that. There's going to be a shade structure uh that would be tailored to the 55 and older um demographics. You have five minutes remaining. Thank you.

Uh talking about the connections to Dorman, we've got a lot of walkability here. This is a great neighborhood. This is going to add to that. We're going to have that uh curb and and sidewalk. I'm going to move a little bit forward. Uh this is uh showing that locations of those other properties. The top area one is Wilson Elementary. These other arrows point to churches and assisted uh living facilities and other areas that are just going to be uh um necessary for or actually great um enhancements for the neighborhood. Um really want to talk about really quickly the issue. There was a lot of comments about the water sewer and pressurized irrigation. There was comments about oh this is going to have an impact on the water table. This is going to be connected to city services. City water city sewer. There's not going to have any impact on the water table since it's Caldwell city water. Water rates are excuse me water rights are already here in place in beneficial use. that's going to be transitioned from probably a lower usage because the resident res residential use is going to be lower than the um existing agricultural use for the property. And we're going to have a tw excuse me 12-in w water man that's going to be connected to the development and looped per um city engineering um recommendations and requirements. uh fire and uh police services are within two miles of the property. Uh there was no comments from the city uh excuse me, from the um the fire department uh negative comments. There were no comments from the police department at all. So there's no uh adverse comments from any um taxing districts and there's no flood plane and environmental constraints with the property. It's just very um flat. I don't know if you know the the lay of

the land over there, but it's there's no uh topographical issues with the property. Um again, the issue with the the property, there were always some concerns about um traffic. There's no traffic study required because of the size of the development here, but I don't think there's and there's no comments or concerns from highway district number four concerning the property. Um with that, uh my conclusion would be uh meets all even the city staff indicated and I agree that this project does not excuse me meets all city requirements and I think the materials in the staff report are a little bit more robust than I did uh have in this previsitation, but there's a lot more uh goals and policies that are met with this application. And I think I really want to end on the fact that this is a great product for Caldwell having that 55 and over um uh product that is going to be available. It's been very successful in other areas of with his developer and I think it's going to be a great product for the for the town. Uh with that um I'll allow staff for pay excuse me to uh make their presentation and if they have any questions please let me know.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Commission. Just for the record, Joe Dodson, principal planner here at the city of Caldwell, 205 Sussex Avenue. I'll try not to hit on everything that the applicant did and and keep it succinct and just kind of hit the main points that um staff reviews when we review these annexations and plats. Um, so again, Summit Grove is the application before you. Uh, and in 25-09 and SP2512, the site is located on approximately 4.63 acres near the intersection of Dorman and Lynen. Uh, the specific address is 2615 Dorman. All surrounding uses are single family residential um with varying lot sizes. Some are also located in the county, but majority of the adjacent sites are annex into the city. In addition, uh, Farmway Road is to the west. Farway Road is obviously considered a major north south vehicular corridor through both the city and the county. And so, hence that's why it's being widened at this time. It is understood to be a major corridor through the city. As far as approved developments, the applicant stole this from my staff report, but they're welcome to use it. It is just showing what's approved and relevant within the area. These are for residential applications. Um the applicant noted number one which is directly to the west. That is true. They have not just have they resubmitted to revise the plat. The original plat has actually expired. So they'll have to come through in order to subdivide that anyways. They'll have to um do a new plat regardless of what they propose. As far as the comp plan, as noted, neighborhood 2 is a designation. As you can see on the map, it's the only designation really near. Right outside of view on the west, there is neighborhood one. and I believe pretty much right where the left line is. Um,

and that's just a lower density transitioning into the A land that we know exists out there. Um, neighborhood 2 is the primary residential place type within Caldwell. It's the primary residential primary place type within the city period. It encompasses residential areas that provide an array of low and medium density housing options. The neighborhoods are located outside of most commercial centers, but they should also be connected to nearby services. It is, as I noted, the most prevalent place type and uh covers areas between all of the major centers. These areas are supposed to be developed with highly connected um developments and allow for a variety of housing options. In general, less dense housing is found in areas away from major roadways. And as you get closer to major roadways, an increase in density is anticipated. Something else I would like to discuss is a what we call a health intersection that's in the staff or within the comp plan. I don't know if you guys have noticed that in the new comp plan that we got. It's important to note um just because it connects how healthy living in general is connected to the future land use. So neighborhood 2 is where most Caldwell residents live being the most prevalent place type. Proximity to healthy choices including biking and walking can improve our health outcomes. Short block lengths are anticipated with street trees and cohesive and human scale design of buildings and they they can increase likelihood that people will opt into walking and biking in their neighborhood rather than vehicular use. Overall within the neighborhood two place type residential projects are allowed to be 2 to eight units per acre. The applicant has proposed 6.9 32 units on 4.63 acres which is considered a medium density residential project. The property is currently located within the county u is not part of the city but it is within the area of city impact hence the annexation request. The applicant is requesting R2 which on the map on the right would be the yellow. Um it is clear that R2 is not

nearly directly nearby but it is within a mile both to the north and the east. There's also some R3, which is the purple as you can see, which I believe that has the assisted living facility and some other higher density projects further to the east there. Staff does also want to note um R2 does not mean two units per acre. R2 does also not mean twice the density of R1. It is simply a designation of a zoning. We could call it R73 if we wanted. It doesn't necessarily matter. It is more about just this is the second residential density that we have for the zoning. So, um, it really just dictates the housing types, so the land uses, and it also dictates the dimensional standard, so lot size, setbacks, building height. So, I just want to make that clear. Specific request, as noted, is an annexation and then a preliminary plat that consists of single family attached town homes, i.e. town homes consisting of 32 total lots. As you can see, the very southwest corner of the site has the existing single family home. The rest are in two to four unit attached single family lots. Uh within the R2 zoning district, single family attached town homes are in allowed use. So there's no additional special use per anything required. They're just permitted by right. Within the city's land use schedule, the proposed land uses fall under single family detached obviously, but also dwelling single family townhouse three or less attached and dwelling single family townhouse four or more attached. The project has been reviewed against all zoning and dimensional standards and as noted in the staff report they comply with all of those requirements. As a basis, this would include a review against setbacks, um building height, utilities, lot sizes, land use, parking, landscaping, and open space. um just to name some of them. It is also do important to point out the applicant has

proposed two additional factors that are atypical for honestly both Caldwell and this site. That would be that they're proposing all singlestory structures as seen in these elevations here. Uh and the max height is 18 1/2 ft which is shorter than most of the adjacent homes from what I understand. Um, and the applicant has specifically proposed this as a 55 and older community. Oh, too far. There we go. The subject site was reviewed by the engineering department for access, utilities, etc. Um, there has been deemed that there is adequate access, especially because it's connecting to local streets would just improve overall connectivity through and between subdivisions. Uh all utilities are available to the subject site as noted and no TIS no traffic impact study is required because they're only proposing 32 lots which the threshold is either 100 dwelling units and or 100 vehicle trips within a peak hour which 32 single family homes do not generate anywhere close to those numbers. As far as the public hearing noticing, and we were noticed the hearing and the site per state statute, we received two agency comments back, one from highway district 4 and one from ITD. Highway District 4 just noted that the Dorman right ofway should be 60 feet rather than 53 feet. That was a discrepancy between the engineering memo. And uh Highway District 4, the applicant has responded and said they can accommodate the 60 feet and engineering will update their report prior to the city council meeting. So there should be no issue there. ITD's comments were that they had no comments. So, that was the only thing they said. Oh, there were multiple comments received in opposition. Um, I don't know the total number at this time, but it was well over a dozen, if not more. And there was also within that a petition that you guys saw that had multiple of the neighbors in opposition, and I know they'll talk tonight about their concerns. I guess with the comments, I did want to touch on a few things that are more planning oriented rather than just the

