Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

It's six o'clock. We're gonna start our regularly scheduled planning and zoning meeting roll call please Harmon Larson yes, Geyer Vance here Whitbeck Okay, are there any conflicts of interest from the county commission none? Okay, we have no spree special presentations. I'll entertain a motion for approving the consent calendar I'll move to approve second okay All those in favor say aye. Aye. Motion carries. I'll go over the review of the proceedings. This is a quasi-judicial hearing involving the consideration of a land use request such as an annexation, rezone classification, or approval of subdivision preliminary plat. The public hearing procedures as required by the Idaho code are as follow. Oral and written testimony can be accepted from those who have signed in to speak prior to the hearing being declared open. When providing testimony, please come to the podium and state your name and address, and this will be included in the record. And the applicant or applicants representing will be given up to 20 minutes to present their land use request, and the city planner will then follow up with their staff report. For the public testimony, the testimony of those support will be taken, followed by those in neutral, and then followed by those in opposition. All public testimonies will be limited to three minutes or less, and the applicants will be offered the opportunity to provide rebuttal testimony followed by planners if needed. 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 disclose any questions or concerns with the commissioners after public testimony has been closed. So there's no old business, so we'll start with new business action item, public hearing legislative and quasi-judicial for case number ANN 26-4. And so if the applicant wants to come up and present, thank you.

Hi there. I'm Jason Anderson with Anders & Co, LLC, 13601 West McMillan Road, Suite 102-163, Boise, Idaho, 83713. And just here to get this property annexed into the city so they can take advantage of some of the city services like sewer and water.

I think that's good. Thank you. Staff report? The staff will do their report and then we'll have you come back and do a rebuttal. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioners. Garlene Davis, Planner, 2056 South 6th Avenue. Before you is the Piaggio annexation application number ANN 26-04. It is an application for the annexation of a parcel to connect to city services. The site is 0.52 acres and it is located approximately 0.22 miles north of the Middleton Road and London Road intersection. The subject parcel is designated neighborhood two within the comprehensive plan map. This place type is intended to support low to medium density residential developments. the requested R2 zoning district is compatible with the neighborhood two place type. The parcel is currently within Kenyon County. It is contiguous with city limits and within the city's impact area. The applicant is requesting, as mentioned before, zone R2 community residential. The property is currently developed with an existing single family home. There is no plan for expansion or additional residential development at this time. Staff finds the requested R2 zone appropriate given the existing residential use of the property and the surrounding residential developments. The site is surrounded by established residential subdivisions to the north, south, east, and west. These subject parcels remain as an out parcel after development of the Mason Creek Grove subdivision. Frontage improvement along Middleton Road were completed with that development and direct access to Middletown Road were removed and access to the site was granted, was established through Mason Creek Growth Subdivision. The applicant, as mentioned, is not proposing any redevelopment or any increase in the residential density. The annexation request is simply to connect to city services. Staff reviewed the site for compliance with applicable development standards including setbacks lot size and access requirement The property generally complies with applicable city standard Staff is recommending a condition requiring the driveway to be paved Any future development of the property will be subject to review by city staff and must comply with all applicable code requirement at that time All utilities are available for the site. Public notice was made available to political subdivisions, including school districts. We received comments from the city's mapping, engineering, and fire department. They found no issue with the application and approved the proposal. We received no public comments. Staff initial review found that the proposed annexation complies with applicable city code, adopted city comp plan, Idaho code, and other city adopted master plan and city policies. With that, I will send for questions. Do you have any questions?

Mr. Chair, I do have a couple questions. They did have a neighborhood meeting, but it doesn't state if there was any opposition at the neighborhood meeting.

I would leave it to the applicant to address that. I do not remember seeing any mention of that.

Okay. And then I do have one other. It looks like the proposed zone is an R2. Is there a reason why that was chosen and not an R1?

I feel that the applicant would be better and suited to answer that. However, both zones are compatible, and that is what city staff was going by.

OK. All right. Well, I'll say my questions for the applicant then. Thank you.

Any questions?

Yeah, I had a question for Steph. Being that this is attaching, essentially, they took away the driveway onto Middleton Road and added to the subdivision. Would the parcel be required to join the HOA or that subdivision in any way, shape, or form?

No, it is not a requirement. That's all I had.

And I have a rhetorical question. But the city resources are fine? Water, sewer, all that's cool?

Yes, they're all available on Piaggio Avenue.

Okay, so if the applicant wants to come back up there's only Jason Anderson who signed up in favor. There's nobody in neutral opposition and you can give your rebuttal or respond to Geyer's questions.

Okay, we'll try this again. Perfect. The neighborhood meeting.

Yeah.

Was it attended, and was there any comments of opposition?

So I actually held the neighborhood meeting, and no one showed up, so I went down and knocked on all the doors on the street just to get someone to answer. So we actually had one person on there and just said, do you care at all, and explained to her we just want to connect to the city services, and she said, nope. And I said, okay, and I wrote her name down. Okay. But no, nobody cared. So no opposition. No.

Okay, so could you give me a little insight why R2 was chosen rather than R1?

So this is our first time going through the process, and we just were talking to the city planner, and they said, hey, R2 would allow for you to have, like, the highest and best use we think, and so we wrote, I mean, that's what factored into the decision. We don't know enough about what the difference between the R2 and the R1. It's just to connect the utilities.

Well, I think there is a few differences, but if staff is, you know, is... Suggesting that as well. I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't any conflict on your end that you wanted our one and then our two Originally you were looking at our two to start with.

Yeah, exactly. Okay, the home is just 1967 it's on Septic and well, and it's just it'd be nice to get those off of that has the wealth failed.

I At this point?

It hasn't failed. No, I actually helped her out. I was her real estate agent also and helped her purchase the property. And it's fine. It's just not producing at the level you would want it to. I see. So yeah, it's 1967 original.

So this will definitely increase the pressure.

Correct.

Yeah, OK. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. Thank you.

I have one other question. They mentioned the paved driveway. Is that fine for us to put that in? Did you guys have any opposition to that?