applicant just to make sure you guys are clear as well as the public. Um the main ones are there were some references to the 2040 comp plan. Um that comp plan is no longer relevant for the site. That was the old comp plan that we had had that was adopted from 2019 to 2025. We adopted a new comp plan in February of LA of last year. I guess now it is we're in 2026 already. Um, and it is the county. I don't even know the zoning of the county. It's either a or whatever they call R1. Um, so there were comments about, oh, it's only supposed to be two lots or five lots or something that because their annexation requests, what the county would or would not allow is irrelevant to our review. Um, as far as schools, the school district didn't send a letter probably due to just 30 single family homes. Um, however, if you use the trip, the student generation that I'm aware of, which is typically.3 students per single family, if this was a regular single family, it would be roughly 8 to 10 students generated by this. That's something that they typically have always said they can accommodate easily between projects. Um, however, being 55 and older, you would also assume less students generated by that. Not always, but that's just what they do with their student generation rates. Um and then lastly reiterating what was mentioned in the engineering memo regarding water. It would connect to city services. There would not be any wells on site other than potentially for irrigation if the existing home has a well service for portable water for each house has to be through the city. And there are no water issues. There are no water pressure issues in this area that I'm aware of. And it would not affect from previous discussions not affect the water table due to where most individual county home wells are located at a depth not close to what the city well depths are. So that was discussed in other projects um further out from the city center. But I just wanted to reiterate

to commission that that's not a concern of the engineering department. And so with that, um, staff does recommend if the commission recommends approval of the annexation and preliminary plot request that it be subject to the findings of facts, conclusions of law, and order of decision. And I will stand for questions or if you have any for the applicant, they can come back up, too. Thank you, Joe. Um, commissioners, do we have any questions? I have a few. Okay. Yeah. Um, and maybe I'm misering and I I think you Joe, you and also the um presenter, is it 22 or 32 lots? 32 total. So, 31 new and then the existing single family detached.

So, the existing single family detached counts for a few of the because I mean looking at the numbers on the maps and everything, I only see 22 and so that's Oh, no. There's 32 total. 30. The 32nd is the existing single family home, which is the big box. And then all the other ones are single family attached. So the dashed lines are like three three on the north side and there's a couple doubles. So those are individual lots. It's a four sale product. So there's 31 of those total. Okay. Okay. Within 11 physical structures that you would see. Okay. Um and no two stories of any kind.

All single story. And that can't change even though it's an R2 which an R2 would would allow for that or not. Uh R2 has a max height of 40 feet. 40 feet which theoretically threetory in 40 ft. However, the applicant has specifically proposed single story and because of that I have included a condition within the staff report that states that they have to keep it single story. And so when the building permits were to come in, if this were to get approved by council, we would verify that. And if they're two stories and they're not getting their building permit. Okay. And you spoke about the 18 foot of frontage which is normally smaller than what is normally allowed but this is kind of a specific community. So what's the normal allowance for frontage um for apologies 18 and a half was the building height

building. Okay. The width of the properties I can't remember off the top of my head actually but I believe they are they vary from size 25ish to 36 I believe. I'm sure the applicant knows off the top of their head, it's their product, but there there is some discrepancy there between what R2 allows and that is very specific. That is because within the code within the R2 and R1 zones, you can do single family attached and utilize the lot size and frontage allowances for the R3 zone. And that is because if you have R2 even, which is 4,000 foot minimum lot size,

it's very difficult to do any attached product with a 4,000 foot minimum lot size. It's just doesn't usually work. It's too big in order to accommodate builders for those lot sizes. Otherwise, you're going to have a really deep front or really deep backyard, etc. And it usually just doesn't work. So because of that, we allow the basically the allowance to use the R3, which is a 2,000 foot minimum lot size and a 20 foot minimum lot frontage. And they're over both of those on any of the lots. They're actually pretty close to the R2. I think their average lot size is like 3600ish. So they're they're on the bigger end of that anyways. Okay.

But they are compliant with the code. That's questions I had. Okay. Anything else? My question is the applicant so I can I can wait. Okay. Okay. I think we're good. Okay. If the applicant would come back up real quick. Thank you. Yeah. Chair or sorry, Harmon. The uh you said that these were uh for 55 and up. Are there any accessibilities built inside of the homes? I'm not sure that I saw anything that said that they're for like 80. Is there ADA stuff being built into these homes for them being able to um stay in place?

I don't have any excuse me um anything specific that would be um you know ADA well it would be all ADA compliant. Um there's no um like the doors would have ramps to wheel into the front door out like any kind of like retire in place like I now need a wheelchair or something or some kind of things like that. No, there's nothing like that. It would be uh just a typical um residential product. Um so it have to be um if it's going to be designed or modified to accommodate uh um I guess wider uh door widths or have a ramp that would be up to the individual that um owns the property.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yep. So I building off building off that that is something I keyed on to. You very much presented this as a plus 55 community. One thing you even pointed out is school zones and everything like that. Churches, I understand, school zones to a plus 55. Is there any kind of stipulation? There are communities that are specific to seniors and everything. This is not one of them. Is that correct? It is 55 and over. So like that would be a limitation. You must be that to be an applicant for purchase

to be a to one who like the owner. Yes, that would be uh in the um CCNRs. So they've been mentioned it' be a deed restriction. So just a either a CCNR restriction that would be then incorporated by the deed. But yeah, it would be restricted. The ownership would be limited limited to that. Oh, and if the applicant didn't fit that, they would not be accepted. Correct. Yes, that's correct. Again, I want to make sure that's not for everyone who lives there. It's just the owner itself. Yes, the owner itself. Yeah, exactly. But but speaking on to the ADA uh speaking to staff, would with that restriction, would that require some more of those ADA standards to be implemented into the structures with with that being brought in?

Mr. Chair, Commission, from our standpoint, no, there would not be a requirement. It'd be just per the building code as they construct them. There's, from my understanding, not any ADA requirement period with the building code for residential. It's just going to be per owner. I would also like to state with the this is not a ding on the project or any 55 and older community. It is difficult for planning and zoning to regulate the 55 and older communities unless there's a couple options. One is through the CCNRs. Two being actually deed restricted. Deed restricted things are very difficult also. Um the CCNRs is something that would be actually fairly easy to track. So with their building permit or whatever, we could require that they submit CCNRs to show that they have that um stipulation within them and then that would give the city that clarity that they are sticking to what they're saying. Now admittedly that was not a condition placed by staff

commission can add that if with any motion even if it's a recommendation of denial you can still put that as a condition that you would like to see moving forward. So just letting commission know. Anything else? Yeah, I got more. You got more? I got a couple more. Um, so for my question for engineering, um, on the roadways onto Dorman and everything, is there any kind of ingress, egress, uh, lanes coming on and off of Dorman?

Um, Commissioner Vance, no, there are no any like slip lanes, I assume, is what you're thinking. Yeah, for the right-hand turn lanes. Dormund is a local road. We typically don't require those types of turn lanes on our local roads. And secondly, when we we pointed out that the staff uh there was no traffic study required for this based on the size and everything. When typically would not based on a project, but when typically per roadway would we normally see a staff uh a roadway report that we would expect? Yes. Our code requires a traffic impact study to be completed when the vehicle trips are 100 vehicle trips. And so you normally see that when you have 100 um dwelling units, okay, is normally when we start seeing those traffic impact studies.

So it doesn't have to do with the addition of of the 32 dwelling units. It has to do with in general if it meets 100 then it would uh initiate a traffic study. That is correct. Okay. I think that's my second. You're good. All right. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you. All right. We're going to go to public testimony. We're going to start out with in favor and I'm going to apologize right now. Some of the last names I can't read great. So, um I apologize if I hack your name up. Don't get mad. Um in favor does not wish to speak. Tiffany Leanos.

Lanos. Yanos. Okay. Yanos. Okay. And you don't want to speak. Correct. Okay. Um, then we go to one that does not want to speak. Tim Maka. Okay. Thank you. And a Matthew Parks wishes to speak.

Oh, okay. Gotcha. That works. Uh June Dugen Dugan does not wish to speak. Okay. Uh Ray Dugan does not wish to speak but is in favor. Okay. That's all in favor. There is no neutral. So we will start with opposed. Anita McNeel. State your name and address and you have three minutes.