It's so when you're looking at the frontage of it, uh, I haven't had time to talk with Ashley about that yet, but when you're looking at the frontage, it's substantially larger than all of the neighborhood. Like the other, the access to the property is probably four times the size of every other. So when we're talking about a paved driveway, I would just want to know what the specifics are that the city is looking for, because I don't know the exact dimensions of what that opening is, but it's gotta be 60 feet wide, like opening into the, into the, the. community and right now as it stands I mean I can see why you might want to pave driveway to kind of match the the rest of the neighborhood which would be reasonable but if we're talking doing the entire width of that I don't think that would be reasonable so okay but I think that would be fine after we have the chance to apply for permits and bring in the water and bring in the sewer and then you know dig the trenches and then go ahead and pave over that I think that would be acceptable but no opposition unless you're saying do the whole thing okay yep

If city staff could provide some. Yeah, go ahead, Steph. Yes, our city code requires that established driveways be paved a minimum of 10 feet wide and 25 feet deep. So that would be what you would be required to do.

Yeah, I think that would be fine. Yeah, because I think as her and I have talked about plans for once we connect, I think she does want to do that now because it's just dirt. So every time she drives in and out, you're kicking up a little bit of dirt there. And so I think that'd be fine. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

And could we do a follow-up to that? So that condition is already written into the staff report as a condition of approval. Am I correct in that?

Yes, it has been written. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you. I also had one follow-up, Chair. Yeah, go ahead. To staff. Also, just because of the sheer size of that 60 feet and that it is all dirt, would they or would they be required additional landscaping or anything like that to be conducive with the surroundings?

Yes. We do not have specific landscaping requirement for residential lots like this, but it would be welcome. It would be welcome, but not required.

It's an expense, and I'm looking at the applicant, and we don't want to force the hand.

Exactly, yeah. No, it makes sense, though. I know what you're talking about. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, I'll entertain a motion to close public testimony. Motion to close public testimony. Okay. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Okay. Now it's our time for rebuttal. I feel like this one's pretty cut and dry as long as the paved driveway is in the motion. I think that that's fair. I would agree. I just didn't want the applicant to have to have any unforeseen costs and everything like that. Yeah. With you there. Does anyone want to make a motion?

Based on the testimony and evidence of the record in this matter and upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, I hereby determine and move that the request for ANN 26-00004 is approved, subject to the conditions as outlined in the staff report.

Second. I second. Okay. Roll call.

Yes. Vance. Yes. Larson.

Yes. Okay. Motion carries. We will go on to, you're good to go, thank you. We will go on to action item number two, public hearing legislative and quasi-judicial for case number ANN 26-5, SPP 26-3. And can we have the applicant come up and provide their presentation? And your name and address for the record and no more than 20 minutes.

You bet. So my name is Heath Clark. My business address is 251 East Front Street in Boise. And I'm representing the applicant tonight. So we're here to talk about the Legacy Farms project. And before we get into the project, I want to talk a little bit, give a little bit of background on the builder and the developer. So I'm presenting tonight on behalf of Black Rock Homes and Conger Group. So these are Idaho developers with a lot of experience. We've done a lot of projects over the years. I've worked with them on many of them. dozens of, it's fair to say dozens of projects, primarily in Meridian, Eagle, and Boise. We're very excited that this is our first opportunity to bring a project to Caldwell and kind of add to the mix here. I also want to kind of give you a flavor of the type of project that we bring. So these are some of illustrations of the entries that we have on a number of our projects. We try to do very well designed projects that maintain a very high quality point. And we can do that in large part because of the integrated structure that we have. So it's one developer, one builder. So when we're able to really control what the product looks like, how the community operates, all those sorts of things. Uh, we're also very proud of the amenities that we include in our, in our projects. Um, I'll talk specifically about the amenities that are going to be in this project in a minute, but what we typically do is, you know, playgrounds, pools, pickleball courts, and plazas. One thing we've found in the last few years is that dog parks have become maybe the most sought after amenity, and that's something that we very regularly include. You'll see in this one that there's actually four dog parks in this project. These are actual pictures from actual projects. So you can see the pickleball courts, those kind of grassy areas are examples of what our dog parks look like. You can see kind of a gazebo area, one of our projects, as well as the swimming pool. In terms of the type of homes that we offer, the homes are typically between 1,600 to 3,000 square feet. They're nicely amenitized inside, just like we do in the project itself. But we're also able to maintain a price point of generally between 400,000 to 800,000. So kind of that attainable to upscale market, something that's really available to most folks. These are actual exteriors. So you can see that there's some of the smaller product, but also some that gets a little bit bigger that even has RV bays. And so kind of a nice variety that addresses most homeowners needs. These are interiors as well, so nice finishes, the kind of thing that we think that Caldwell would like to see. Great, and these are from the BlackRock website, so these are actual BlackRock homes. So with that kind of background about the developer, let's start talking about the project itself. So the project is located in an area that We as we believe has been well planned and is prepared for the growth that is already there and that is still coming So the the peach colored Areas, those are all approved projects in the area so we're adjacent to another approved project there with a aviary and And then there are the purple areas. You can see those are developer owned properties. So those are properties that are likely to come before you in the, in the near future. On the east, you can see the Nampa Caldwell city boundary. That's the red line. And you can see that Nampa really has kind of grown up right against that boundary. Uh, we have the Ridgeview high school that's just right there, you know, just, not quite a stone's throw but pretty darn close to this project. We know that Valley View has recently built a couple of elementary school sites but we also have we know that there's a proposed elementary school site that's available to Valley View in the future that's immediately on our north. Now all of that's there and is supporting and will support commercial So you can see that there's a Fred Meyer site there on 2026. There's a WinCo site. We understand that Walmart's pre-APTA site. And really what that means is that the rooftops are coming or are there to allow for the commercial development that the city really needs. And this is all planned. So the city's comprehensive plan shows a mixed use center there against highway 2026. And then as you would like to see with good planning, the density transitions down. So adjacent to the mixed use center, there's the neighborhood three designation. That's the four to 20 dwelling units per acre. And then you get to our site, which is in the neighborhood two designation. And that calls for density of between two and eight homes per acre. So our density is at four. So it's on the lower half of the neighborhood to designation. So we're consistent with what the city has planned for. And as I mentioned, we think that that plan is playing out in that area in the way that the city had hoped for. Also wanted to note that the project is We've got multiple transportation corridors all around it. This is the dispersion that is shown in our traffic impact study, and you can see that that is nicely dispersed. So again, there's always improvements to be made on the transportation side of things, but we think that this is well-placed, and that's one of the reasons why we liked this project. So going into amenities, on the bottom right of this screen, that's a blow up of our site plan and that's kind of the central amenity area. So you can see down there we have four pickleball courts, three soccer fields, a community pool, that will have changing rooms, play structures, and then that includes a swing set and a climbing dome and cornhole, and then there's also a food truck area with seating that's also included. There on the bottom left and on the top, those are pictures from other Black Rock projects, so you can see kind of what those will ultimately look like. If you zoom out to the rest of the site plan, we have amenities throughout the rest of the project as well. So as I mentioned earlier, there's four dog parks, pocket parks, lots of open space. So the city's minimum is the 10%. We're at about 13% open space, so we exceed all of that. Another thing that I would note about this site plan is that we've Collected the density in the kind of in the middle of the project and then transitioned it out So on the west side west of not Lane That's kind of where our largest Lots are and that is the area that's closest to the there's a county sub over to our west The only place where that county sub touches us is on the northwest corner And you can see that we included open space there. So even the only place where we touch that county sub is We have open space, so they won't be backing up to any of our lots. We have a very good pedestrian connectivity network in there. It's very well looped. That's something that our builder really likes to see, because these pedestrian amenities are something that are very important to us. We have a multi-use pathway along the Madden Drain pathway. In addition in, in discussing with public works, uh, there was public works that identified a need for a new well lot site. So we are donating a well lot. So that's going to be there on the Southeast side of the project. So, um, that's a little bit on the site plan. We do think that there are benefits to this project for the city. You know, we're on the, again, as I mentioned, we're on the lower end of the density band. Exceed the open space. We're providing the infrastructure. We are donating the well site We're providing a type of housing that's pretty difficult to find in the market and then in addition we're gonna there's going to be impact fees that are pretty significant a total of 3.2 million of impact fees of which 1.6 million would be attributed to traffic and then obviously you have the impact fees for parks fire and police and With regard to parks, with all of the amenities that we have on site, we tend to think we're not going to be a heavy load on the city's park system. There's going to be a lot of folks using the stuff that's right there, but we obviously are still going to pay those impact fees. This slide is a little bit redundant of the others, but the one thing I'd emphasize on this is schools. So the school letter that came from Valley View indicated that there is capacity. They also provided the developer agreement with Valley View, which is a per lot payment that'll total above $200,000. So we're trying to contribute to addressing their issues as well. Fire response time was satisfactory. We're in the Nampa Fire District, not on the Caldwell side. We're actually closer to a Caldwell fire station, but Nampa is the one that gets to respond and they indicated no issues. As I wrap up here, there's just one other point I'd like to make. In my experience of doing this for a long time, one of the kind of impressions that often folks have is that if there's 400 units that are approved, that those 400 units are going to show up next week. And I just wanted to kind of walk you through what the time frame is, and that's not going to be the case. So given where we are in the year, our first homes won't be coming online until about 2025 or 2029. And then you can see this is our anticipated development pace. So we'd have probably 25 homes in 2029, delivering about 40, 45 homes every year after that. So this project build out doesn't happen in just one year. It happens over the course of about 10 years. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions from the commission. But otherwise, I'm good. Thank you.