My name is Anita McNeel. I live at 3215 Dorman Avenue. I am one of the original I live in one of the original houses that was done before all the development was there. My issue is what they were talking about as far as the traffic is concerned. I don't think nobody has gone out there and saw how many people walk along Dorman that has no every other street has a sidewalk that was new development. There is no sidewalk there and we have a lot of seniors walking on that dormant because Farmway has been closed for almost over a year for the expansion and their mistakes. A lot of traffic has been on Dorman. Also, in front of my house, there is an open canal. In the 14 years that I have lived there, there have been seven trucks, service trucks, a couple of uh cars and about 14 vehicle uh passenger trucks that have fallen or driven to or slid into that canal which is being destroyed basically because the dirt that's falling in there. As far as your findings, as far as water is concerned, there is a lot of houses that are still running on wells. I don't think you know which ones are. I do. On the other hand, because Farmway has been closed, there have been over 50 vehicles between the hours of 8 in the morning and 7 at night

driving up and down Dorman. This housing unit is not going to make it any better because you did not take into account on the weekends because of the church. There are 30 parking spaces in the front and 30 parking spaces in the back. Five times during the weekend, people park in those parkings. And we have an overflow that goes down to the corner of Dorman plus up the street past Cowboy Church where they're parking on the streets. That also blocks the vision of anybody turning on from Dorman onto Lynden onto Farmway. Okay. Besides the people, there are bike riders and there are kids. It doesn't matter if this development doesn't have any room for kids. There are kids there and they ride their scooters, bicycles, whatever. Plus, we have school buses that come at least four times on the stop at Dormund. Unfortunately,

go ahead and wrap up what you're saying for what I'm actually saying is my front windows actually look out and I can sit there in my living room and count the cars, count the people that walk up and down or drive up and down Dorman and I also see how ambulances and fire trucks have a problem especially during the busy time. Okay, thank you. Uh Roger How does not wish to speak. Is that correct? Okay. Uh Barbara Pike said maybe I would like to pass for now.

Okay. Um Marian Gordon is that Yep. Do you don't what? You don't want to speak? Okay. David Smart does not wish to speak. Tanya Rohos does not wish to speak. Roy Rohos does not wish to speak. Rebecca Hunter does not wish to speak. Wayne Hunter would like to speak.

I would like to speak, but I know we have another person that needs to leave. I would like to take my time to the What was it?

Oh, yeah. I can do whatever you want. So, I just wanted to give her an opportunity to speak while she's here because she needs to leave. So, okay. Um, your name and address. Wayne Hunter, 3323 Dorman Avenue. Okay. You have three minutes.

Okay. Start with ask question. You have not talked any about parking for those residents? none whatsoever. If you have 20 foot of road frontage, how are you going to have that many cars parked in that amount of distance? There's there's not enough room there. I I hadn't even thought about that till they've talked about the road frontage for that. Um many of us here tonight that are against this R2 zoning um bought our homes here because it's a rural rural area. We like that rural atmosphere and we want to keep it that way. Um, most of us have lived here 20 years or more. A lot of us have been here a long time. Myself, I've been here almost 25 years in that house. And I know a lot of my neighbors have been here a lot longer than that and because of their age are unable to be here tonight. but they are supporting us in being against this development. Most of us know each other because we've been here this long. We know who who's walking up and down our street. We know them by name. Um we'd like to keep it that way. There's been a lot of talk about water table. City gets its water out of the ground just like all of us that live in that area to have our own wells. You can't tell me that you're going to add a bunch of homes and it's not going to affect the water table. It's going to affect it. This is going to be a precedence for other homes, other developments that that the same developer is trying to do. We don't we don't want that many homes in that small of an area. We want our open spaces. Um,

when I moved to Caldwell, and I still do some, but I don't do it as much as I did because it's scary. I used to ride my horse from my home all the time. Not a problem. But there is getting to be so much traffic and there's that I cannot do that anymore. I live in the county where I should be able to do that and not have to worry about all the cars. The people that drive up and down Dorman, even before Farming went into constru under under construction, do not give any courtesy to people walking or with horses or bicycles. They go by 50 55 miles an hour sometimes and they don't even move over. They act like they own the whole town. I don't think your roads in your enforcement for law enforcement is up to par to to support that kind of development. Um, you talked about um, they talked about the lost my train of thought now. Um, the homes only being 55 plus. What's to keep that from being changed after they get the R2 zoning? I see I don't see anything in there that will absolutely stop them from changing and be able to put in taller homes, more homes, more families. What's to keep them from selling those units to other people besides what's in the 55 community?

Okay, that's your time's up now. Thank you though. Appreciate it. Um, ma'am, you have to leave. What was your name? Okay. You want to come on up real quick?

State your name and address, please. Teresa Waterman, 1215 West Lyndon. Um, you got three minutes. Thank you.

I'd like to thank um you, Mr. chairman and members of the board on behalf of the Better Neighborhood Incorporated um which represents neighbors on the street of Lynen, Dorman, Marshall, Quail, Meadow Street, Easy Street, Wind Songs Court, and more are coming in every day. We would like to thank the commissioners for listening to our objections to the Summit Grove subdivision. First, I would like to submit for the record over a hundred petitions, signatures from our neighborhoods asking the commissioners to uh recommend this this project be denied and that it should not be reszoned from R1 to R2. Currently, you guys have to annex it and they're asking for R2. Everything around it is R1. The area of Caldwell is defined by the Caldwell City Planning and Zoning is as follows. The site and surrounding zoning classifications. This is the neighborhood we're talking about. North R1 neighborhood residential and county zoning. South R1 neighborhood residential. East R1 neighborhood residential. West R1 neighborhood residential. Site and surrounding land use existing site single family residential. North single family residential, south single family residential, east single family residential, west single family residential. The city also noted that this site as well as most of Caldwell has been designated in the comprehensive plan, the land use designation as neighborhood 2. The neighborhood 2 designation in the comprehens comprehensive plan certainly cannot mean one-sizefits-all because a community of homeowners directly impacted by Summit Grove

subdivision proposal. We're scratching our heads wondering how this project could have gained approval. On the city of Caldwell PNZ project specifics, it says the existing city or county zoning designation of property surrounding this partial that you guys are taking up for consideration. North of the site, low density. South of the site, low density. East of the site, low density plus county rural. West of the site, low density. Although city planners had have recommended this project fits within this space, our neighborhood strongly agrees disagrees. This neighborhood is clearly defined as R1 single family residential low density. All of us that are here tonight and those that are not here but have signed the petition bought into this area of Caldwell because it is low density. It is still rural in feeling with large lots and open spaces. We understand that growth has come to Caldwell and that this area is going to be developed. We are simply asking the commission to appreciate that there are areas in Caldwell that have been historically low density and homeowners that bought into these areas should have the backing of our city to protect our communities. We are asking that you honor the commitment to the current zoning in this neighborhood by keeping it it as I need you to wrap it up real quick though you had three

single family residential R1 low density. Thank you. Thank you. And may I submit this because the when we sent those signatures in, we did not we only had about 40 and now we have almost 110 signatures and these are people that live in that area that do not want this. Thank you. To be brought in. Thank you, ma'am. Is Lynn Waterman with you, too? Yes. Did you want to speak also? I do. Do you have to leave too? No. Oh. All right. Well, then I'll go back to the other side after you're done. Do you want me to go ahead and speak? No, no, no. You're good. You're good. I just didn't know if you had to leave with her.