Do you guys want to ask questions now or wait?

I have a couple questions, and maybe these are better answered by staff. Looking through the report, as you stated, you're proposing basically a quarter smaller than the minimum required for the R2 zone. 4,000 square feet is required, and 3,083 is what's being requested. And that's not the only one. Second one not compliant is the minimum lot frontage width, 24 feet to 30, three foot of the separation. It seems like we're definitely compacting this quite tight.

Commissioners, the frontage will actually be in compliance. That is conditioned. The two deviations that they're requesting is the three foot side setback. and then the smaller lot size to the 3083, I think it was. Just for clarification. The applicant can touch on maybe a little bit of why they might be requesting that.

That would be good, yeah. Yes, I would like a little bit of an answer. I mean, obviously, I understand it's development. It's trying to get as many as we can, obviously, in there, but obviously we have rules for the city for reasons. Sure.

Yeah, Commissioner Vance, so where that primarily applies is in the area that you see here in the blue. And so what we've tried to do is to encompass that within the development so those lots that are a little smaller than the typical standard are there. They're not against any other third parties. They're all internal. And the thought process there is twofold. One is that what we try to do is we try to provide a very nicely amenitized product. But in order to deliver it at a price point that a lot of people can afford, you have to do a little bit less land as a result of that. In addition, that helps us to afford the amount of amenities that we've got in this, because this is, as you can see, this is a very highly amenitized product. So it's kind of those two things. But those exceptions don't apply on the vast majority of the product.

It's really just in this blue area. So the 3,083 is an average, essentially.

On the 3,083 is the minimum, I believe.

Yeah, you're requesting a minimum of 3,083. And it's only pertaining to those? To the purple. I'm sorry, the blue. Blue, 147 lots or roughly. Yep.

Okay.

Any questions?

So, yes. So to piggyback on that, what is the largest size of your lot then?

Yeah, I think we have.

Square foot wise.

I think it was. It was one of the lots there on the far left, and I think it's 14,000.

Is it 14,000, Larry?

Yeah, about 14,000 square feet.

Versus the smallest being?

In that 3,000-ish square feet.

Commissioners?

It's a broad variety.

Just to clarify, I am looking at the plot right now, and the largest lot I'm seeing is 16,933 square feet. Thank you. Thank you, Steph.

Okay. Let's talk about your amenities because that's quite a large list of amenities. Oftentimes there has been concern that the amenities are not in the forefront. They are kind of like on the last end of the phasing. And this is a large phasing of nine years. What is the plan for your amenities? When are you putting the majority of those? I know you have a center park, so is that going to be the first thing in the gate there? And then as you move out, then I know you've got some in your dog parks and whatnot on other areas. Is that kind of what you're thinking?

Yeah, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Geyer. The central, you can see our phasing plan on the screen. And that central amenities area that I showed you is in the first phase.

Okay.

And then we would move throughout the rest of the project and provide the other amenities with those other phases.

So if you could review for me what is in that first phase as far as amenities. I see a swimming pool.

Yep. What other things? Oh, okay. There's a booby trap of pins here. I apologize for that. So my client just let me know that the pool actually goes in phase two because you need some folks there to actually use the pool. But the rest of it would go in with phase one.

Okay, so tell me what the rest of it is then. It looks like pickleball courts maybe in there? That's correct.

Yeah, four pickleball courts, three soccer fields, play area, dog park. um, climbing rocks, uh, that, let me look, make sure I give you the full list.

Well, I, yeah, I see corn hole pad and yeah, corn hole pad.

That's the one I missed. And then the food truck area with seating.

Okay. So let's talk about the food truck area. This is unusual for a subdivision in Caldo that we've had food truck and there's licensing required for food trucks. So who is going to monitor the food truck? Is this just for special events through your HOA? Is this something that's, Typical normal? How is that going to be monitored and controlled?

Yeah, Commissioner Geier, so that is actually something that's becoming more and more popular. It's not like a permanent food truck location. This is something where they coordinate it with the HOA. The HOA says you can come on Friday night, and then they come on Friday night, and then usually there's you know, the word goes out to the association members and they have the ability to come in.

So it's kind of based on events. And so your HOA board is the one that's going to be monitoring that, making sure that they're licensed with the city and those sorts of things.

All those sorts of fun things. Yep.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Yep.

Okay. Thank you. We'll have the staff present. Thank you.

I almost forgot.

Okay. Staff report, please.

Thank you, Commissioners. Katie Wright, Senior Planner, 205 South 6th Avenue. This is Legacy Farms Neighborhood. It's an application submitted by Porchlight Development on behalf of Gemini LLLP requesting annexation of parcels R34283134, R34268, and R34265 with an initial zoning of R2 Community Residential and an associated development agreement. and a request for a preliminary plot consisting of 402 single-family detached buildable lots. The site is 95.6 acres located on the southwest corner of Northside Boulevard and where Skyway Street will be extended. The parcel is currently located within the county and within the city's impact area. The parcel is contiguous to the Caldwell city limits, therefore an annexation request by the property was permissible. Applicants proposing a single-family detached residential development which conforms with the purpose statement as specified within Caldwell City code for Community residential zone which states that the r2 zone accommodates single-family residential The proposed density of four point two one dwelling units per acre is within the allowable density range for this area of two to eight dwelling units per acre and therefore complies with code and The subject parcel is currently active farmland surrounded by active farmland and vacant land in all directions as well as the approved aviary subdivision consisting of 471 single family lots and three commercial lots as well as county residential to the west. The subject parcel is located in the neighborhood two place type within the comprehensive plan. The neighborhood two place type is the primary residential place type in Caldwell. This encompasses residential areas that provide an array of low and mid-dense housing options. These neighborhoods are located outside of most commercial centers but should still be well connected to nearby services. The requested R2 zone is compatible zoning district within the neighborhood two place type. The preliminary plat request is for 402 single family detached buildable lots. The project is also proposing 47 common lots with 11.9% open space which exceeds the code's minimum of 10%. Applicant is proposing the community pathway along the Madden spur drain with neighborhood pathways throughout the development The development is proposing full access points to not Lane Skyway Street and Northside Boulevard Skyway Street is plant collector and will connect Northside Boulevard to not Lane along the north boundary of the development The applicants also proposing a stub Street to the south to provide connectivity for future development all residential lot access is proposed via internal streets and Half street sections of Skyway Street and north side adjacent to the development will be constructed as well as a full street section of Knott Lane continuing north to the westerly half section. And then due to the size and scope of the development, a traffic impact study was required and provided recommended improvements. Recommended improvements can be found within the engineering memo. The applicant is requesting deviations through the development agreement to allow for three foot internal side setbacks rather than the five foot setback required by code and a lot size minimum of 3,083 square feet where the code requires 4,000 square feet. As conditioned, the project is compliant with all required codes outside of the deviations requested through the development agreement. All utilities are available or will be made available to serve the single family development Political subdivisions, including school districts, were notified and provided opportunity to comment. The following agencies provided comments. A late exhibit was provided to you from Idaho Transportation Department. It states that the developer shall enter into a transportation mitigation agreement with ITD for improvements along Highway 2026. And Valley View School District provided school capacities and a donor agreement with the applicant. And public notices were sent to all property owners within a 500 foot radius of the property, but staff received no public comments. Based on the late exhibit from ITD, staff is recommending that if the request is recommended for approval, that the following condition be added. Prior to approval of phase one construction drawings, the developer shall enter into a transportation mitigation agreement with ITD. And staff's initial review found that the proposed project is in conformance with all applicable city codes as amended, all applicable approval criteria per city code and Idaho code, the adopted comprehensive plan and future land use map, all other applicable city adopted master plans and all other adopted city policies subject to the recommended conditions by staff. And Planning and Zoning Commission has the authority to recommend approval or denial based on the approval criteria within Caldwell City Code once they've reviewed the record Evidence and heard all public testimony, and thank you.

I stand for questions Okay, thank you staff commissioners you have any questions Not this time or if you care so the development agreement was put into place basically because of the Requested variance on the size of the lots So staff is in agreement with that size or are you suggesting that maybe it should be at least four thousand and

Commissioner Geyer, staff finds that where these are located, it's not providing a large impact on any neighboring developments. So if the Planning and Zoning Commission decides to recommend approval, we would not be opposed to that. That is up to you based on the criteria. And then council's ultimate deciding factor, the development agreement can pretty much It's up to you. But again, based on where those lots are located, there are more internal. And so staff doesn't find any direct impact on any neighboring parcels.

OK. Tell me about the pathways. So I'm assuming those are paved and landscaped. And are they connected with any of the other pathways in the region? You know, it's a continuous effect of walking or bike riding or whatever.

Commissioners, there are no other developments as of right now in the area out here. So they aren't providing connectivity in that way, but they will be connecting to the sidewalks that will be provided along the skyway and north side, which will ultimately provide additional connectivity when those streets are built out, when additional developments come through over here.