Okay. So,

my name is Lynn Waterman. I also live at 1215 West Lyndon. And um that's where I uh my uh parents built that house in 1960. And then after I was away, I was able to buy the house back from my mother. So anyway, I've been here for one way or another for more than 60 years. Um, just as I listen to this, one of the biggest concerns is that this is just one subdivision, but the developer is also going to develop across the street. And that was my mother's property. When she sold it, she understood that there would be 29 homes on that property. And now they were wanting 68 homes on the property. So, it's not just this 32 homes, it's the 32 homes plus the 68 homes. So, they're really talking about a 100 homes on less than 20 acres. And if you have two to two and a half cars, um I don't know why they wouldn't do a traffic study, but you're talking about 250 more cars on Dormund. And that's a big deal. um dormant is just a narrow um narrow corridor and there's not enough room for them to widen it without moving houses. There's not enough room to widen it to accommodate that number of cars. So, as my wife had said, you if you go the whole way around that property, if you look at the five acre plots the whole way around it, there are 58 houses on 45 acres there. So the average lot size is 78 acres which is five times the size of the 0.14 acres that uh SI construction is asking for. So um I'll just read this part. It's very important to understand that the developer purchased the land knowing that it was designated and R1 single family residential. We're not asking to take away anything from the value of the land that the developer purchased. is the developer who is asking the zoning

commission to give him value that he didn't purchase. That value will come from every homeowner and a land owner in the area in the form of higher taxes to pay for increased needs for school, police, and fire. And they can say that it won't, but development almost never pulls its own weight. They always end up falling back on existing land owners for increased uh taxes. there will be a lower water table because the city does uh like Wayne said, they get their water out of the um water table just like we do. More noise, more crowded streets, and more traffic congestion. In short, this is another way of saying that it's going to lower our property values. So, anyway, I would respectfully ask that you strongly consider not allowing the um designation to be uh changed from R1 to R2. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Hold on. Harmon, can can you come back up? We We uh I have a quick question for you. Sorry, I don't know what to call you other than just Harmon. Um so if you wanted us to do something to try and meet a happy medium, are you wanting them to be R1? As as staff did indicate that we can't control what the county does with their zoning. So you're wanting R1 and you're wanting three dwelling units. Going to be development and so R1 would be acceptable. So the max amount of dwelling units for R1 is three. Is that what you guys are looking for? Approximately three dwelling units per acre. Yeah. So right now it's it's close to

Yeah. And I mean, of course, the more important one is the one that my mother sold that was um you know, they it was 29 and now they're saying 68. Yeah. We can't talk about something that's not Yeah. Okay. But what I'm saying is that is that from a traffic standpoint and from a water standpoint, it's all one thing. It's the same developer. And so I know that that's not coming up tonight, but it's not reasonable to look at those two developments separately. It's they all feed on to Dormund. Um that that's totally fine. I was just I was just from uh your guys's whole perspective is you would like it to go down to about half of what they have to three dwelling units. Correct. Would be your general goal. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All right. I just wanted to have a point of correction, clarity. I guess the old R1 was three units per acre. New R1 doesn't necessarily dictate that. It would be Z to two and then it says three dwelling units if considered area development. Yeah, that's not R1. That's the future land use,

which is neighborhood one, which is not on the property. It would still be it's the same designation regardless of the zoning, meaning that it's still two to eight units is per acre is allowed. The R1 zone could be requested. Yes. And that has a minimum lot size of 8,000 square ft unless they do single family attached and they can do basically the same exact project in R1, but maybe you lose a unit or two because it would only allow three units attached, not four. So it it's very nuanced in that, but it's not going to get down to three units per even if you did single family detach of a minimum lot size of 8,000. That's approximately five units per acre. So

that would also be more than what I'm hearing. So I just wanted to be very clear about the R1 is not three units per acre. Okay. All right. So then yeah, let's move on. So we have Brad Krenshaw who wishes to speak. Uh Brad Krrenshaw, 2909 Dorman. Um you have three minutes.

Thank you. Uh just a couple quick things. Uh I I think he kind of covered something there that I know you guys can't go into it, but the other across the street does affect it. I could really give a crap less about this one. It's the next one coming that we worry about and it does just set a precedent for it. The other thing I didn't hear about this is what about irrigation? It's a joke now. What's it going to be when we hook all this other stuff up to it? And uh I'm I'm with everybody else. The quality of our life is good right now. And if we see this 55 community, which I think, you know, I really don't have a problem with that. But if a rich, call it, 55year-old comes in and buys 10 of them and rents them out, they can't do anything about that. I don't really want to be around a glorified apartment complex. So, those are my concerns.

Yeah. Appreciate the time. Thank you. Appreciate it. Gail Gordon.

State your name and address. And you have three minutes.

Gail Gordon, uh, 2510 Marshall Place, Caldwell, Idaho 83605. I'm going to reiterate just what the young man said just before me before I start what I have to say. I agree with him. It's ownership of 55 plus, but there needs to be a stipulation in there that cannot have anybody come in 55 and younger to rent that those places. This is not a rental business. It's an ownership. There's should be a stipulation on ownership versus being able to rent. There's nothing saying that the the person that's putting in this complex isn't going to do do just that, have himself buy those units and then rent them out to be able to gain a greater profit. Uh I'd like to start by saying I'm not against development. Uh I do believe that the housing uh development needs to be respectful of the existing neighbors around it. To put townous in established residential area with individual homes on roughly 0.25 to two plus acres is wrong. At that at this time I ask you to respect the voices of current ownership of people that live in Caldwell and Canyon County who pay our taxes diligently. Please support us to maintain this in a 0.25 or greater lot size designated R1. Thank you.

Thank you, Jennifer Merritt. You didn't mark if you wanted to speak or not speak. Can I? You sure can. State your name and address and you got three minutes.

Okay. Jennifer Merritt, 2815 Dorman Avenue. Um, I bought my house when it was being built. So, it's been a minute. And this property that they're trying to do on the 4.63 acres, a half an acre of that is the house that's already pre-existing. So, actually, they're trying to put in 32 duplex, triplexes, town houses, whatever you want to call them. They're about a thousand square feet and stuff them into basically what was supposed to be for cows a house with a big yard. But they if they put more properties in there and what they want to do across the street I know is not the same but it is the same because it's the same company and the first go around in the beginning whoever owned it said it was going to be nice properties comparable. I don't want construction, but it would be nice. Now they're pushing over 70 with what looks like an apartment building in the middle. So between under 500 ft from my house, they want to stuff in a 100 residences. Farmway was supposed to be closed one year. It's been over three. So the traffic on our street is insane. The church parking goes down our streets sometimes. I just don't see there's no way we can have that kind of f that no those kind of numbers and still feel safe and like our property is worth something because it won't be if it's just facing a bunch of apartments. And that's about it.

Thank you for listening. Thank you. Uh Randy Scenard Seard. Seward. Sorry. That's why I apologized ahead of time.

No problem. Randy Seward 2916 Quail Meadow Loop. So I have a long list of points, but the majority of them have been covered by most of the people here, so I won't be repetitive. Um I also am against the, you know, R2. Uh, I mean, it's been stated in depth that we're surrounded by R1. So, I mean, it speaks for itself. We don't want R2. Um, but it seems somehow this is passed. My biggest concern at this point is accountability. I mean, we're looking at stuff that's going to impact our sewer, fire hydrants, irrigation, our water. You're not even doing a traffic analysis. you know, that's all fine, but I guess I want to figure out where the infrastructure analysis actually occurred. You know, does the city actually do some type of study with methodology and analysis because where's the accountability at the end of this? We start getting our tax bills, those have gone up, and so we can go back and look at the study the city did and then try to figure out where this went wrong. So, are these reports available to the public? Can we go to these different departments and get these reports far as the water, fire hydrants, sewer, things like that?

Let's ask staff. We we do complete master studies of our water system, our transportation system, and our sewer system.

Um, we do have most of this information available on public record. However, we do have a difficult time releasing the full study for our water and our sewer system just simply because um for the protection and the safety of our infrastructure, there is some information that we cannot release to the public. Other jurisdictions have had tampering with water and sewer systems through information being released in the master plan. So, I'm happy to discuss our master plans with you in depth, but there are is some information that I cannot fully release through public records requests. our transportation system. Um, we do have the cat's plan, the Caldwell area transportation system plan, as well as our capital improvement plan. Both of those documents are fully available through public record request.

Okay. So, can you give me like a redacted version of the things we need to know? I can probably provide a version that's just specific to your area. So yes, it probably would be a a a redacted version of the full report. Okay. And so I should start with you, Holly Hart. Yeah. So the best place to start would be through Sorry. No, no worries. Um the best place to be would be through our clerk's office. Um you can submit a public records request. Okay. And then that request will come into my office and we can work with you on uh to provide that information.