Okay. And we're allowing for that with, of course, the sub stub streets is another negative asset to the development. Correct. So my concern, I guess, is that lot size. Um, I'm a little hesitant with an, a variation of that. And I know that there's, there's some great amenities with this, but it seems to me that just for I guess, compliance purposes with what the existing code is that the $4,000 should be the minimum in there. If that means some restructuring of some of those amenities or whatever that would take in order to do that, I guess that's my concern. And it sounds like staff would be willing to work with them as far as that goes if that was the option. obviously the case of the city council as well if they're all concerned.

Planning and zoning, Morgan Pisa. I absolutely agree. I think staff would be willing to work with the applicant. I just wanted to add that our comprehensive plan does encourage a variety of lot and product types and sizes. So I think that the comp plan would support this even if the lot size is slightly different from code.

And I would agree with that and I'm definitely all about varied sizes. That just seems just a little bit, for this nice of a development, which I think it's top quality, actually. I like what I see. But I'm just concerned with that lot size. I would rather see a 4,000 square foot lot size in there. That would be my recommendation. But I'm not sure what the other commissioners would think. Thank you.

OK. Thank you. Commissioners? think we're good staff I think we're gonna go to public testimony here so we'll go with in favor neutral and then opposition so in favor we have Heath he signed to speak do you we will wait to the end because you're the applicant there's a nobody signed up in neutral so we'll start with opposition it looks like a Lowell Dale would you like to come up and speak and three minutes and your name and address for the record

All right, Lowell Dale. I represent the Lowell and Leslie Dale Trust at 19236 Flora Road. Thanks for having me this evening. I'll try and keep it to three minutes here. Just a couple things, a couple corrections. First of all, Heath, it was 4.19 dwelling units per acre in the docket, 4.2 in your slides, not four. Details matter. They add up. I'll start with what I like. I do like the quality of what they're developing here. If there's going to be development, there will be. I like the amenities and whatnot. I like the food truck idea, although I don't envy the position of the Homeowners Association with legalities and neutrality. That's not my problem. It won't be theirs either. I like that there's the five-foot path for potentially biking so there's no adjoining neighbors. There is actually a 2040 long-term plan that you should be familiar with that has something that hopefully before I'm put in the ground, I don't have to cart my bikes 20 miles to somebody else's taxing district from having lived here for 30 years paying into Canyon County, Caldwell, and Nampa and having to cart my bikes across. But getting back to what I like, like I said, I like that path. I saw references to sidewalks. I didn't see sidewalks as an engineer, and I'll see sidewalks in the visuals that were put up. I like the pictures they had in the docket from your February hearing that I didn't know anything about. I think they were a little misleading, because the houses, as beautiful as they were, had ample space around them. The slides that Heath presented tonight were a little bit more representative, but this is six feet, by the way.

Three feet, three feet, this is six feet.

I'm guessing that you guys or no one here is actually living in a house where you can reach out and hand cumin or nutmeg to your neighbor, but that's the setback. If we talk about three feet, I don't know how five feet got approved. I don't know how 4,000 feet got approved. I have the same concerns to have the neighborhood. We moved from a Meridian. Um, I can fit two of these houses in our little dinky lot that we had of 8,500 feet. My current lot, I could put one of these houses in my front yard. I have concerns about that. You say there's no impact to neighboring houses. Every one of those houses has how many delivery trucks and how many cars per day. You have the traffic impact on that. There's impact. Just because our property doesn't butt up against 600 feet to the property, there's impact. And our infrastructure is constrained. I don't know how many road detours I had to go to to get here. We build and then we figure it out later and then dig it back up. I'm running out of time, but Those are my main concerns is the setbacks, the side setbacks. I can't wrap my brain around that as an engineer. I can't wrap my brain around 4,000 feet, let alone 3,500 feet. Beautiful development. I'm glad to see it. I think the representative slides might have been from other areas. I don't know if they have the same density. The pictures were shown. But that's my time. I would have liked to have said more, but I want to respect everyone's time. So thank you.

Thank you. OK. We'll go on to the next person in opposition. Ken Johnson, do you wish not to speak? Okay. And then Kaylin Osendorf? Sorry, Kaylee, and you wish to speak?

Okay.

Name and address for the record and then three minutes.

Kayleen Osendorf, 19028 Flora Road, part of Rosedown Subdivision on the back side. of everything. I agree, lot size, I have a big concern with lot size. The more you smash people in, the more conflicts you end up having and my concern also is that you end up with change orders and everything else and it's initially this and then it gets bigger and bigger and things change. So I just would like to be on the record that please take that into consideration. We do have ample space over there. I also do think that the traffic will absolutely be impacted if you are even in our neighborhood when school gets out. I mean it's a mess. There's a certain time of day I will not leave our neighborhood because it's nasty for a good half hour. Now adding that whole density of homes and neighborhoods right there it's going to make it far worse. And again with all the road closures We feel like we're getting boxed in right now. It's kind of difficult to get anywhere. So I just wanted to go on the record for that. So thank you.

Thank you. Okay. The next person signed up in opposition is Pam and she did not wish to speak. Okay. And then the next person looks like it's Calvin. Do you wish to speak? Okay. Come on up. Three minutes and your name and address for the record.

My name is Calvin Walsh. I live at 19266 Floor Road, Nampa, 83687. I just want to bring up a subject matter that I don't think has really been addressed yet, and that is privacy of the surrounding subdivisions, specifically ours. and the two homes that are already built on Knott Lane. Obviously these people and the people in my neighborhood, they bought our houses with the thought of having open space, having views of the mountains and stuff. Now obviously those views of the mountains, Idaho is not a protected view state, so that's a mute point, but still the size of our lots do provide us with privacy. I think that with such a density in this housing and stuff and the way the land is, or the proposed plat is laid out, it is not providing privacy for the homeowners that have been here for 20 plus years already. I think at bare minimum, obviously nobody wants this many houses in there, but I think bare minimum there should be some sort of some sort of rule. I don't know what the technical jargon is. It's some sort of rule that protects all the surrounding areas that already have been there by forcing the developer to give as much setback off the rear property as possible and also as much privacy by building only single-story homes that border any other homes or neighborhoods that are already there. That's all I got. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. And the last person signed up in opposition is David. You wish to speak and your name and address for the record and three minutes.

David Andrus, one nine four five one not lane. Um, so I'm kind of shocked with, with just how small these lots are. Um, they showed a picture of a home on here earlier with a three car garage. I've got a three car garage. My garage size is 30 by 40. These lot sizes are 30 by a hundred. to 60 by 100. I can't wrap my brain around that. When you look at the density of these lots within here, I don't know where you're going to park everybody. When Brighton put together their proposal for, I think it's the aviary, whatever that is, in the middle they had some nice lots around the outside. They got more dense as they got to the middle, but they provided additional parking in there. With the density of these homes, there's just no parking to put all these people. That means we're going to have parking up and down Knott Lane, all over the place, because there's just not enough parking for it. They talked about access to the roads. Knott Lane, it goes down to Chinden. What I've followed and what I understand, there's never going to be a lot or a light on Knott Lane and Chinden. And right now, Chinden, you can't get on Chinden. It's so busy. And if there's not a light there, you've already approved 500 homes on Avery subdivision. Now you're going to approve another 400 on this same road. That's just a lot of traffic up and down one road. You talk about 4.2 homes per acre. That doesn't compute when you have lot sizes of 30 by 60 and up to the biggest ones of 60 by 100. I mean, it's just crazy how dense this subdivision is. Then last of all, they said there was no opposition on this. We met with somebody from the development company at our home, told them we were very opposed to it. So we were out of town at the neighborhood meeting, but we did meet with someone we told we were very opposed to it. So anyway, thanks.

Thank you. Okay. Everybody signed up in favor, neutral, and opposition. And we'll let the applicant come back up and give a rebuttal.

Okay, Heath Clark, 251 East Front Street in Boise, representing the applicant. So with regard to the pathways, we agree that pathways are a great idea. If you look at the other projects that have been approved and the city's overall planning, those pathways do connect. Eventually you'll be able to walk on pathways and sidewalks all the way from this project to WinCo, which we think is a great thing, and that doesn't happen without these kind of, uh, developments to provide those kinds of connections. Um, with regard to not lane, uh, in the, the concern about traffic, not lane actually won't connect. The ultimate plan is that it's going to stub. It's not, it's not going to connect into 2026. Um, but we are required to construct a northbound right hand turn lane on not lane and other frontage improvements. And so we think that that will also help address that that's per the requirements of the, of the city. I want to be clear. These pictures are all from our projects. And we also know how to make these projects work. We have a number of examples of projects that have these types of dimensions. So the smaller product that we've been talking about is it projects that include Verado, Movado, New Kirk, and Eddington. We know how to make that work. We know that it's very popular. Because I want to go back to a couple of things about that. One is that smaller doesn't mean cheaper. These are very nice and these are very nice neighborhoods. And part of who we are looking to attract with that type of product is an empty nester that doesn't want to take care of a big house, that doesn't want to take care of a big yard. They want to have a small product that is essentially a lock it and leave it type of a lot. So a smaller lot. And just to remind everyone, Those lots are not the entirety of the project. So when we say that we can't believe that the density is the 4.2, which is what I'd said, that is because there is density that there are lots that are significantly bigger throughout the project. Again, the smaller lots are only internal to the project, and they're in the areas that are designated in blue. We've done a lot of these. We know how to make them work with regard to those three foot setbacks. What we will typically do with those is we'll do what's called a side yard easement. And so you take the three feet on one project or on one lot and then the three feet on the other lot. you give an easement over all of that. So that homeowner has use of all six feet and then you do the same thing for the homeowner next to them. So the homeowner that contributed to the three feet on the one side of their house gets use of the additional three feet on the other side of their house. So it is a product that is actually very popular that we've done a lot. We know exactly how it works. Um, we have the correct parking. We are not concerned about parking. We do regular parking studies in our other projects because we don't want to have a project that has a bunch of trailers in the road or that sort of thing. We monitor that. We do drone shots. We have parking that satisfies all of the city requirements, and we're not concerned about that being an issue. Last point that I would make with regard to the point about transition and the neighbors. So the, there are three houses that are in the area of our property, excuse me, two, there's two houses on either side of not lane. Um, you can see the, the property that's owned, excuse me, by Mr. Andrus is on the west side of not lane and we have our biggest lots against Mr. Anderson's property. With regard to the neighbors that are in the county sub, none of those neighbors back up to a lot in our project. That county sub only touches us on the far west side, and we put common area against them over there. So it's not just a matter of counting lots and trying to say, oh, are we one to one or two to one? It's zero to one over there, because we put common area against that county sub. With that, I think I hit all the points that I heard, but I'm happy to answer any questions that the commission might have.

Yeah, I have some questions, and then I'll let the other commissioners have their moment. For the ITD agreement, are you guys – is that all good? You guys are going to do that and sign that, or what's your guys' thoughts? Mr.

Chair, that's – I would have loved to have gotten that letter, not today.

Okay.

there are significant legal concerns with that approach. So Idaho code 67 65 13 says that if you're going to impose a fee, it needs to be imposed pursuant to an impact fee. So the city does it right. You have your traffic impact fees. They're done by adopting an impact fee ordinance and then running a capital improvements plan so that you know exactly what those fees are going to. So, We're happy to have a conversation with ITD and try to come figure out something that is legal. if the question is, are we okay with that letter exactly how it's adopted right now? No. And we need, we need to have a conversation with them. And like I say, it would have been good to have gotten that a little earlier so that we could have had that before we got to you. Okay.

So just follow up for that. You guys will likely have a conversation before you meet with council, whether we approve or deny.

Okay.

Thank you. Uh, the other question I have is the, um, none of the two story homes are in that, uh, not lane or do you have two story homes and are, I want to double check that we're on the same page here. Are there two-story homes? And if they are, none of them are in the not laying area?

There are two-story homes in the not laying area.

Okay. Okay. I think that's it for me. Other commissioners, Guyer or Vance? Not for the applicant.