Okay. And that will also state whether the developer is paying for it or the city is paying for anything. So it will not specifically get in it will not get into specific developments. We complete these master plans. Um typically we update them every couple of years. Um so they're not updated with every single development but we do provide this information to our modeling consultants. So in the background we continue to update our models and then we only release updates to our master plan every few years. Um so we don't have it specific. We our master plan isn't going to be specific for the individual development, but I'd be happy to show you the the water and the sewer systems if you wanted to just meet and go over it. I could probably talk through it with you a little bit more in depth on the individual developments.

Okay. And are the city ordinances or laws is there anything different from the state of Idaho as far as like building and the state? Yeah. So, are you conforming to all state regulations and codes or is the city of Cwell have anything different? So, as far as zoning and everything Yeah. So, if I'm using state law, would that apply to State law does not speak to specifics. They leave it very vague, especially in the state of Idaho. There's a lot of private property rights involved there. They have very broad parameters that they provide cities and say, "Go do your thing." And so, we are compliant with state statute 100%. a framework. Yes.

Yes. A framework. And cities cannot be less restrictive than the state, but they can be more restrictive, which typically every city is. Hence why some people don't want to annex into a city, but prefer to be in county because it crap rolls uphill in that way. Understood. And then we do have our standards for construction. So there is the um international building code and there is the ISPWC which is the Idaho standard works for public construction or Idaho standard for public works construction. Um we do provide supplemental specifications as Joe mentioned um they tend to be more strict than the state rather than less strict. Great. Okay. Well the documentation will speak for itself. Great.

Thank you. So, is it uh Michael Basher? Am I saying that right? Yeah. Okay. You don't wish to speak? No. Okay. Tamara Zimmer. Tamara Zimmer does not wish to speak. Okay. Laura Shannon does not wish to speak. I do have a question. Okay.

Come. Yeah. Come to the podium. My name is Laura Shannon and I live at 4707 Middlesborough Way. And uh while I was listening, Joe said that the residential one or R1, it has two to eight units. Is that correct, Mr. Chair? The whole area of this area of the city is two to eight units per acre per the future land use.

Okay. I guess I'm just wondering if the commission has the discretion to say this area it's appropriate for three units per acre in this area even though um that broader range is acceptable. You don't have to answer that for me but it's just a question I have and thank you. Thank you. And I'm sorry but this one I can't read it all. So, I'm going to read your address to come speak. 3807 Dorman.

You don't need to speak. Okay. Jenny How doesn't wish to speak. Bill Pike, state your name, address, and you have three minutes.

Yeah, my name is Bill Pike. I live 2722 Quail Meadow Loop. I've lived in Caldwell for since 1978. And uh I oppose the building of this uh 32 unit complex. The wife and I both went over and looked at uh an area that they built some time back in Nampa and they said that this would be a replica of what we looked at. and she has some photos on her phone, but uh I don't have the luxury of putting it up on the screen, but these apartments or or presidents are pretty close in proximity and it would just be a nightmare with the traffic and it's just something that I can't see happening in my neighborhood, you Well, my home values I consider very nice and I'd like to keep them that way. Uh, most of the homes in Quail Meadow are half a million to a million dollars and I want to keep those figures high and I don't mind paying taxes on it, but it's just we just don't have the room for 31 units plus the one that they they actually bought and didn't tell the homeowner what their intent was. Had the had she had known that, she wouldn't have sold it to them. But now we have to come here and oppose something that I hope the planning and zoning people will take into consideration. I we only get three minutes, they get 30. So

just take in mind that this is our city and think of the people. So that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. Jessica Hunter does not wish to speak. Okay. Alicia Schwank. Oh, you don't? Okay. Is it Christopher Al

Alter? Do you wish to speak? Okay. Christopher Alter 3308 Dorman Avenue. I'd like to know if there's any kind of big issue with safety going into this subdivision or new accommodation into this area. I'm a father. My son sits at the back of the courtroom or the room back here. There is no stop sign other than Lynen and Ustick. After that, it's a onem strip. It's basically a drag strip. He walks to a bus stop. There's no no sidewalk. There's nothing paved. It's not marked. There's nothing on that street indicating it is a bus route. There are a multitude of buses that go up and down the street. Adding in this many homes with a new subdivisions that are going in is going to increase risk either to him or anyone else walking down that street. There's not there are no paved sidewalks. There is a canal there that is filled through during irrigation season. Uh going forward, I don't believe this is a a great addition to our community there. I understand it's a rural area, and I understand that's why we moved there, but going forward, adding this into the area we live in is going to be a big impact on safety and there is nothing determining whether or not they're going to be adding any sort of speed bumps, traffic signals, or anything along our street. So, I hope that everyone understands going through with this that it's going to be a huge safety issue in our community. With that being said, the other issues that we have down there with the age restriction in this community that they're trying to build, uh, like other people have said in this in this meeting tonight, there is nothing stopping or preventing this from being subleasased or leased out or rented, increasing traffic. So, I hope that is taken into consideration uh when this is being thought through through every other development in that area.

There are kids that bike and scooter down that street. My son and his friends go up and down that street and every day I see them do that, I'm I am horrified that someone's going to be coming speeding down there without any indication that there's no crosswalks. Like I said, there's nothing there indicating any kind of uh pedestrian safety. So with this being added, it's just going to create a huge risk for people walking, biking, you know, even just driving down that street. Like I said, it's a onem corridor. So anyone on that street is taking a risk when they add in more homes with people that either will respect the traffic laws or don't. So I hope that's considered when any new development, not just this, goes in. That being said, I hope that that you guys consider this to be a major issue going forward. But that's All I've got to say. Thank you.

Thank you. Susan Waterman does not wish to speak. Question. Can I ask a question? Come speak. Yeah. Say your name and address.

Susan Waterman, 16455 West Linton Street. Um I guess I have a question for the staff. So you said that you don't do a um a traffic study unless you have like certain number of homes going in. But when you have a place like this where you have literally subdivisions going in all around, do you take into consideration that if you combine the numbers of houses, you could have 100 houses and then need a study. So I guess I'm asking is that do you take that into consideration that you're not just talking about one subdivision, you're talking about multiple subdivisions that are going to equal more than that number that you need to do with study.

Great question. And when staff evaluates a single application, we can only evaluate it through the lens of the single application that's in front of us. So we do not take into account the other homes of whether they're existing or proposed. We only evaluate if a traffic impact study is necessary based on the application before us. Now, if there is a study that would be required, then that is when we take into account existing homes and other proposed developments. Um, that's why we tend to just lean back on our master plans, our Caldwell area transportation system plan to help us determine the traffic in the area. I see. So, with the city council then, um, is that something that you would consider um, changing that traffic study requirement so that it would include considering all of the subdivisions that are going to be going in and not just the one specific one that's being requested?

You'll have to ask city council when you get there. This is just planning and zoning. Okay. So, so but but I'm asking is that something that the city can change? Um and then how I guess that would have to be request made to the city or that's not something that you're considering. Okay. No. So, no. Sorry. Thank you though.

Uh is it Ben Cook? You don't want to speak. Okay. Sharon Milford does not want to speak. Nicole Alwalt Alworth.

Okay. Carol Eeken. State your name, address, and you have three minutes. Um, Carol Aken, 2701 Bristol Avenue, and I live inside Manchester Park. I have well, I have three main things. Number one, this developer has been proven to be deceitful. When he when they bought the land, they said that they were going to build three houses on that acreage. Once they got what they wanted, it changed to 31 houses. Across the street, they bought it saying they were going to do 29. Now all of a sudden it's 60 something. So if you change it to our two, they are known for once they get what they want, they change up and and do something different. So um I would like it to stay where it is. Also with the traffic, they're opening up from Manchester Park. I live right on the corner of Bristol and Manchester. It's quiet there. We have a lot of kids that are in the road. We have a lot of kids that play. They're going to open that up and make that a main thoroughfare in and out of that. So, you're not just looking at the 31 houses they're going to be dumping out onto Dorman. You're also talking about because a lot of people are going to change the way they drive. They might go up to airport or around. Now they're going to be dumping out onto Dorman because it's closer. So you've got all the people in Manchester Park also potentially dumping out onto going through this and dumping out onto

Dormund which is going to cause a lot more traffic um and a lot more traffic on our corner. were concerned also because of the kids that like to play. So there is that. The other thing that I'm wondering about is what other people have said. Okay, it's 55 to buy these places. What say people buy like they said 10 of them and then rent them out to families, rent them out to younger people. We already have people that drive like crazy idiots through our subdivision. If they open that up, one, they're going to be screaming out all the way straight through, but also, who's to say that they're not going to rent their places out to families, you know, something else? It only says you have to be 55 to buy the property. If they rent it out, it could be to anybody. So, you know, you can say it's a 55 and over, but unless it is spec specified in there, they can rent to whoever they want. There's no protection for us. So, um, those are my main questions. One, that this developer changes up what they what they do once they get what they want. And two, that opening up that traffic, you're it's not just those 31 houses. It's going to be a ton of people from Manchester Park traveling through there as well to get over to Farmway or whatever instead of going to where the openings are now. It's going to increase that which I'm afraid for the kids too. And I mean it's going to affect our quality of life as well being on that quiet corner. So,

thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Shelley Tabber. You didn't mark if you wanted to speak or not speak. I was debating, but no, thank you. Okay. Doug Eeken, do you not wish to speak? Gerardo Ruez, you don't want to speak. Perry Wilson does not want to speak. Joe Wilson does not want to speak. Okay.

Warren Waterman, you don't want to speak. Okay. And Andrew Haw. And you want to speak? Just briefly. Okay. State your name, address, and you have three minutes.

Thank you. My name is Andrew Oz. I live at 920 Winon Court which is just off of Dorman. Uh this is my first time being at one of these meetings so it's a it's a fun opportunity to learn and I appreciate your professionalism and your patience with all of us. Uh I've been living here for about eight years. My biggest concerns are one infrastructure and two home values. My home is uh it's my primary asset. It's the asset that is going to pay for hopefully my children's school at some point and it's it matters to me and I love our little community that little culde-sac on Windsong Court because my kids can go driving their uh bikes or their scooters in the road and I don't have to worry that much. Sometimes we'll go out on Dorman on longer walks and we'll go down Manchester and Dorman is a small street. It's not very well marked. There's not lighting at night, so it's dark. And what they've said about it essentially being a drag race for some drivers is true. A lot of vehicles drive at high rates of speed down that road, and it's dangerous. Increasing the quantity of drivers there is is concerning. I realize this council or this uh this board doesn't have a traffic safety study. I don't know if that's optional, and if you you can request one, if you could, I would encourage you to do so. But the the consequences are very very real. Lynon and Ustick, Farmway, and Ustick are both very dangerous intersections. You see fatal crashes or very uh severe crashes there all the time. I work at the county attorney's office and so when I'm on call, I go out to some of those. I'm here in a personal capacity, not a professional one, but I I see firsthand the damage that has. And the last thing I want is that to happen to one of my ch kids or one of my neighbors kids or one of my neighbors. The the people here, I see them walking dormant regularly. And that is a a very high concern for me. Also, I know that the I work handinhand with Cwell police. I know how taxed they are in terms of resources, in terms of

people, and I don't know that we have the infrastructure in place at this time. I'm not against development. I I would encourage you to consider options for development, even these communities, once we have the infrastructure in place. I would just ask you to consider hopefully developing that and encouraging the expansion of the infrastructure before we consider the building. Thank you. Thank you. All right, that'll close public testimony. Um applicant, you got five minutes, please.

Thank you again, Matthew Parks, uh 251 East Front Street, Boise, Idaho. Uh 836, I'm sorry, 8371. Um I want to start at first big picture. We have an uh annexation application and we really we really in talk that well what's the um standard to look at this and see if we're going to prove it or not. And the question is whether or not it's supported by the future land use map in the comp plan which it is. I think there's no doubt in with any anyone's mind here that it's supported by the future land use map. So annexation I think yes that's going to be approved or should be approved. it's supported by the by the comp plan. Then the question becomes, okay, what are we going to do as far as what zoning classification is going to be used for this property? And I think we've got we've talked about two options, whether it's going to be R1, R2. And I think there was a lot of people complaining about the density. And I think what we have here is well, if we're going to be R1, R2, it's going to be the same. It's essentially the same. So, I think that's the a lot of concerns with, well, it's going to be um uh it has to be different and people are looking at the the old comp plan. I understand the comp plan is it's, you know, it was recently changed. So, there's updates that people might not be following um because that's not their jobs, but that's what we have a comp plan that accounts for this this development. So I think both the annexation again it's supported by the comp plan and for the zoning designation I I think it really this is not a situation where this is going to be low income or this is going to be a parade of horriles with this development. This is going to be a very well planned out uh project. It's not going to be um people are are talking about a lack of infrastructure that's all been addressed

with the staff report with our pre presentation today and I think it is going to uh have little to no impact on the taxing districts otherwise the taxing taxing districts would have um made comments to to the to this body to say listen yes this is going to be a problem for us but it but it there was no comments here at to when you have no comments that means it's essentially a deacto approval by all these taxing districts and that's that's the way it kind of works out. So I think when you look at it and say hey we have no no opposition that means you can't you know point to the fact of lack of opposition and say no the taxing districts are wrong because they should have said something. Um I want to talk about the parking issues. Um the parking it's uh not dressed address addressed in the um my presentation and we talk about it but there are attached garages and driveways. So for all of the units I want to say it's uh it's more than a sufficient um parking to meet code meaning that every dwelling unit is going to have at least one parking space. So, if you have a two-unit um uh pro uh house, you're going to have or two-bedroom uh room, you're going to have two parking spaces. Or for what if you have a garage, you're going to have also you're going to have your your driveway. So, I think there's a lot of parking available um for this project. It's not going to be a problem moving forward. I want to talk quickly about this um the fact that there's this concern that the developer um pulled some kind of a fast one with uh the property owners and that's just simply not true because there was an intervening property owner. This is not the when people said, "Oh, the the developer said this was going to happen." That's not my client. That's not the applicant. That was another property owner. So when they sold that

property, now it goes to my client. they own the property and there were no uh guarantees to any any to the neighborhood or to any prior owners to make anything you know developed here even I only mentioned that because I think there was this insinuation that there's going to be this kind of this is what's going to happen moving forward that's simply not true um I do want to talk a little about you mentioned that Um, well, it's going to be that three per acre and I want So, I think that was been cleared up pretty well with with with staff. Um, I think the minimal there's a minimal difference between R1 and R2 for zoning for density just for the the lot uh dimensions and the availability of having um uh four unit uh forplexes. I mean, we can work with that, but I think really it's just not really an apples and oranges kind of thing. It's this R1 and R2 is going to be very similar whether it's going to be one or the other. Um, there was a lot of concern with the traffic and uh one last thing, note that there's an S curve in the in the property or in the layout which is designed to slow traffic. That was uh a conscious decision. People are say, "Hey, you know, other neighbors are going to use this. Um, you know, there's other bad actors." You can't blame my client for the fact that other people in the neighborhood, probably residents of the subdivisions that are surrounding, they speed. That doesn't have that's not an impact that my client can control.

All right. Um, I I'll stand for any of any of questions that you may have. We're going to go to staff real quick and then we'll come back with any questions from commissioners. Thank you, commissioners. Thank you. I I have a couple clarifications. I just would like you guys just to reiterate, please. Sure. Um and if you could, Joe, just between R1 and R2, I think there's a pretty big misconception, right? And if you could just try to clarify that with the public.

Sure. Um, great question and I understand at this point it's a pretty color on a map. That would be the main difference. Um, the same exact number of units could fit an R1 or R2 on this property and so it would not affect the density, not based upon the request of single family attached units. If commission or council feels differently regarding whether it should be attached or detached, obviously detached products are going to require larger lots and therefore less density. Absolutely. Um I think this I don't want to preach. I definitely don't. But I think education is important when it comes to what we're doing in this world and I implore residents to look it up as well. There is study after study after study in the planning world and the fiscal impact world that low density does not pay for itself. It is a drag on city services because those taxpayers tend to take more from the system than what they put in because the cost is not adequately dispersed over the correct number of units and people. And so doesn't matter if your house is threequarters of a million dollars. If it's one house versus six houses that are each 350, it doesn't math out. And that has been done across the state of Idaho, across the country that cons that mis there's a misconception about bigger houses mean more tax and that's not necessarily true. So again, I implore residents to look that up. There's again study after study that has talked about that. It doesn't mean the whole city has to be highrises. That's stupid. But the concept of every lot needs to be, you know, a third of an acre is not going to help anybody's infrastructure problem. So, I did want to make that clear regarding that R1, R2 density conversation.

I appreciate that. I got one more clarification and maybe two. Um, let's go to Haley real quick. Um, they asked if we could request a traffic study. I don't think that's correct. Is it? We can't do that, can we?

Our code does allow um myself to request a traffic impact study when we see intersections of specific concern. Um typically I I re I do recognize and so I don't want to offend anyone by saying that Dorman Avenue intersecting with Lynden or um this road extending through existing residential isn't a intersection of existing concern. That's not my intent, but typically when we request traffic impact studies on development that is not required per code, it's because it's a large regional intersection that is heavily impacted. Um, a example of this is a project over at Ustick and Tenth. That project did not trigger a traffic impact study, but I did require one because Ustic Intent is a large regional um or that that intersection has a very large regional impact. So yes, I can request it and if the commission requests that I do, I certainly will make that request. But when it's left to engineering's discretion, I typically look at the region as a whole.

Mr. Chair, further point on that. Um, yeah, since commission is a recommending body,

how do I put this? You can't, well, you could recommend or a motion could be for continuence dependent upon a TIS. That's true. That will take months technically. And if that's what the commission wants to do, that's fine. You can also make it a recommendation of approval or denial and say that prior to council you want that and then if they don't do it that's a ding against them that council will have to review. So that's another option. Whether you think that the TIS is going to change your decision yes or no would probably be whether you want to continue it and or recommend approval or denial and go to the next step. So I just wanted to make that clear that you do have options in how you would ask for that TIS. And I and I think we probably ought to um to all you guys, thank you too for all your concern and and your comments. Um and I love that you love your area you live in. I just would like you guys to know too as a planning and zoning commission. All we're doing is recommending to city council. So our ours is only a recommendation and we have to recommend on what the land use laws are, what um planning, zoning, what all that is. If it meets all that and we recommend it, it doesn't mean city council is going to approve it. But ours is just a recommendation. So am I correct on that?

Yes, sir. Okay. Um commissioners, yeah, sorry. I have a I have a decent number questions. I don't think they're all super uh difficult. Um just for staff, uh do you guys have a rough time frame of when we think farmway will be done? Normally normally and while you're collecting your thoughts, normally it takes a project years to get done. So even if we theoretically approved this project and then council approved it, it take I don't know three to five years before they could really even be done. So, I'm assuming Farmway is going to be done before 5 years, but

yes, Commissioner Larson, the remainder um of the work on Farmway is the uh intersection at Ustick and Farmway. The highway district is constructing a roundabout at that location. And so that is the reason that the um Farmway corridor is still closed. And and I don't and the reason that it's closed um or the detour is for the length of farmway is because we have to consider the type of vehic ve vehicular traffic that uses farmway. We typically do see those large semitrs, those large aggricultural trucks that have multiple trailers and so we have to do a very large detour to make sure that those types of vehicles can maneuver maneuver roads safely. Um, so I do expect that that project to be completed in the spring. Now, that being said, as development continues along Farmway, we do require that development and developers are the ones that construct our improvements. And so, as development continues, developers will continue to do frontage improvements, which will include curb, gutter, sidewalk, and other necessary widening along Farmway. That will not close Farmway Road again, but you will continue to see construction along Farmway as a already approved development along Farmway begins to their construction.

Okay. And then uh sorry, sorry, Harmon. Couple other questions. The concern about home value from staff. Do you have any um way to alleviate or provide clarity on how true being next to a super high density or low or medium density adjusts home value? If you don't, that's okay. We don't have legal here. So,

Mr. Commissioner Larson, it's I'm not an economist. No, but I have never seen a piece of dirt worth more than something that's developed. So whether that's with two houses or 27, um there could be caveats of if it's legitimate what they quote unquote call HUD housing and stuff that is a very blatant blight that is dilapidated. Yes, that can lower property values adjacent. Absolutely. Um but one house on five acres will not be worth as much as 32 houses on 5 acres. And therefore, it's not even like a ring of development like they put in, I don't know, GIS systems and video games or whatever else you want to call it. Like it it doesn't just because one property is worth here doesn't mean the next property is worth a little bit less and a little bit. It's they do comps when they do real estate, right? When you buy a house,

you're not comparing your 3,000 foot house to the,200 foot house that's down the street because it's 55 and older. They're comping it to what other house that's like yours is selling for. And that could be across the city. It It's It's not always a onetoone. Oh, I live next to an apartment building, so now I'm screwed. That's not how that works. Okay. Uh sorry. Sorry, Harmon. Hey, come on guys. Guys, this is a public meeting. Please. Uh that again for the clarification along the sidewalk, how much of Dorman is the developer going to with the current plan going to develop along the sidewalk along Dorman? They will complete the frontage improvements including the sidewalk along their entire frontage of Dorman.

Okay. So it's just their whole portion along Dorman's going to be all sidewalk. That is correct. Uh another question I didn't know if you know, but do you know what the road rating is on that? I think it's the COS is what we call it. LO service. Gotcha. Let me pull up our that um section of our cat's plan really fast and I can get you and then while she's looking that up, sorry chair, there's a lot of questions here. Um is there if we were to recommend for approval or denial based on can we provide something that says that the CNRs need to have no subleasasing. I don't know if we legally can do that.

Mr. Chair, I would be weary of something like that. That was going to be one of my clarification comments of with Idaho's private property rights, it gets really difficult to start telling somebody whether they can subleasase or not. That's fine. I was just wondering put the city in a very sticky situation.

Okay. Yeah. We don't want to do anything that's illegal. Um just two clarity pieces for the schools. The state does that. So we have no way to provide uh impact fees or anything. So all of our developments don't do anything on that. So all that's the state. So we can't do anything with that. And then as she uh brought up while she's looking up the LOS, the roads are all de developed by the developers. So all the extra roads, there's not a lot of spare money that the city of Cwell has. So they only develop some extra spare roads throughout the whole city because there's not a lot of road funding to go to and improve roads throughout the the valley. And I uh I think that that's it other than the the LOS. Mr. Chair, Harmon.

Yes. I would also like to point out the Dorman is not operated by the city. It's actually operated by or maintained by HD4, Highway District 4. So that's another little caveat in there. That being said, for the safety concerns that were brought up, that is still something we have a traffic commission. My understanding is Highway District 4 has a similar board that if the residents want speed bumps, which fire and police tend to hate speed bumps for many reasons, but extra stop signs or bus route signs and things like that, they can definitely coordinate with the district on that and try to get those and I implore them to do that. Okay. Okay, Harmon, that those are all of mine for now. Thank you.

You're good. I just have I have one quick question for the applicant. There was a lot of concern about the over 55. Could you explain that a little bit better to them please?

So I think the concerns were enforcement question. Well, someone seems understandable at this time, but we definitely work that city has to specific to the city that code enforcement code enforcement but they would have to do again's lot options.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for him for the applicant before he No. Thank you. Do you want to close public testimony this time? Commissioner Harmon, sorry. Really? I forgot we were waiting on your answer. Um I I apologize. I should have thought about your question uh slightly longer. Dorman is a local road and so we did not complete uh level of service. Uh, okay. For for the local roads and there's no existing level of service to you look back on or nothing that would be representative to something close. That's correct. I don't have anything good. Um, the that would come out of a traffic impact study if that is something that you wish to request.

Okay. No. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah. Sorry. Further point. Haley can speak to this too. That's not something that's the city's decision. that's across the industry, ACD everywhere, that they don't do level of services for local streets. They just they just don't. So that's it's not something that the city just decided to be a jerk about. Okay. Thank you. I do have a question for staff. Okay. On that traffic impact study, if we were to recommend it, would that be a city expense or would that be something directed at the developer? the developer is responsible for um for the expenses associated with the traffic impact study

even though if the traffic impact study affects all of Dormund which could affect m um which would affect other properties being developed at the time. So that would still fall on the developer only even though it could be used for other developments. Is that correct? The traffic impact study that we would that unless you specified otherwise, the traffic impact study that I would request would be specific to the development. While it can take into account um ongoing entitlement projects or already entitled projects, it wouldn't be evaluating projects outside of um its own application.

We couldn't suggest that it Dormund is a onemile stretch of road. And so that's that's what what I'm asking is the impact it could or could not uh be for all of Dormant or just for the property development. It would be for impacts caused by the property development.

Yeah. No, thank you. would be worthless. Okay. Thank you. Expensive. Yeah, I appreciate that. Um, public testimony is over. Sorry, guys. Yeah, we we got to move. Sorry, I can't take public testimony. We're not taking anymore. Yeah. So, move to move close public testimony. I second. All in favor? I I All right. So, commissioners, we can deliberate.

I do have one more question for staff. Sorry. the the number one that you talked about in your uh map exhibit of approved development. I is number one the Covington Square coming back. Can you pro provide some clarity on that piece? Is that I can't remember exactly what you said and I was trying to get clarity on whether it's done or needs to come back to us or come back to council.

Sure. Thank you, Commissioner Len. So that yeah, that is Coington Square. Um the current developer is not who took it through the first time or the current land owner is not who did the 29 homes. So they're not there was no bait and switch there. They this is a new land owner. Um however the plat did expire from my understanding. And so right now it's just zoned R1 under the new code there to do a subdivision. They just need to come back through with a new plat and then they can do whatever allowed uses or or they can ask for a reszone as well. I believe they've submitted that application but it has not been assigned yet. I don't know who what planner is going to be there and again as noted at the beginning that is not on the table tonight. It's just this project. Correct. Yeah. Just just providing some clarity. Okay. Thank you.

Anything else? No, I think I think that's it. I uh I mean I definitely hear those concerns. Um I mean it does meet all their stuff. I agree with the annex and everything. And I think you know I would put a condition though to make sure there's a CCNRs for 55 and over. I would agree um on approval. But uh that's my my two cents and then I think we let city council

I mean I going back to what staff and then the um presenters stated that there isn't much of a difference between an R1 and R2 zone there. That being said, I mean it does it may trigger a redraw of some point. I feel like there is a lot of community outreach here, you know, especially on a onem stretch and Multiple of them have stated that that R1 is what they would like and based on what staff has said and the developer if it's not much of a difference I see the conditioner for approval for us anyway for a recommendation to be uh for council for it to stay in our one zone. I agree. What's your thoughts?

Uh I mean I guess it's a deliberation but I don't think it's if they were to go down to a neighborhood one which would then have a lower density. It would be more of a spot zoning, which would be technically not what we're supposed to do because it' be leaning towards not following the general theme of the Well, you say spot zoning, but in fact, I'm zooming out in the Canon County Parcel Viewer and in the the city's own zoning map. It's not one mile, it's three miles of R1 in all directions.

This this one piece of property, there's only very few properties single. I don't know how these properties were approved that were zoned R2, but they're miles away. So, this one, this would have be another one of those where it's reszoned as an R2 that completely doesn't fit. Most of the R2 zones are all focused around the main roads like the the um the boulevard and others more centralized towards the city center. I I tend to agree with the uh the community. This is an R1 area. Even when we look out at some of the other projects that we've worked on, can we hold the clapping guys? This isn't this isn't that kind of meeting. Sorry.

Even when we look at it some of the other developments that we have we have talked about and there are but there are much much larger developments that are zoned as our two but this is Can you clarify one more time please? Thank you Mr. Chair. So I do want to make sure there's a difference between neighborhood one which is future land use neighborhood. It's not our versus our one. Correct. Zoning and future land use are not the same. The old comp plan, they were the same, which is actually very weird. Um, as far as Indian industry, but neighborhood one, that is not on the table. That would be a comprehensive plan map amendment, which is not being requested and nor can you guys recommend that. That's not on the table.

No. No. You could make a recommendation of approval that or denial, whatever you guys want there, that the applicant revise the plan to comply with the R1 zoning district. Yes, I would appreciate if you guys do that, you do that in the motion so that way I can work with the applicant to make sure that it is noticed appropriately moving forward because if there could be headaches with the legal stuff there, making sure that whatever is mailed out to the neighbors again that it's noticed appropriately. But if that is and and technically they don't the because it's a recommendation the applicant does not have to listen to that. They could be go they can go to council with what they've originally proposed and say that we appreciate commission's recommendation but we want to stick with what we asked for. Yeah.

But you can put that as a part of the motion. Yes. It wouldn't and we correct that it won't change much anyways. They can still pretty much do what they were going to do anyways if we want. I believe that they can do the same number of units. Yes. So, so I guess sorry to Harmon to keep harping on this. So, the compatibility zone districts under neighborhood one are not R1. It's RS1, RS2, and PD. Correct. So, if that's not a part of this project though, right? So, this is neighborhood two. Yeah. I apologize. Yeah, I missed.

Correct. which is what I was saying that if we were to ask to change it to a different zone would be not I don't want to say it's illegal not a best practice because of the other zones all being neighborhood to so you're saying recommend changing the comp plan no no represent recommend changing the specific zone to be a RS1 RS2 or PD having a lower

that would be incompatible with the future future land use map because the future land use map is neighborhood 2 which is R1 and R2. That's why it's compatible the request is compatible with the comp plan because it meets the compatible zoning district of R2 or R1. Okay.

I mean I do understand that that we do have a new comp plan and cobble is changing. It is growing. I and we all see that and I feel like the community is really reaching out here. So I don't you know we did at least I because I'm new to this to be honest. I'm only done this a couple months. I didn't get a chance to speak on the comp plan as much as I wish I could have. But um I just if it's not going to change all that much, I think the condition for approval should be just to go back to the R1 zoning. Um that is and then same with the CCNR. I would look for a CCR of 55 and we cannot restrict people from their property once they buy it. Just no no different than anyone who the first seller who sold the property probably had a condition in there and that changed. We we can't control that. We can only do so much. So I think those two conditions for approval should be considered.

Well so can somebody give me a recommendation? I would make a motion to res to keep this as an R1 zone with a CCNR of a 55 and over occupied

based on the testimonies and evidence of in record of the matter upon the findings and facts of conditions and loss at for the hearing. I do hereby determine and move that I request for approval of AN and ANN25-09 and A and SP 25-12 Summit Grove subdivision as an with the condition of an R1 and a CCNR stating a 55 ownership and over or an over ownership and so move for approval. Do I have a second? You can second. There's only three of us. Yeah.

All right. I'll second that. All in favor? Roll call. Pants. Hi. Harmon. Yes. Larson. No.

All right. So, that concludes that and we are going to move on to um where's my next I wrote too many notes on it. Um we need to take a vote on P&Z commission chair. Do we have a recommendation or a I mean I make a motion to to uh for uh chairman or to for commissioner Harmon to be chairman of the commission. Second. Do we need to do roll call on this? No. Huh? She's not.

No. No. Please do it. Roll call, please. Vance. Yes. Larson. Yes. Harmon. Yes. All right. Let's go to uh vice chair. Um I make a recommendation for Dave for Commissioner Larson to be vice chair. I would second. Roll call. Harmon. Yes. Vance. Yes. Larson. Yes. Okay. I got a mo a motion to adjourn the meeting. I have a motion to to move. Yes. All in favor? Hi. Hi. Thanks, guys. Thank you.