Not for the applicant. Okay. So I'll have a follow-up to the chair's question then. So is the developer amenable to putting some type of a buffering, a long knot lane for those existing homes with your new development there that would give them some privacy as was referenced.

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Geyer, the answer this point is that we feel like for the the property on the west that is the individual single-family home we did we put our biggest Lots against it already and so we're hoping that that would be something that would be acceptable to the Commission because that does provide that transition with regard to the property on the east side of not Lane it's our understanding that that's likely to redevelop and so that would be

difficult thing to have a little strip there and then have it being redeveloped after that so I'm thinking more of a landscape buffer or not necessarily fencing but a landscape buffer that would help give some privacy I don't think that's out of the reason okay to put against I know those are nice Lots they're larger Lots but why not I guess that's my question to help maybe with the relationship with an existing homeowner there that has been there for several years.

Yeah, Commissioner Geyer, I was just going to make two points on that. One, and I just kind of wanted to back up to the property on the east side of Knott Lane. I just wanted to note that we do have a stub street there for that possible redevelopment. On the other side, the issue of a landscape buffer You know, these are our biggest lots, and they are going to have backyards that is already going to provide that kind of a buffer. And so I'm trying to come up with – I understand.

I understand your dilemma, but I just think it would be – can we say it would be a public relations situation? I understand. That probably would be to your benefit.

I understand.

So that might be something you want to consider.

We would be happy to consider that.

I appreciate that. And then is there RV parking separate? Because not all of your homes are going to have three-car garage with, you know, the larger, taller ones. Is there a separate, because you've got smaller areas, some of them still will have RVs. And I've seen some of these developments where they do. They have a separate parking area for your recreational vehicles, be it RVs or trailers or boats. Is there something in allowance that maybe could be put into your, rather than a soccer field, maybe that could be a parking area for those.

Just a thought. Commissioner Guy, we're happy to consider that. In administering these, because until you turn over the HOA, it's the developer that's generally running it, most CC&Rs will have requirements restricting outdoor parking of RVs for a reason because they tend to end up being permanent if you don't.

Right.

And so that's why we, uh, for those who want to have an RV on site, they're usually going to be in the larger lots. And we do have that model that I showed you that does have an RV parking area. I'm, I'm hesitant. We're happy to consider any and all possibilities, but I'm, I'm very hesitant to replace a soccer field upfront with an RV parking area. I think that's not really going with the kind of project that we're looking for. And so, but you know, we're happy to look at the, at the market and see if there's a reason to do that. But I'm, I'm very hesitant to put a parking area there in the, in that front.

And I understand your dilemma, but you also said just a few sentences ago that you're really looking to those that are empty nesters, maybe retirees. Guess what? They have recreational vehicles and sometimes Separate parking is needed for them. And so if that's part of the development that might be a plus it might be even a marketing tool Understood for you with that age group. So that's maybe something to consider So let's get back to that 4,000 square feet and they'll set backs. Is that something that you as a Representing your developer. Is that something that you would even consider as a rethinking that with some of the larger lots, maybe reducing some of the amount of the lots you have. I understand that, that it might require that. But is that something that you would even consider with a dialogue with staff?

Uh, commissioner guy, there's a couple of things. Um, you know, when it, when it comes to those smaller lots, what we're trying to do is to hit a market. And in part that is based on the amount of ground that's associated with those lots. Cause as you guys know, especially after COVID ground prices went crazy. And that's one of the biggest obstacles to delivering a, an affordable product. So, When you look at the 32s versus the 40s, those houses are pretty much the same. There's just a different setback. And if we put it into that type of a lot, we feel like we can deliver something that is addressing that market for the folks who want less lot to take care of, but essentially the same type of home.

So can you show some of your conceptuals then of those homes so that maybe we have a better idea of what you're really thinking for your outside?

So these are some of the elevations that we have. So this is, you know, the type that would be on the bigger, larger lots that has the RV bays. The 32s are going to be more like the product there on the bottom. And then also the front, the second to the right on the top row there. So the two-story version. Yep, thank you.

Okay, so your third one in on the top row.

Third one in on the top row is the primary one.

And then on the bottom row, all of those would be more to your smaller lot sizes?

No, just the second, just the third one in as well.

Oh, okay, so right on top of each other.

Yes. Sorry, I didn't explain that very well.

All the blue areas, two-story heat.

Yeah, commissioners, were you able to make that? I understand that, yeah.

And you're right, a lot of retirees, they don't necessarily want to size down in their home, but yard work becomes an issue sometimes. It's just I would prefer the $4,000.

Understood.

Thank you. You've answered my questions. Thank you very much.

Okay. Vance, any questions?

You mentioned a couple of, you mentioned Newkirk subdivision. What was another one of those subdivisions you mentioned that you said you were successful on these?

Verrado, Movado, Eddington, and Newkirk.

And those subdivisions implemented plans similar to these?

Just to clarify, those were in Meridian?

Meridian, I think all those were in Meridian, except for, they're all in Meridian.

I didn't mention Moxie.

So there's another one in Boise called Moxie Ridge.

Okay.

Okay. Thank you, applicant. Any final questions while you're looking at that? Okay. I think you're good to go. Thank you. Thank you. I will entertain a motion to close public testimony. Excuse me, commissioners.

I just want one final clarification.

Yeah, go ahead, Seth.

Not Lane is going to 2026. It will connect into 2026.

Okay. So not lane will connect to 2026. Thank you.

Correct, yeah, it's a collector roadway.

Without a light.

Okay. Without a light, correct.

So is that a right turn only then on that?

No.

Well, okay, so is there any long range plans by ITD on that to have some type of a light there?

Yeah, not that I recall. based on their widening plans. Was there going to be a signalized intersection there?

Okay.

Because the road is owned by the state, not by the city, correct?

Yeah, it's not by the city. It's the state. Yep. So Compass doesn't show up for any future improvements at this point.

Yeah, that would be at their determination as well, ITDs.

So Bedlam is back up a half mile today.

Now we'll have Knot Lane and Northside and then we're back at that mile.

So... Mr. City Engineer, could you speak to those concerns in regarding access to 2026? Is there any other options?

The widening project, I think it's worth stating, that was pushed back. So that's not being completed in the time frame that we originally thought it was going to be. I'm going to leave that up to ITD in terms of when they're going to actually proceed with that project.

Commissioners, also just additional clarification. In the late exhibit, it does talk about that transportation mitigation agreement. I know the applicant said that they're going to kind of negotiate a little, but it does mention that the improvements would include future intersection upgrades at 2026 and Northside and accompanying lane widenings, just for clarification.

Okay. Thank you, staff. Okay. So I'll entertain a motion to close public testimony.

Can we have one more question then? Katie, could you clarify on that then? So they would be able to reroute that traffic over to north side then and have that as an access point at some point, is what you're saying?

So Skyway would go through, sorry, Commissioner, Skyway would go through to Midland and they would be contributing half of that crossing at the canal.

Okay, that's the mitigation.

And Skyway would go all the way through to north side.

Okay, thank you.

Okay. Thank you, staff. Still entertain a motion to close public testimony?

I move that we close public testimony.

I'll second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Okay. All right. Now we can rebuttal. The staff is still available to be abused. So you guys are doing great over there. So there's some pros and some cons. Do you, Vance, how are you feeling? Do actually sorry actually I do have some questions for staff star Vance to cut off Is the neighborhood three zone is that in Caldwell? Is that actually zoned in Caldwell or zoned in the county the neighborhood three zone that touches this?

Neighborhood three that is part of it is within the county part of it is within the city So that's the place type within the comprehensive plan so over to the northwest that part is within the city and And that is aviary subdivision that came through with Brighton 2026 project that has a mix of different zones some commercial some r1 r2 And then over on the east the northeast portion that is within the county Okay, it's only part of that neighborhood three is with us.

Okay, and then one other question in advance you can go I I think they already brought it up, but the Chinden traffic, did you reference that in your description of ITD? Is that any of that related to us with their concerns for traffic on Chinden? Is there any mitigations by either the city or the state?

Commissioners, I think it's hard to provide comment on ITD's roadway. What those mitigation measures are okay as it pertains to their right-of-way? But I do believe it is a right in right out at that location. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thanks staff Vance Mr.

Chair, so we're on deliberation at this point, correct? Okay To deliberate. I mean, this is a very nice project. I agree with you. It's well drawn and everything but But just looking through all of the paperwork and everything, there's a lot of non-compliant but says will be compliant as it gets to council. But I feel like, again, the 3,000, the lot size, the separation. Another thing, I looked up Newkirk subdivision. It very clearly points out the separation and shows the separations between the units. It is very small. It's... The reason we have a five-foot is for this exact reason. You can literally put your arm out and touch it. And so we have code for this reason, and I feel like, one, looking at the location, it's zoning for an R2 when the only adjacent zone that we have is an R1 right next to it. We are well outside of the city limits and outside city center. This is more of a rural area. I feel like our two is pushing it and it's that been done to allow for these tighter lot sizes, which I don't think is conducive for this area. So I think there's a lot of push the sidewalks separated sidewalks too small. Berms required, not drawn yet. This plan isn't complete. I don't feel like it's ready. And then, again, we got hit with this condition for ITD where they need to talk to them but haven't done it yet. There's a whole lot of reasons that this one's not ready, in my opinion. So that's where I'm at.

Thanks, Vance. Geyer?

I have similar concerns in the size of the lot. And maybe this is something that we could consider. I don't know that we're that I'm just saying deny the whole project at this point. But I'm considering that maybe a continuation of this, allowing the developer time to work with staff and maybe do some deliberations in regards to what our concerns are, as well as giving the developer time to work out that mitigation with ITD. So I'm willing to make a motion. that we continue this to a date certain, allowing the developer time again to come back to staff, make another presentation with hopefully some amendments that have been discussed here by the commissioners, and see if there's something that we can be reconsidered. So that date's certain, and I'm gonna leave this up to our planning staff over here if it would be best to say the 30-day continuation, allowing ITD time, because I think that's going to be probably the longest mitigation consideration, and then giving them time to work with the developer as to maybe reconsiderations of maybe some drafting changes to the actual subdivision plan. So Ms. Wright, would a 30-day continuation be something?

Commissioners, we are looking at the current schedule right now to see where we would have openings.

Okay. It just depends on how late you guys want to stay in July.

Gotcha.

So, one second.

Okay. A quick question for staff while she's looking that up. So, theoretically, say they go down to an R1 zone, it's still under the neighborhood 2 district, correct?

Commissioners, that would be correct, but they would have to make many more... modifications to meet lot size, if you're wishing that they meet lot size of the zone, which would then bump them up to about double. Okay. About 8,000. Oh, okay.

On more point of clarification, Morgan B. South Planning and Zoning, even if they went to the R1 lot size, the density does not change. So, like, while the lot size requirements may change, the allowed density remains the same.

The 4.2 doesn't have to change at all. It doesn't go down to 4.

It fundamentally would if they changed all their lot sizes, but yes, they would not be required. I think Katie did the math earlier, and based on the permitted density for this area, they're technically allowed up to 790 units, and I think that they're coming in at about half that. And that would not change even if they went to R1.

And I think it's because they have such a great variety of amenities, and I think that's wonderful. I think that's a That's a plus to a development, and I think it's a plus to marketing as well. But I just think there needs to be some further discussions as to the concern of the lot size and the setbacks on that that would go along with that. So if we could maybe, are we looking at a 30-day? Is there a date certain that you're looking at?

Commissioners, we could continue this to the July 8. PNZ commission, if that's what you wish.

Okay. So I'm willing to make a motion then that we continue this item for further discussion, allowing the development to work with staff as well as ITD as to potential modifications that were discussed within testimony this evening, not just by the commissioners, but by the public as well, bringing back some of those amendments for reconsideration on July the 8th at six o'clock in this meeting room.

I, Pardon me. I would recommend reopening the public hearing before you continue it so you can continue the public hearing as open.

And we will. Thank you. And that would be with the contention that we would have the public hearing portion reopened.

I would second. Okay. Roll call.

Geyer. Yes. Vance. Yes. Larson.

Yes. Okay. That we have no other business, so I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn.

I second that motion.

Okay, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye.