Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Guess I should turn that on. All right. We're going to get this meeting started tonight. Uh planning and zoning meeting Wednesday, April 8th, uh 6 o'clock. Um can we get roll call? Harmon here. Larson here. Guyire here. Vance here. Whitbeck here. And I see we have no special presentations. Um any conflict of interest from any commissioners? None. None.

Okay. No conflict of interest. Uh consent calendar. Uh we need to make a motion to vote to approve the items from the consent calendar. Can I get a motion? So moved. Second. All right. All in favor? I.

All right. I'm going to read the proceedings opening statement. A quasi judicial hearing involves the consideration of a land use request such as an annexation, a 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 the hearing being declared open. When providing testimony, please come to the podium and state your name and address, which will be included in the record. 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 rebuttal testimony. Follow up by the planner if necessary. After the rebuttal testimony is given, the public testimony portion of the public hearing will be closed and no new oral or written testimonies will be allowed. However, the city staff are allowed to discuss any questions or concerns with the commissioners after public testimony has been closed. All right. There is two items that are not going to be heard tonight that were on the agenda. staff is requesting SP25-8 Z25-4 Patriots Landing to be rescheduled. Um, no motion is needed on that. Um, these are just uh announcements to you

guys uh in the audience. Um, the other one is staff is requesting Z0826-1 a zoning ordinance text amendment and there is no motion needed on that. That will not be heard tonight either. Old business. Um, one moment if I may. Yep.

Morgan Morgan B. Planning and Zoning. So, the ZOA that was just removed from the agenda is the school ordinance. So, if anyone was here to discuss or to listen to the discussion on school capacity that is no longer going to be heard tonight. Um, it is being with pulled off the agenda to allow time for more workshops. I do not have a date when that will be heard in the future. So, if you were here for school capacity, it's not happening this evening. Thank you.

Thanks, Morgan. All right, we're going to get on to old business. We have action item. Let's see here. Sorry, I got confused. action item uh case number ANN25-16 SP25-18. The applicant Mason and Associates Incorporated on behalf of August Park LLC is requesting annexation of parcel R2746 000000 with a zoning designation of R1. Concurrently, the applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat application for August Park subdivision, a single family residential subdivision with 24 buildable lots and eight common lots. The site is located within the neighborhood 2 place type within the future land use map. The approximate 9.4 4 acre site is located on the west side of South Florida Avenue approximately 1,080 ft south of the intersection with Eastustic Road in Caldwell Idaho. Can I get the applicant to present? Please state your name, address for the record. U my name is William Mason with Mason and Associates. Our address is 9243rd Street South in Nampa.

This work for that. Okay.

So, we're here tonight to ask for annexation of a 9.4 acre piece of property that is uh enclaved in the city. It's actually north of Four Season subdivision. Um, and it's a small strip of ground that um, you can see on the vicinity map. There's a subdivision to the south of us. To the north of us, um, still larger county um, parcels. Those parcels range in size from our development size of 9 and a half acres down to 33 acres. So there's a couple of small lots up against Ustick Road in between us and Ustick. This is the layout we've come up with um to provide uh continuity to our south. We've got a sub street stub street to the existing subdivision stub and to the west we have the street going through to connect to a previously approved Hoshaw subdivision and to the north for future um connectivity to something if it develops in the the north. Um we meet the comprehensive plan uh for neighborhood 2. Um in fact our density is very low. We're at 2.5 units per acre and we could, if we had the proper um sizing, go up to to I believe the uh four units per acre and still be in the low density um category. We certainly don't need to go

higher than what we have. We think the layout we have works well for our builder. Um, with those larger lots, we range from 9,000 337 all the way up to 12,72. Um, this is just more on your comprehensive plan, uh, showing that you could go to a maximum unit, uh, dwelling unit of eight, and we're not anywhere near that. Again, we're on our low density side of that neighborhood, too. We're not uh trying to get higher than that low density. And with that, I would stand for any questions or wait until after other testimony.

Yeah, we'll just wait till Okay. Okay. Thanks.

Can we get staff? Good evening, commissioners. Morgan Bisawa, Planning and Zoning. The application this evening is for annexation of parcel R2746000000 with an initial zoning of R1 neighborhood residential as well as a preliminary plat for August Park which consists of 24 single family detached lots, buildable lots. It is proposed to be developed in a single phase. The subject site is approximately 9 and a half acres and it is located on the west side of South Florida Avenue approximately 1,000 ft south of the intersection with Eustic Road. The parcel is currently located within the county as well as within the city's impact area. It is contiguous to the city limits as you can see from the zoning map on the right. Um therefore an annexation request was um allowed because they are within our our planning area and contiguous to the sea limits. They're under 10 acres and it's located in a largely developed area with services available and it's there for classified as infill development. The applicant is proposing 24 single family detached lots in an R1 zone neighborhood residential. As I mentioned, the code states that R1 is to accommodate single family residential as well as accessory dwelling units, town homes, and duplexes. Smallcale commercial may be found at major intersections of arterial and collector roadways or as part of a PUD. The proposed density of 2.56 dwelling units per acre is at the lower lower end of the allowable density. Allowable density in this area would range from two to eight units per acre.

Therefore, the project appears to comply with code. Surrounding land uses in the area include residential as well as agricultural. The large agricultural area, however, to the west has approved an active entitlements for Hosa subdivision, which is single family and multifamily. The project falls within the neighborhood 2 area of the comprehensive plan future land use map. R1 is a compatible zoning district within the neighborhood 2 place type. The neighborhood 2 place type is the primary residential place type in the city of Caldwell. This encompasses residential areas that provide for array of low and minensity housing options. These neighborhoods are located outside of most commercial centers, but should be well connected to nearby services. You can see it is not too far south of the community center place type, which should have more commercial services. The image on the screen is the proposed subdivision layout. 24 single family dwelling units, eight common lots, which total 9.27% open space where the minimum code requirement is eight. So they are just a little bit over the minimum required open space. They will take their access off South Florida. There are two stub streets to the adjacent subdivisions to the south and west. Staff is recommending a condition of approval that the applicant prior to city council revise their landscape plan and preliminary plat include an 8 foot wide community level pathway connecting to the north. So the pink orange area on the map is an easement for the canal or drain. And going north um we are requesting that there be a a pathway that would connect to potential future

development on the north. This is required in our um current pathways master plan. But other than that one condition, we do not have any major comments. After review and analysis of the codes, it is found that the project is compliant if adopted with all conditions of approval. There is availability of utility services. We received two public comments from agencies outside the city. One from Valley View stating that growth predictions so that the district will reach capacity by 2029. However, the elementary school in this area, West Canyon Elementary, is um anticipated to be the least impacted by the capacity issues and a letter from ITD stating that no TIS was required and they do not have any concerns with the project. Public notices were sent to all adjacent neighbors within 500 ft and we received no public comments. So to summarize, staff has found that as condition, the project's in conformance with all city codes and requirements. And that is all I have this evening.

Thank you, Marvin. Commissioners, anybody got any um questions for staff or the applicants? I do have a couple questions for staff when it comes to the roadways, everything mostly for engineering. Um any kind of access as far as off of Florida any kind of turn lanes proposed or need necessary based on the traffic probably don't have a do we have a traffic study for the area? Um Commissioner Vance that's correct. We do not have a traffic study for this development as it does not meet the threshold. It's about a quarter of our what our threshold would be as far as the amount of homes.

Um we let me double check our staff report. I do not recall requiring that they add a turn lane on Florida, a right-hand slip lane, but I will confirm that for you. Um, the reason being just because of it just being a small amount of homes, sorry, reading and talking is not my strong suit. Yeah. So, we did we did not require that them to do a right-hand slip lane on Florida to turn into the development just because of the amount of homes that were accessing. Do we have any kind of study from the roundabout that was put in at Florida there? Uh Florida anything?

Um I do not have a study based on the roundabout. I have the Caldwell area transportation system plan. Our overall system plan and master plan do not contemplate these individual access points. They look at major intersections. And so I don't have a plan that would spec a a plan nor a study that would specifically address an access at this location. So my second question or second we meet the fire access uh necessary because of the access into one from Florida and two from going uh sorry connecting to the adjacent subdivision at

Frist of Fulchrist. Yes. Fulcrest. Yes. Um, but we see I kind of see here some future plans for other roads going into other properties and those those would have connecting streets uh later on.

Yes, that is correct. So, you're correct. We do show access um um to adjacent subdivisions and we like to have that connectivity. the more typically we see that the more connectivity we have the better traffic flows as it allows people to choose multiple routes rather than all be being forced down one route. So we do try and encourage that cross connection between multiple subdivisions when we can. So looking at uh lot R32550 that is already annexed in at this point in time. If the develop if a development or changes were done there, accesses would be required um via streets and everything to this subdivision and connecting them. Correct.

That is correct. I can't verify that specific parcel number. Unfortunately, my computer has decided that now is a good time to update and I couldn't stop it from rebooting. So, I can't verify the specific parcel, but the parcel to the north and the parcel to the south would uh we would require the correct connection. And Morgan's looking at me. Do we not have them to or sorry, the west? West. I'm looking west. Yes. West partial is in the city zone right now. Yes. So, the so the parcel to the west will be required to make that same connection and it has already been required because it has already been entitled. So, that connection is already planned for. Oh, okay. That is in future planning already. Yes. Um, that's all I have. Any other questions from commissioners?

Yeah, I had a question. Chair, uh, I don't think we actually have an answer, but I'm going to ask it anyway. Do we have a metric for the schools on how much they project and how much we actually have with growth for the elementary schools and high schools? Like they think it went up 400% and it actually went up 200% or if they think it went up 50 and it went up actually 25. Does anyone do we do we track that or do we have to reach out to the school district to find those? Because if they say they're going to be out by 2029, I'm wondering how we're actually measuring those things when sometimes the developers say something and what's real something different and sometimes the school district says something different.

Morgan Baile planning and zoning uh the projection of 2029 was a projection by the school district by Valley View. Um not by staff. So that's not something that we're tracking and projecting out. Um and their calculations for projecting that were not provided in this this comment. So, okay. I do not have that for you. Thanks. Any other?

Yes. Yes, Mr. Chair, I do have some questions. Um, Morgan, you probably could help me with this one. So, in in the staff report on page 22, it actually references the distance from this development to Caldwell Schools District as well as Valley View. But you're but in your presentation, you mentioned that it is Valley View. Am I correct in that? Um, yes. I believe they are in the Valley View School District and they were the only ones that submitted comments. Okay. And I I noticed that, but I just wondered how

So, I believe that that was just to satisfy our code requirement on safe routes to schools. And so, even though they aren't in that district, um, the planner was just showing how far they are from all schools in the vicinity. Okay. And so with a safe out to school. So this is a walkable situation where they're not having to bus because it is safe route. Am I

It is a code section we have and we evaluate all residential developments for how they would provide safe routes to schools. And we do try to require crosswalks or additional sidewalks where necessary. And we found that this project was meeting this the standards that we had by providing sidewalk including pathways where possible and did not appear to need any crosswalks in this location.

Okay. Because I know in the past there has been some schools that was bus route only because not having safe routes. So that was that's good to know. And then um we are considering this as an infill. You mentioned that before. But it also talks about in the staff report that there is one out parcel. Am I correct in that? There is a parcel adjacent um that is not included in this plat. It is a neighboring parcel and one of the requirements actually if you bring back up my PowerPoint and you look at the subdivision layout.

You can see that the applicant is showing a new access to this parcel. So they will have access internal from this subdivision. They won't have to access from Florida any longer. And so more like one of the last that one the layout. Yeah, the layout subdivision layout.

And Commissioner Guyer, while that's being pulled up, I will add engineering did consider both parcels, both north and south of this parcel as an out parcel. And so we requested um frontage improvements for both of those two parcels if we're able to obtain the right of way.

That's my next question. So thank you. You beat me to it. Is I want to make sure that there was some allowance for improvement on those parcels. And is there fencing with that as well? Do we know if there is any fencing requirements on those out parcels? um code does not require require fencing on the subdivision layout. Right here, you can see pretty close to Florida on the north side of the internal road, there's the green open space and there's a little white rectangle missing from it. And so that is the drive access to the out parcel, I guess you would say, right to the north that sort of fills in that upper right hand corner of the rectangle that makes up the Can we have a pointer? So

the pointer doesn't show up on the TVs. Well, we have one that does. Oh, you have one that does? Yeah. Do you know?

Love it. I haven't gotten to use this yet.

Yeah, it's doesn't show up. I I don't think it shows up on TVs. No, not in green. Red. It might. There you go. No. Yeah. Yes. Right there in this that small sliver of white. Yes. Okay. Between the green. So, so we're making sidewalk improvements, but there's no buffering requirement. There's no landscaping. We don't require buffering between two residential uses. single family residential to single family residential does not require um

buffering land use buffering. We also don't require fencing by code. However, when the applicant comes back up, they can speak to whether they're going to voluntarily include okay um fencing around. I would like to clarify that because sometimes that's an issue. And then my next one, and this is probably also with the applicant as well, dealing with the Valley View School District and possible any type of provisions of an agreement. So, Mr. Chair, that's what I have as far as staff goes at this point. Thanks, Commissioner Guyer. Anybody else? Mr. Chair, I have another question. Y

my uh my last question is for the uh applicant. Um I guess my last question. What's the projected lot size uh width on these? And you said you were much uh less density. I just was wondering what that amount would be. Can I get you to come back up to the podium, please? I think now we got questions for you. Thank you.

Nampa. Uh so we have various sizes. The the lots on the south side uh range from 75 ft in width to looks like there's an 83. And then on the north side we have one that's 70 and we go up to 90 in width. And to follow up on staff, the minimum requirement for an R1 neighborhood two zone would be 50 ft. That's all I had. Thank you. Um yes, Commissioner Ger.

So, um you're working with the Valley View School District as far as the required district for the the schools. Has there been any agreement with your company, your developer and the school as far as a doortodoor agreement as to the implication of capacities?

We we haven't talked to the school district directly. We we saw that and we saw that they do have capacity in that school and and it's the least impacted of their schools. So, um, we felt that at this point in time, the 25 lots we had wasn't going to be the the substantial difference they they were going to have. Okay. So, your answer is you will not be talking to Valley View is what?

Well, I can't speak for my client. I can talk to him tomorrow. He's not here and ask him that question. What what I have seen in the past is the uh developers of small parcels will agree to give a certain amount to the school district and the school district can't really fund anything with it and so they end up buying a lawn mower or something like that which doesn't really help the school capacity. So, I can have him reach out to the school district, but I'm not sure that this development is going to be what helps the school get capacity because we're so small.

And my next question is on the out parcels. um the out parcel that was referred to this evening. Beyond sidewalk improvements, is there any plans by the developer for any type of buffering or any type of screening to other on the north out parcel? I believe he will fence it and uh just have an opening there for that drive. Okay. So, there will be fencing that would be provided by the developer on this. Okay. And that leads me to my next question. Um, Morgan, is that included then as a condition approval that we need to put that in there that they have agreed to a fencing element?

It's not in the conditions of approval. So, if you would like that, you would need to um add that when you make your motion. Okay, that that helps me. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Anything else for the applicant commissioners? Thank you. Anything else from staff? I think my questions are answered. Okay. I just got a couple for staff just and I know you went over these Morgan. I just can you clarify a couple things. I mean just reiterate probably the proposed density does fall within the comp plan range for neighborhood 2. Correct. That is correct. It falls at the lower end of the allowable density range.

Okay. And all the public services are to are in reach of this as conditioned this project will have access to all utilities. Perfect. And there's no deviations from the subdivision. No deviations are being requested. Okay. Thank you. And one more question for you guys. And and I'm just clarifying this um as commissioner. Do our decision for approval or denial should not be hinged on school districts. Correct. As far as I read it,

no, it should be um only based on the criteria that is outlined in code. All right, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I'd like to build off of what you just stated with utilities. Um, this might come down to engineering based on I know this is a very small plan right now, but the we've been seeing a lot of construction going on in city of Colorado as of right now along Florida. Do we see any kind of um I want to say would this call cause too much of an impact where we would see utilities need to be upgraded along Florida at this time or is there any plan for Florida's utilities to be upgraded?

Um Commissioner Vance, this subdivision would not trigger any upsizing of existing utilities in Florida, nor do we have plans to construct any upsizing in Florida. um either because of this development or just in the this fiscal year. I just want that clarified. Thank you, sir.

All right. So, it's going to go to public testimony. Um we only have one person signed up in favor. Angie, I'm going to get this wrong. Queller. Okay. And you don't wish to speak. Okay. Thank you. And that's all we got for that. Um, do we have a

Do we have a motion to close public testimony? I move to close public testimony. Second. Do you want to give him a chance to do Oh, do you want a rebuttal? Oh, sorry. I thought he did. Thank you. Sorry about that. So, um, we have a a motion to close public testimony in a second. All in favor? I

All right. So, this is time for commissioners to deliberate. Um, I'm looking at the density. I'm looking at maps and everything. Um, the lot sizes are actually larger than the adjacent uh, subdivision proposed. The the ones I'm pulling up are anywhere from 70 uh 69 to 71 feet in length. These are larger. It's a very nice development. It's well under what would be allowed. I think it fits the area very well. Um with Commissioner Guy's uh uh thought on the um borders and fencing, I think that should be thought about and considered most of the time from we aren't seeing any uh backlash from the other subdivision right now, but I think it would be a good idea to have those kind of barriers and buffers in place. Uh so I would think that would be a good motion to potentially have. So, I have nothing wrong with this development.

Sure. Yeah, I see nothing wrong with it. It fits exactly what needs to be in that spot. So, commission, I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

It's okay. Yeah. No. Yeah. Uh I think overall it's it's really good. I just think uh the reason I asked for the school thing is for us to have a holistic approach because I think sometimes what's real and what we think is real are not the same. And so just for us to have actual numbers in front of our eyes to read um I don't think that 24 people are gonna overcrowd the school district. But um just clarity on how that's working out as we've had two years of this door thing. So that that's my thought on that. Um yeah, I think overall looks good. I think it it it should be approved, recommended for approval depending on whatever conditions you guys wanted to recommend. I don't I don't care either way for the fence because I feel like they're going to put it in and that's their decision. Um, but yeah, I'm cool either way.

Commissioner, I love the word infill.

I really appreciate when there is um a movement to look at those type of parcels and make it comply and make it agree with exactly what's around the area. This seems to meet all of those factors. I think it has um some nice um amenities to it as far as the homes. They look good as far as the conceptuals that we've been provided. Um, I would like to have the conditions of approval amended so that we do have that in there just for the sake of the record that in case it was ever brought up. Well, I thought you were going to. Well, yes, it's right there and it's a good check and balance for staff when they review these um in compliance issues as well. My only thought um was to ask the question in regards to the school district is if if you had talked to them. I didn't I don't really think it's going to have a great impact. This is a small development. It's it's very well planned and it looks like we've thought of all the different aspects as far as staff goes. I would go with staff's recommendation to approve.

Do we have a motion to approve? I will make the motion that we approve um as presented with one amendment that we would add some type of a fencing element to the conditions approval with the development. And so with that, I would approve or recommend for approval an 25-16 SP SP 2518 as amended. We have a second. A second. Roll call. Guyire, yes. Vance, yes. Harmon, yes. Larson, yes. Whitbeck, yes.

All right, we will move on to the next one. All right. So, we are on Okay. So we are on to action item public hearing quasi judicial case number ANN25-10 ANN25-13 ANN25-14 SP25-14 The applicant Jeb Engineering Incorporated on behalf of Idaho Conference of 7th Day Adventists is requesting annexation with a development agreement ment for parcels R3271701300 0 R32719 000000 R32 859 000000 R32846 lots of zeros 0000 and R32846000 0 with zoning designation of R3 three, HC, and R2. Concurrently, the applicant is propo proposing Silverleaf Subdivision, a mixeduse subdivision on parcels R32859 0000 units to be developed at a future date and I'm sorry, I missed something here. R an R32846 000000 and R328460010000 with 655

single family residential units, one multif family lot and with up to 336 units to be developed at a future date and approximately 22.63 acres of commercial development. The sites are located within the community center and neighborhood 2 place types within the future land use map. The approximately 265 acre development is comprised of six parcels on the north and south side of Carter Road between South 10th Avenue and South Indiana Avenue in Caldwell, Idaho. All right. Can I get the applicant to present? State your name and address for the record.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Mark Tate with the M3 Companies, 1673 West Shoreline Drive, Sweet 200 Boise, Idaho 83702. um wanted to give you a little bit of background um just on uh our company and who we are. Um we've been developing communities in the Treasure Valley um for over a decade. Uh we've worked in almost every jurisdiction in the valley uh with the exception of Caldwell. So, we're really excited to uh round that out and complete the uh grand slam of the Treasure Valley. Um we've done projects that you would recognize uh nearby and all over. Um one project that uh is really interesting to me is the Redhawk community in Nampa. We bought this property in the downturn. uh the golf course was shut down and failed and we kind of nurse nursed it back to life uh brought the community uh to a really exciting level in Nampa. Um and it demonstrated that our company could do high-end communities uh in Canyon County uh which as a product of southeast Boisey was a little bit shocking to me uh as a snobby uh Boiseian but uh we've done a lot of business in Canyon County. Um, I love it and it's been a great place uh to start doing communities that really add value uh to the cities that they're in. Uh, another community that we did is Hillsdale Creek in South Meridian, adjacent to a YMCA and elementary school. Uh, Boulder Point is in the foothills uh, above Harris Ranch. uh houses in their start over a million

dollars and work their way up to I believe one's under contract at about $4 million. Uh Riverstone is in Star Idaho. Uh we're building out the last phase right now. Uh it's just east of Highway 16. It's a beautiful gated riverfront community. uh access to the green belt, a lovely clubhouse of which we're planning to do something very similar in this community that includes a fitness facility, uh multi-purpose room, meeting center, kitchen, uh really great pool and amenities uh in that community. Spurwing Heights is along Chinden that was in Meridian as well. Uh tied into the Spurwing Club. Uh Foxtail was one of the first projects that we built from the ground up. Um that's also located about Chinden and Linder. Uh includes some mixed use on the front edge of Chinden. Uh we put a restaurant in that location, two restaurants actually. Um, this was one of our first projects uh that we looked at, you know, irrigation, ditches, that sort of thing as an amenity to the community and really trying to open those up, water, ponds, creeks, that sort of thing. It's pretty common through our communities. The Summit Ridge project is on Greenhurst in Nampa. Uh this was another project that we did in Canyon County that I believe is uh probably one of the my favorite projects I've ever done. Uh there's beautiful views, there's some topography uh slopes in this community. It will be very very similar to what we plan uh here at Silverleaf. Um we've had again homes in this community. Uh you know, these are not entrylevel uh subdivisions by any standard. These are very high-end

uh mix of, you know, small, medium, and large lots, but everything being very nice. One of the nicer pools. As you drive into the community, you can see it's elevated with views over the valley up to Squabute and uh to the north. It's really, really lovely. Uh our Valor community uh is in Cuna, Idaho. It is a true master plan community about 2400 homes planned, 400 occupied. We currently have 36 holes of golf in the community. Pickle ball uh first clubhouse and restaurant is operational uh in this project. You can see a photo of the restaurant called River Six there in the middle along with the clubhouse on the ponds uh that we've built. Um beautiful community out there and great golf courses. We've done a lot of improvements to the courses over the last few years. Um, this project is the fastest selling project in the Treasure Valley and the second most is probably 25 30% behind um, what we're doing out in that community. Um, it's it's a really lovely place and I think a good testament example of something that we can do here in Caldwell as well. Uh, the location of the property is along Carter Road. Uh, it's located between Indiana and 10th Avenue. Uh to the south of the property we have uh multiple residential developments. To the west more residential development to the north more development. Um so for Commissioner Guyire I would call it a very large infill project. Uh we

very large

we have uh utilities uh not unlike our 9acre uh project uh in the roads surrounding the property. The sewer is there, the water is there. Carter Road, as we all know, is torn to pieces and being expanded. Uh, I do say that lightly, but truly it is an infill project. Uh, there's a city park located directly to the south of us. We have a brand new elementary school and middle school adjacent to the site. The high school's less than half a mile away. Uh and uh we also have within the middle of the project the Gem State Academy uh which is a wonderful educational institution that has been part of uh Caldwell for many decades. Uh the comprehensive plan calls uh for community center and neighborhood 2 designations. Uh the community center you can see uh calls for a mix of uses uh from commercial um mixed use, high density residential. Uh neighborhood 2 calls for medium density residential. Our application here before you tonight uh falls squarely within uh the recommendations of the comprehensive plan. Uh as mentioned we're asking for a combination of HC zone which is highway commercial R3 zone and R2 zone. Uh all of those again fall within the uh recommendations of the comprehensive plan. Uh one thing I also want to note is uh there is a parcel adjacent to us uh in the it's the small square. This thing has a um located in the southwest corner. It's a 10acre parcel of BLM property. Um I have had discussions with city staff about uh a process that the

BLM offers called the recreation and public purposes act uh that allows cities as long as it's going to stay in the public domain to acquire BLM property for no cost. Um so as part of this plan, we are showing a potential access to that. Um, that's something that the city's been pretty excited to potentially pursue. Uh, a 10acre city park. Uh, it would be located along a collector road. So, uh, really great access for the community. Uh, and you'll see in some of our next slides, there's really great trail and pathway access to that property as well. So, that that 10 acres would be the uh northeast corner of that 40 acres. Uh, that's kind of operated as a gravel pit down in that area. Um, a lot of this property was uh previously used as a gravel pit. Um, we've done a lot of testing in that area to check um that it is buildable and uh we do feel confident about uh the ability to regrade and reshape uh make that area really really exciting. Um the comprehensive plan also calls for in the community center a density of 8 to 15 units per acre. Uh the city went so far as actually to codify that as a minimum density for this area. So you'll notice our application is for 8.06 units per acre. We are not trying to do any more density uh than the bare minimum. Um I think uh affordable housing is important and noble, but this project is not that. And we want to do something very very nice for the city of Caldwell. Um and that is uh what our track record has been in other communities across the valley. Um we have talked to staff potentially if there was a desire to see even a lower density that would be something that we would need to address

uh in a development agreement with city council but right now we're comfortable with everything that's written in the uh staff report. Uh you can also see in the southeast corner of the property uh we show three street stubs into adjacent development. Those are streets that are already stubbed into this property. Going back to my large infill comment, uh there's actually four streets stubbed into this property. There's another one uh near Indiana Avenue that has some large uh county lots on it. You'll notice we did not connect to that stub street. Uh we did have a neighborhood meeting and a number of those neighbors uh came out to talk to us and they were very pleased to see that we were not connecting a road uh into their neighborhood and so that was by design. Uh we've got some very significant pathways uh that will be completed with this pro project and pathways that are also in process uh from the city of Caldwell. Uh that red line that you see crossing Carter Road is an underpass that is part of the Carter Road design. Uh previously the city of Caldwell acquired some rightway to complete a regional trail uh connecting to that path. Uh the city has some plans to construct that and as we were working on this staff report um the planner has uh gotten some additional information on the status of that and I believe he's going to address that in his report but we may be asking for a bit of a modification to that condition. Um but yeah, we're we're excited to build some really great pedestrian connections uh to the north for schools uh going east and west along our uh main road. And then we do have another pathway that you can see going diagonal uh through the project and connecting down to Montana which will uh connect down to Lake LOL Malard Park that sort of thing. Uh this is a rendering of the project at

full buildout looking kind of south and east. Um it's going to be many many years before it looks like that. Um we think it will be at least 10 years. So this won't happen overnight, but we do think that uh given that this is along a transportation corridor, the utilities are there, uh the parks are there, the schools, employment, uh the mix of uses that will be provided uh in this project um is really uh a great place for something like this. Uh you can see along the south side uh at the intersection of Indiana and 10th Avenue, we have commercial centers. Um, Montana Avenue is not a full four-way intersection. There's limited turning movement. So, we have uh clustered our uh commercial at the uh intersections. Um, there's also some grade challenges along 10th Avenue where the uh property dropped off significantly down into the old gravel pit. So, we did as much commercial as topography would allow uh in that location. Um but yeah, we we do know there's a major commercial uh user going in diagonal from us at Indiana. Um I believe that is a Fred Meyer Anchor Shopping Center uh going almost straight across the street from us. Uh and down the road would be an Albertson's Anchor Shopping Center at Lake. So uh lot of commercial going on in this corridor which we think is great. Um and they they do want to see rooftops to go and support that commercial. Uh this is the entry monument planned uh along believe this is the Indiana side. Um it's something really unique, modern, memorable. Um I think it'll look incredible both in the day and the night. Um we've done really exciting things like this that uh I think will be a great asset uh to Caldwell in a very

uh hightraicked area. Uh this is just one of the many parks inside of the project. Uh this is at the entry off of Montana on the east side. Um this is a kind of a linear open space corridor with some shade structures, uh flowers, open space, uh in a really formal setting. And the community center, which is located in the uh center of the eastern side. You can see that label there. It's kind of small, but uh that would be the community center with the clubhouse. Uh, as I mentioned, um, pickle ball, swimming pool, playground, uh, and inside that clubhouse, we would have fitness. We're looking at a game room, uh, kitchen. Um, I I just I don't believe anything like this has been built in the city of Caldwell. To my knowledge, I think we're going to be in a in a league of our own uh, when it comes to the type of community that we do, and we're very very excited to bring it to Caldwell. Um, I do think that this project before you is really the poster child for responsible growth. It's not a leapfrog development. The utilities, as I mentioned, are there. We have no issue with the staff report uh either from planning or engineering since uh everything has been planned for in this area. Um, and yeah, we we meet the vision that Caldwell has laid out for the area and I think we're going to do it in a in a really fantastic way. So, uh, with that, I would stand for questions.

Thanks. We're going to hear the staff report and then we'll get to questions. Thank you, staff.

Good evening, commission. For the record, Joe Dodson, principal planner here at the city of Caldwell. As Mr. Chair noted, all of the parcels. I will not restate any of those. Um, and the application numbers, there are three annexation numbers. just to be clear because there are three different parcels that are not touching each other that are being requested to be annexed. So that's why we required them to submit three separate annexations and then the preliminary plat for one portion of the project and it is for silver leaf subdivision. try not to reiterate too much of what the applicant already discussed, but just to note this is quite a large frankly I think it does qualify as infill because of how many touching points it has to existing development whether that is by the way definition of infill not necessarily city limits but developed property which includes the county parcels to the west. So you have the most northern parcel is just north of New Falcon Ridge Elementary School that is right along Montana and to the north of that is the recently approved verbina ranch project. Then the next southern parcel between 10th and Carter there is obviously south of the middle school and then south of Carter is their larger preliminary plat that they're proposing tonight for Silverleaf subdivision. But all three of those areas are part of the overall future project. And just as far as surrounding uses, as you can tell, there's a lot of things happening. Again, V for Vina Ranch Element Ridge to the west and northwest. A lot of single family county to the west. Then you have single family residential in the city limits all to the south and east. Further to the east or northeast, I guess you could say, of the southern piece here, you actually have the previously approved Carter Commons project, but has a number of commercial users, and they're actually proposing to remove some of their residential and increase their commercial. And so I'll speak a little bit to that more later on what the applicants proposed tonight, but as the applicant stated, there is a a large commercial corridor being improved here. And then as noted, there are multiple

schools adjacent to the property and within walking distance of the subdivision. And then I will be also honest that staging area that I note at the southwest corner of the site, I forgot that the BLM parcel is also part of that. That is a particular area that we have received comments from the county on and I will discuss that later as well. But in general that has been recently approved for a time-sensitive time limited conditional use permit from the county in order to have a staging area, not a gravel pit, but a staging area for the Carter Road improvements by a contractor. So that current use of it being kind of a loud noisy thing will probably be gone before many of these phases would even be online because once Carter Road is done they will be out which is also benefit for the existing residents. As noted the comp plan designates these sites in two designations neighborhood 2 and community center. Because of this um well I'll go backwards for a second. Neighborhood 2 as noted is the most common place type within the city. It's our most common residential place type and it um encompasses residential areas that are expected to be low and medium density residential. The neighborhoods are located outside of most centers like city centers. Uh but they should still be well connected to services. These areas should develop to be highly connected both vehicular and pedestrian and allow for a variety of housing options. In general, less dense housing is required or I should say found in areas further from major roadways, but should increase in density closer to those major corridors. The requested R2 zone is a compatible zoning district within the neighborhood to designation for both the north parcel along Montana and the southern part of the subdivision. The community center place type which is the majority of the project is a low to medium density or medium intensity commercial center. It focuses on creating destinations for residences. The community center

provides a focal point where people can connect as well. They're easily accessible and provide commercial services that serve the needs of the community. Community centers are located along major corridors like Highway 55 and uh are located near major intersections. They're usually not or sorry they're usually the most integrated into surrounding residential areas than other commercial place types. While not primarily a residential place type, residential mixed uses can provide um a sufficient intensity, meaning rooftops to support the commercial uses and allow for a gradual increase or decrease in transition to the surrounding areas. Developments with only residential uses in community centers should only be included as transition from these commercial areas. Therefore, the applicant is tasked with meeting the gross density requirements of two future land designations. To be clear, neighborhood 2 is 2 to 8 units per acre and uh community center is 8 to 15 units per acre. So, he has to meet the gross density requirements across two future land designations and over a relatively large area. Because of this, the applicant within their narrative includes density beyond just the proposed subdivision tonight. They also include proposed residential uses for the areas being annexed but not developed tonight. So, the math gets a little wonky as I outlined in my staff report. Um, specifically, the applicant notes the density within community center is eight units per acre at full buildout and that includes again both the north side and the south side. uh includes up to 670 total multif family units and 400 single family detach lots. This is at the very bottom of the allowed gross density. So again, looking from a comprehensive plan standpoint, we would anticipate even more density than what the applicant's proposing. That is not what the applicant wants. So therefore, he's proposed the minimum and is amunable to going through council to ask for a

reduction in that density as he noted. Um similarly within the neighborhood 2 designation the proposed R2 zone parcels with 310 single family detach lots and has a gross density of approximately 3.42 total across both the north and the south side. So in general project does comply with those density requirements within the code and the comp plan. But just to ensure because some of that includes future development, there's conditions of approval as noted within the staff report and will be a development agreement provision that will go to council that also requires that future development comply with that unless city council waves that. These are just cut sheets for the comprehensive plan kind of outlining. The left one is community center, the right one's neighborhood 2. Two important things to point out here are the compatible zoning districts. So the requested R2, R3, and HC are compatible within the community center. So there's no issue there. And then neighborhood two, he's only requesting R2, which is also a compatible district. So no issues there. In addition, the land use matrix, I guess you could say, in the bottom of both of these. It's always imperative to kind of point to and look at and see what is being proposed. The dark dots are what are showing what what we anticipate to be the primary uses in each of these place types. The gray ones being secondary or supporting uses. So the applicant is compliant with that as well by proposing frankly low to medium density with a pocket of high density in the multif family corner and then all the commercial uses. As far as the zoning goes as noted R2, R3 and HC are compliant with the comprehensive plan. The R2 zone accounts for approximately 202 acres. R3 about 34 acres and HC which is mixeduse regional commercial now about 48 acres. I stole their little picture from that and put it over our map just to kind of show it's on a one to one color, but the

purple will be the R3, the blue is the HC, and the yellow is the R2. Uh, the proposed uses are also permitted land uses within each of those land uses. So, specifically in the R2, all single family detached homes are proposed. That is a permitted land use within R2. within the R3 that they have presented conceptually a multif family project. They have not proposed something specific tonight. They will have to come back and do a special use permit at the city council level in order to get that full layout finally approved, but that's why they did show and has been included in the staff report a conceptual layout that's pretty far along. They just have to tweak it and actually show some true landscaping and make sure their parking counts are fine. And then within the HC zone zones, they're proposing a lot of commercial. And so those are not as typical with subdivisions. They don't have users at this time, but they do have multiple lots. And I'll discuss that on this next slide. So the actual subdivision, which is just the southern portion south of Carter, 220 total acres, 764 total lots, that breaks down to 655 single family detach lots, one multif family lot as noted, and 13 commercial lots on the west and east sides of the subdivision. as well as 95 common lots. Just tidbit for common lots doesn't really matter the number. They can be one, they can be a thousand. Doesn't change much of anything as far as subdivisions are concerned for lot count. Um total units out of those lots would be no more than 991. So that includes the 655 single family and then the proposed no more than 336 multif family units on the corner of Montana and Carter. The 13 commercial lots are about 22 and a half acres. And then overall in the subdivision, they're proposing 14.5 open a percent open space where only 8% is required because the average lot size for the whole subdivision is over 8,000

or over 6,000 square feet. And so they're almost double the requirement there. And because it's a just straight subdivision, no PUB or anything like that, there's no amenities required within code. and they've as noted in proposing many amenities. As far as general compliance that we look at, they're generally compliant with everything. Landscaping we note as partial because there's, as noted, some issues with uh looking at widths and where they're measuring them from. Nothing hard. They have plenty of room to do all the things that they're going to do. So, there's conditions of approval about that. And then the multif family development provisions, I noted it as yes and partial because they haven't submitted a set site plan at this time. And so I can't do a full compliance check, but what I have seen looks like they're going to be compliant. And that would include some of the architectural standards that be required for that. I have not seen the elevations and that's okay. Again, they're going to have to come back through for that. As far as services, utilities are available for the site. That's both water, sewer, irrigation, etc. No issues there. Unique circumstances of the site, there's a few. So just in general annexing property without specific development plan unique at times not necessarily an issue but just something that's unique. There are terrain considerations as the applicant noted if you drive out there this is one of the areas that actually has some terrain and to the his point about the gravel pit. That is very true. I've driven that many times now and it does drop off and that is some of their justification for not having the commercial all the way back to the gravel pit area. Um and commission and council can take that into consideration as well. Uh the other one and this is related to both the I guess the comp plan and the code they are requesting not to comply with a specific code section and that code section states that along the frontage of all highways and arterials you have to have commercial pure frontage period if you're within

the community center place type or mixed use. In this case the community center place type. They've noted multiple times within their their narrative as well as what they discussed tonight why they do not want to comply or or believe they should not comply with that. And so through the development agreement they are asking to not do that and have proposed that one corner as highdensity residential to meet the density requirements and keep the R2 on the east side for a portion of it to just continue blending the residential uses. And again, that's something that is wholly up to the commission to make a recommendation on and the council to make their final decision on. Public comments were received. As far as outside agencies, Canyon County, Valley View, Compass, and Highway District number four responded. Canyon County just noted again the gravel pitstaging area. It's at the west gave us uh the staff report. That was all. Valley View, similar to all of their letters lately, has stated that they currently have capacity, but are is concerned with the overall development pace. Now, to be clear with the school ordinance that's not going forward tonight, there's been a lot of coordination with the school district lately, we have their current enrollment and capacity numbers, and they are under capacity in every single school right now except for their academy, which is like a 100 student capacity, and they're like 20% over that. So it's very small at this time. As far as student generation, they also provided what they anticipate. Each single family home generates generally.3 students per household is the math that they use. Now when they send a letter and say that they're going to be over capacity in 2029, I don't know if that means I don't know how many developments they're looking at. I don't know if it's the whole city. We don't know that. That's not been confirmed by the school district. But in general, the.3 students per dwelling is something that both West Ada and apparently Valley View use and that's typical. To that end, single family generates the

most kids. Multif family generates the least from what all of these school districts math is. So, I just want to be very clear on that. Um, but again, we don't have total numbers per the question in the last application. Totally understand. Fair question. We just don't have that data and Valley View has not provided that. Compass, which is our regional metropolitan planning organization, deals with mostly regional transportation projects. They provided their communities in motion checklist. Nothing crazy flagged from what I understand in that. Then highway district number four operates some of the roads out in this area. They just noted some general comments and then wanted to discuss the Towers Drive which is the roadway that is in the county subdivision that they are not extending that that was constructed prior to certain requirements and so it drains into this lot and so they're just asking that future consideration be made for that within those this subdivision. So I'm sure that that has been addressed within the engineering staff report and if you have questions on that I'm sure the city engineer would be able to answer those. As far as public notices to neighbors, we always send those out 500 feet from the boundary. Only one person wrote back and prior to honestly today I have not received anything up until today and definitely not prior to the staff report being published. Um, first they I presume live within the Towers County subdivision because they express gratitude that that's not getting extended, but then they express general concerns about the density about across their at the back of their property line because they're in that county parcel. And then the additional traffic generated by this development as well as all the other ones around Carter. A loss of wildlife habitat by this development taking up this land. and then property value concerns. In conclusion, staff finds that the proposed project is in conformance with all applicable codes except for the ones that I note below and that that includes all that list. So, what they're not compliant with, as I noted, portions of the landscape

ordinance, but staff's not concerned with those. That's typical of every development at this stage of development. And then the 100503 subsection 4 regarding the frontage, as I noted. So they're again requesting through the development agreement to not have 100% commercial frontage along Highway 55. And the only legal process to do that since we codified that is through the development agreement where you can ask for deviations from code standards outside of a planned unit development process. In addition, similar to what the applicant had noted, I had discussions with the school district and our engineering department regarding the regional pathway that goes between both the Valley View Middle School and the Falcon Ridge Elementary School. Portion of that pathway is constructed already. The remaining portion to a certain level basically to ITD's limits of their development is played planned to be constructed later this year if not early 2027. Because of that and the underpass that's going to be done well before this project gets on board, I am recommending that this condition regarding additional sidewalks offsite be constructed. I requesting that it be stricken because that regional pathway with the underpass is going to be a much safer and more efficient avenue to get to both of those schools and then up through Verbina and up even to the high school. So that is staff's recommendation to just strike that because I find it now to be unnecessary. I did confirm because sometimes schools don't allow access to pathways for obvious safety concerns. They have noted that they will have gates that will be open during the beginning and end of school and then we'll be locked all other times just to maintain safety. So with that I will stand for any questions that you may have or we can go to public comment and then do question however you guys want to do it.

Uh commissioners do we have any uh questions for staff? A lot. A lot. This is a massive. Is it just for staff or for both? Both. There's going to be both. You want to start with staff? Start with staff with the underpass. Um so the underpass with the sidewalks. The that is that sliver lot that is being shown in the partial viewer. Um connecting the schools that that's why that has been drawn in there um in between. Correct. Yes. Correct. And that is to accommodate for that underpass that is currently planned and under construction with the highway district. Correct.

ITD will do the underpass. and then some limitations south and then we will construct the remaining portion of the 10 foot regional pathway. Yes. So that plan has been put in place long before with the I in working with the developer for this. No, that's a regional pathway that's been in the I don't know how long that plan has been approved but some years now for the master pathways plan that connects Malard Park all the way up to the YMCA ultimately.

Oh, okay. So, this is a regional pathway that's been planned and and irrelevant of this, this applicant is making the required sidewalk on the west side of Montana 10 ft to accommodate this and increase the the pedestrian activity there, but it was whoever develops this was going to be required to continue that pathway segment. So, they're compliant with that. Um the extra parking we are at the minimum I mean based on the development but there's a lot of lots here and everything but we are at the minimum amount of parking that I see the minimum requirements um for this development. Is that correct?

I only put that because I don't know how many garage spaces they're going to have. But they have everything is pro if it's a highend it's noted. I'm sure they're going to have two or three car garages plus RV bays, etc. They should be well over parked is my assumption. I just put what I know for a fact that they're going to do driveways and that counts for the minimum. Okay, I'm sure they'll have two or three times the amount of parking. Um the other two lots, um actually three parcels technically, but so again, it's not common

that these are proposed for annexation without a preliminary plat of any kind. Um, can you speak to that a little bit more? Why that is being allowed or why that is being brought why couldn't that be brought to us as a separate application? I guess.

Sure. Um, Commissioner Vance, good question. And this does happen. It doesn't happen very often. Usually people who have developers who have larger amounts of land may not want to develop everything at once, but they know that they have some idea and they want to get it entitled with the zoning. So at least that first step is done which is what the applicant is doing tonight. Are they required to? No. Or do we prohibit it also? No. It's not something that we can prohibit. I mean ultimately they are requesting annexation for some of these lands. So city council could say no. We don't want to without a development plan. That is possible. Yes.

Okay. I mean I agreed I we w for the city we want annexation. We want, you know, that that's part of what we want to do, but we want to know what we're asking and why, what the preliminary idea is for it. Obviously, one of the or two, one of these large areas is for commercial, which is fine, and another one is for residential. We see a full residential plan for the large area, but not the secondary area. So, that was why I brought that up. Um, it'd be nice to know what was planned in that other residential area. To some extent, Commissioner Vance, at least we have the zoning, and so then we we do know what the limitation of the uses will be. Mhm. So at least the R2 is very likely to be single family. Okay.

The next thing was uh the commercial along the highway. Highways are you know fast traffic designed. Um we are zoned this way for commercial along that. But the reason that the high density residential is being proposed here is to meet the the requirements. Is that correct? Advance. It's I don't want to I mean that the applicant can answer more specifically, but there's a couple different things. If they didn't have the R3 there on that corner and they had commercial frontage, that density that they need to meet is going to get pushed further south, okay,

closer to the existing single family, etc. And all that density transition just gets pushed further south into the residents of the south who are probably here to say no. So that's one consideration that they've made. Second being they in their narrative outlined multiple big retailers and retail centers that are going to be you know proposed further down even all the way out to the Carter interchange and I'm not a commercial broker but I do understand there is certain limitations to the require you know how much commercial houses can rooftops can eat up basically right

and so through their analysis they've said that this is what they can provide as far as the commercial but I would leave the applicant to kind of answer that in more depth for you. Okay, that's what I have for for staff. Any other questions for staff? Yeah, chair, I have a quick question for staff. Um, just a clarification on what the definition of the community center is for. So, it's for the whole city. It's not for just this development. How uh just a definition for all of us to be on the same page on what the code says it's supposed to be.

Sure. So community center place type would be within the comprehensive plan and the definition I kind of relayed it which is just those snippets from the cut sheets regarding what it's meant to be which is you know a low to medium intensity commercial place focuses on creating destinations for residents. They are and do anticipate regional pool not just neighborhood pool. So that's typically why you want larger commercial uses there just commercial uses in general but with a gathering space. It does talk about requiring some type of communal gathering space. Because of that, I in my one of my conditions of approval is recommending that they include some type of gathering space between the proposed R3 and the commercial because that's usually where you want a community space. Where do you where do you have the highest density of people and the highest intensity of commercial usually between high density and commercial there and that's where you want the gathering space. So I've requested that they include that in their future plans. Thankfully, that's also within a rather large transmission line easement. That should be fairly easy to put some nice gathering spaces on there without impeding anything um as well. But the community center place type does anticipate a regional pool if not community within this corridor. I guess you could say I it wouldn't anticipate every community center parcel having a regional pool because you have to look at that in a holistic way along an entire corridor that's being presented or wherever it may be labeled. So around major intersections, things like that.

So just one follow-up question. So just to make sure that I'm understanding this correctly, if theoretically they didn't have to build any of the homes below, it would still meet as a community center. It would still meet community center. It would still meet what a community center's goal is. So I'm saying are the houses being developed part of meeting the community center? The single family or the multif family? Either. because I'm just I'm just wanting to make sure I'm understanding correctly what a community center is supposed to be and if the development of the houses are adding, subtracting, or neutral.

Good question. I would say it's probably more neutral than anything. They have to meet if they do residential, they have to meet this deep, you know, quarter mile deep of commercial does not happen very often, period. As you can see throughout each drive, it just doesn't happen unless you have like a downtown core like here. That's different. But along corridors like this, that just doesn't happen. So, in a lot of ways, it's just a neutral. It's just something that you need in order to support that commercial. Thanks, Steph. Thanks, Commissioner.

Yes. I have some questions. So, in the staff report on page 285, it talks about the neighborhood meeting that was held and there was quite a few comments. Um, so I'd like to go through a few of those if you could address those with us possibly. Number one was a fence around the perimeter of the single family homes to divide them from existing homes. Is that being done? Um, Commissioner Guyer, I believe they are proposing a fence along the edge. If not, I don't remember off the top of my head. Again, our code does not require fencing

at all in these instances, especially single family to single family. Chances are, I'm going to assume the applicant is going to do some type of fence around their perimeter. Okay. So, we can follow up maybe with the applicant on that one. Um, number three was, please consider a park area directly across from the Towers Drive homes. So, the Towers Drive is that county road and county subdivision there on the kind of the southeast cornerish. Uh they proposed residential lots. They're not a park. Um again, they're not they're not extending the road despite theoretically they could because it is public rightway. So, no, they they did not propose a park there or a common lot.

Or a common lot. No. Okay. Um number four was please consider single level homes directly behind or across from the towers drive. Uh and that that is compliant then because you say there's residential there and those are going to be part of the single family. They will all be single family but I cannot state whether they'll be single level. That's not something that we usually get into the weeds of at our level.

Again we'll just ask the developer on that one. Um, number 11 was limit the height of the homes, of course. And is there anything that talks about that at all within the staff report about limiting the height of the homes on the southeast outside borders of the subdivision?

So, they'll just be com have to comply with the R2 zone, which is well, it's single family. They'll be well under. R2 allows up to 40 ft from finish grade to peak, but a two-story house even with high peaks is usually not pushing over 33 feet, which is similar to any two-story house around the area. So, they should be similar in scale and mass. If they are quote unquote high-end and using some of the images that he has stated, I would assume they're probably going to be a little bit more single level and broader homes versus skinny two-story type of homes.

Okay. Um, has the developer indicated at all the estimated value of these homes to staff? No, that's not something that staff ever asks. Okay. What about gated community? Is it I know they reference gated community with some of the other home developments that they have done in the valley, but this one here did not appear to be a gated community. Am I There's not a gated community. They would have to go through a planning and development process for that. And even then, engineering is not keen on that. Okay. But I I thought at one point that there was some allowances looked at for gate community. Can maybe Haley can address that.

It's been discussed, but nothing has been done even from I haven't I don't even have a draft of that code section. A few other fires right now. Um engineering has not discussed a gated community at this development. We have allowed a gated community um north of this area, but there were a lot of stipulations that we had to work through the developer on before we were willing to consider a gated community in Caldwell. So we have not had any discussions and engineering would not allow gated community for both maintenance and for emergency reasons unless it was contemplated prior to being brought before planning and zoning commission.

Okay. So, I notice you I I understand that there hasn't been anything that's for conceptual at all with the multif family, but has there been anything that's been indicated with that multif family area that it would be a 55 plus community at all? No, that has not been discussed. Okay. I would ask the applicant if their plan is to Yes. Okay. Those are some good questions I'd like to ask the applicant then. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Guyer. Mr. Chair, yes, I have more questions for staff. Um,

sure. back to this. They keep coming up. Uh back to the commercial lots. You talked about uh the future plan. Um we have lower or smaller commercial lots proposed and I can see those now. But you talked about future larger developments. Would the zoning in this area, especially along a highway, allow for if needed reszone or would larger commercial uh developments be allowed with this zone in this area? on the south side. Commissioner Vance, I would it depends what you mean by large, but like a a ger would not fit on the south side. No, not fit. Maybe on the northeast corner actually of the southern piece because they can consolidate lots, I'm sure. Consolidate.

But because of that, the zoning that they've requested on the north side of Carter that already has that HC little sliver and then they're doing another piece of HC and then R3. they're putting that big piece of HC there so that they could potentially have a bigger user on that corner on that corner. But then the could the so again it goes back to you know

we're trying to increase for the high density um residential so that it could meet that but it also does take away from the commercial lot availability along the highway which is why it was it's there so that we could have those. Um, so I'm guessing kind of going to the idea of maybe combining some of those commercial lots to be allow to allowing for larger commercial because what we're trying to attract, you know, obviously deal with a lot of smaller commercial, they tend to follow the larger. So the idea of getting those larger ones in is the idea, right?

Absolutely. and Commissioner Vance as far as platting goes. So let's say they do a preliminary plat, this gets approved, they even final plat it at that time of final plat. Let's say they have on the plinary plat six commercial lots. If they only want to do one, they can do that. Okay? They just can't go up. They can go down at that stage. Even if they do plat it, even they sign the plat, record it with six, they can just do a lot line adjustment, consolidate the lots, and move on as well. So they do have avenues to do that if the user comes along, which developers often take that advantage of that.

Okay. Mr. Chairman, could I possibly address our engineer, city engineer, with a few questions and I know that there's a lot of construction going on in Carter right now. Um, share with us a little bit about the mitigation of traffic and how this is going to possibly impact traffic flow on there. There was some concern by some of the residents in their questions in regards to Indiana and Carter and then Montana and Carter. Same with 10th there. It's just very congested area there and I know that there's some widening efforts going on there, but could you please expand a little bit on that please? Commissioner Guyer. Yes, of course. So, as you mentioned, ITD is completing a large amount of construction along along Carter Road right now. um with their widening of Carter, they're also completing a lot of access restrictions along Carter, which will greatly impact or greatly improve the safety along this corridor. So at the 10th intersection they are going to have um that will be full uh full access at 10th and Carter and there will be a light installed I believe at this location over at Montana in Carter. This location is going to be a restricted access. So it will be when you're on Montana just a right out is all that you can take on Carter Road. If you are on Carter Road, you can take a right or a left, but it is going to be restricted with medians. And so this will be a very wellont controlled access location. And then moving over to Indiana, um I believe this this location is also going to have full access with a light controlling the intersection. So there's going to be a lot more access

control along the corridor with Carter here. As far as the development itself is concerned, um we do have our requirements are going to line up with a lot of ITD's improvements. So that if for whatever reason ITD were to stop their construction halfway through, the developer would be required to pick up some of these improvements. So we do have some improvements along Carter included in in engineering staff report to ensure that if there were some reason that ITD's project was halted safety improvements would still be completed along Carter Road. Um we did analyze all of the access points along 10th Montana and Indiana. Um the access points were mostly all approved through the TIS and through engineering staff report with the stipulation that we reserve the right to analyze the commercial access points once we know what commercial is coming in. So we do want to be able to continue to monitor access points along the highway and along our other major corridors once we know the type of user coming in at those commercial locations. And so we we do that so that we can continue to monitor the safety of these roads.

So at 10th then and Carter, is that going to be a U-turn that they can actually get back going the other direction? If it is a right only at Montana, is there a U-turn at that stoplight then allowance?

I will pull up ITD's plans. Um I have them on my computer right here. So at 10th It does not look like ITD has the U-turn U-turn capability at 10th, but that is why we do have our what we can call our backer roads to the highway. So if um so there is a road and Joe, I don't know if you want to pull up a slide that has the development shown a little bit. So Vista Drive, that is why we ensure that we have that connectivity through subdivisions to other roadways. So, if you are unable to make your turn at Montana, Vista Drive may be able or may be utilized by residences in the area to get across to other roads. We also have a backer road of Cirrus Drive that's a little bit further south, but I expect that this Vista Drive is going to be that major backer road that people are going to use um based on the restrictions along Carter.

Haley, I'm sorry. Could you also discuss the road widening that we're requiring just to make sure we cover all of that? Yes, thank you Joe. So with all development, we do require them to complete frontage improvements which do include road widening. So that road widening will be along 10th Montana and Indiana to our full buildout of those three road sections. So your backer road does not go through any of the subdivisions per se is what you're saying. It's it's kind of like a frontage road is what you're Yes. But is it going through any of the existing subdivisions in there? Is it going to impact them at all?

Vista Drive does not go through any of the existing subdivisions. I did mention Cirrus Drive, but because Vista is closer to Carter, I would anticipate people take the path of least resistance. So, people will typically take that road that's closest to the road that they're trying to get to. So, I would anticipate most of the traffic needing that backer road would use this proposed Vista Drive Vista and not through Cirrus. Okay. Any more questions for staff? All right. Thank you. Can I have the applicant come back up? I think we got some questions for you.

We could do it now or after public comment, whatever you guys think. Yeah, we'll do it right now. And commissioners, I'm sorry. I do have one more. It might actually be for the applicant for um but is the annexation of 3271703 because we do not have a preliminary plat for that. But is the is that needed to make uh to meet the density for approval on this whole application or is that not? That's just that that definition doesn't exist.

Commissioner advance, I'd have to do some math on the fly, but um it has been taken holistically. Uh the the project engineer might know more off the top of his head than I do on that, but um I would assume if you took away the proposed it's going to be very similar because they are of similar densities kind of for that north the both north pieces. But I would ask the city the sorry he was a city engineer the project engineer what his uh numbers are there. Okay. So then I guess my question would be

um Mark Tate again for the record. Um and just to kind of speak to your questions about commercial in general. Um we do have around 40 acres on the north side of Carter Road.

Uh right now it's proposed for a mix of commercial and multifamily. Um that's where we would envision the the big box, you know, mega center. Um so directly south of that, across from the road, uh you can see those lots fronting in the southeast corner of 10th Avenue that are on the screen right now. That's as far back as we can get before you drop off into the pit. Um, the reason that we've tried to consolidate the commercial at the intersections, as we just talked about, Montana is not a full access. And so, uh, typically if you want to have an office building, a restaurant, retail, that's going to want to be at a place where you've got better access. Um, and we looked at the same thing at the Indiana side. Um, we did actually work really hard to try to get those two major tenants that I mentioned in my presentation, Fred Meyer and Albertson's. Fortunately, they're going kitty corner and a little ways down the road. Um, so we're still going to be looking for that major tenant. And part of the reason why we don't have a preliminary plat as part of this is we just need to have that flexibility as we have those conversations because what ends up happening there just like I think uh Joe had mentioned uh is you know you get a Fred Meyer coming in Kitty Corner and all of a sudden the entitlements are changing. Oh man, it's more and now they're coming back for another application. So, we're just trying to be as flexible as we can. Uh, we want as much commercial as possible, but um we know that there's already something like 400 acres of commercial approved along this corridor. Um, and with retail being what it is, shipping, that sort of stuff, we know that uh the amount is going to be commensurate to the rooftops that are coming in the area. Um, so we have done had a lot of great conversation with commercial brokers and tried to figure that out and feel like we've got 47 acres of

commercial with this application, which is a significant amount of commercial. So we feel feel pretty good about that.

So um, if you could just answer a few of the questions we've asked before. So is there any plans at all that's addressing 55 plus community?

Um we have not specifically added 55 plus uh designations to the community. Um if we go back to kind of our list our resume of projects. Um our target demographic is a 55 and older buyer. Um what ends up happening in in a higherend higher price point community is the folks with the most dollars uh to spend uh are typically empty nesters. So when you look at kind of a Red Hawk Ridge or a Summit Ridge, which were both in Nampa, um the buyers are are predominantly uh empty nesters. Uh it was kind of backwards. I remember when we did the Foxtail project uh off of Chindon and we had these smaller lots uh and larger lots. We thought, "Oh, the families will be on the larger lots, the empty nesters, and it was like 180 degrees flipped because just affordability." And so, um, there was a question that you brought up about single level homes, uh, along Towers Drive and and I would just say that most of the homes will be single level just because of what we're designing, the amenities, the pickle ball,

the gym, you know, that sort of thing. Um, so I'd rather not have a condition that says we have to, but it will by default end up mostly that way. So, is there an estimated value that you know that you're kind of the range?

Yeah, I would say if we use comparable subdivisions like in uh Summit Ridge in Nampa, I would say our smaller lot product in there started in the high 600s and the largest lot product uh was a million to million and a half dollars. Um so, I think you know the bullseye of that is going to be 700 to $900,000 is going to be most of what the detached product is going to be in the community. And I do, we haven't done like an economic study in here, but when you look at approving an M3 project, you know, they they pay property taxes commensurate with the value of their homes, but they get services the same as everybody else. So, if your home is valued at $800,000 versus a $400,000 home, uh you've got $100,000 homeowner exemption, you're paying more than double the property taxes on the homes that are in an M3 community versus, you know, a real entry level community. So, I think from just an economic standpoint, what we bring to the city of Caldwell is is very valuable.

Tell me how many phases. Uh we see it as 10 phases. um we could see, you know, one to two phases per year. Okay. I think uh anywhere from 50 to 100 homes a year in the single family area is pretty realistic. And with those phases, um your amenities that you had already talked about, are they upfront with those phasing or are they scattered throughout? What what is your plan for that? Sure. uh the community center that we showed you the uh slides of the pickle ball courts and the swimming pool that that parcel is in phase one. Um so we'll look to start that right out of the gate. Uh it will take some time to get

we've got to record the plat before you can go pull a building permit on that. Um but yeah, we we'd like to get things going early. you know, we might go in and actually phase some of the amenities and not build, you know, $4 million clubhouse with the first house that goes in because we don't want to be writing checks to maintain it with nobody there. But, uh, you know, we're definitely known for getting the amenities in as soon as possible. At the end. Okay. All right. Thank you. Yep. Any other questions? Any other questions, commissioners?

Uh, yes, Mr. Chair. Um, as with our previous um uh previous uh item that we had, uh we saw uh a rendering of the proposed houses and everything that obviously is a large project. You had a lot of other developments. Do you have or is that later going to come on later with the uh renderings of what type of houses you're going to be um providing in this?

Yeah, we're we're still working on the design guidelines for the project. So, we're not actually a home builder. Um we've worked with a lot of really great home builders in the valley. Um our track record is we've worked mostly almost exclusively with local home builders um developing finished lots and putting together builder teams. Um so uh we're going to do a set of design guidelines that has some fairly specific architectural styles. Um, so out out at our Riverstone project, uh, we did sort of a mountain modern theme, uh, to that project. Um, this was written about five years ago. We've seen the the architecture used a lot more in the valley since then, but um, you know, we had to kind of convince the builders that it was worth their time to redo, you know, housing elevations and and that sort of thing. And I think it worked out tremendously. And that's something that we want to continue to do in our communities where you go in and you can kind of feel some cohesiveness of the architecture. Um, so that is something that we're working on right now, but we have not completed that yet.

There's no more questions. We'll get on to public comments. Great. Thank you. Be back. All right. We're going to go into public testimony. And so when you come up to speak, you'll have three minutes. State your name and your address for the record. I have in favor John Rogers wishes to speak. You have three minutes.

Thank you. Uh my name is John Rogers. I am affiliated with the parent company of Gem State Academy, the Idaho Conference of 7th Day Adventists located at 777 West Fairview Avenue, Boisee 83704. I'm a CPA and I've uh spent uh 12 years as a uh CFO of the Idaho Conference and then another two and a half years on their land use committee since moving on from the CFO role. Through these last 14 and a half years, I've uh played an integral part in the development of the proposal that's been brought to you today. And thank you for the opportunity to speak in favor of this application. 20 years ago, the idea was born that we should use the land surrounding the uh Gem State Academy to create an endowment to ensure the school's uh long-term ability to educate uh children. In two 2007, that idea became a voted direction by approximately 350 representatives of our constituent churches across southern Idaho and eastern Oregon. Over the ensuing years, we've had a number of parties that were interested in the property. And about six years ago, our board of directors and land use committee made the decision to work with M3 companies because we feel that uh their track record of beautiful communities across uh the Treasure Valley will again produce a community that we and the city of Caldwell can be proud of. That decision was approved at a specially called meeting of our representatives from our constituent churches in 2024. In recent years, we've been pleased to sell 24 acres to the Valley View uh school district for their new elementary school, as well as nearly four acres to the city of Caldwell for the Lake LOL

pathway. We have sold these parcels of land at a price well below what we could have otherwise received because uh we want to be good neighbors and support our community. We believe this application is an integral part of ensuring Gem State Academyy's long-term positive impact on the students as well as the community. I would not be standing here before you today if it weren't for Gem State Academy. Some 90 years ago, my grandparents met at the school. Uh my three children have been privileged to attend the school, and I hope my grandkids someday will have the same opportunity. I'm asking you to partner with members of the community who are striving to ensure the long-term quality of life this community has to offer. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Next in favor, John Sule.

You've had three minutes. Your name and address for the record, please.

My name is John Sule. I have the privilege of serving Jim State Academy as their principal for the past six years. Um, we're located at the corner of Carter in Montana. It's 16115 South Montana Avenue, 83607. And I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak in favor of this uh project tonight. Jim State was originally built on property donated by Governor Senberg and his family in 1918. as we serve students from not only our community but from all over the world grades 9 through 12. Tonight Jim State's history tonight we have seen multiple generations of of young people come through our school. We've served thousands of them and uh today most of them are part of this community we call Caldwell. I'm very proud to be part of the Caldwell community and Jim State is a part of this community in many different ways. We are honored to serve SWAT training at our school every summer. We're honored to to facilitate K9 training at our school. We we are part of of this community and um we like to be part of the the Caldwell parade every year. We've been there for a hundred years. We've uh had our music department play for uh nonprofits at Indian Creek Plaza. Um we've put on programs at uh um College of Idaho. We've done several things. We um KTSY and Project 88.7 have been located on our campus for over 20 years and they serve Caldwell. Also,

once upon a time, Jim State was a rural school in the middle of nowhere. And as the years gone past, we've seen it grow around us. We have developments to the to the to the south, the north, the west, and we see commercial developments to the east of us. Fred Meyer Shopping Center going in. I believe it's the right time for us to uh partner with a development or a development or a developer that has the best interest in our community. We've uh gone through about 20 years of thinking about who do we want? We've turned some of them down. We feel like M3 is the developer that will have our best interest in mind. So, I appreciate um you allowing me to speak tonight and I'm excited about the future of Jim State and what it holds to offer in our community that we call Caldwell. Thank you so much for tonight. Thank you. Next in favor, Travis Jeffers, you do not wish to speak. Okay. So, we'll move on to neutral. Uh, Rosalie Shrock Shank

Shank. Is that it? Okay. You don't wish to speak? Well, I don't have anything. Okay. I have things to say, but I don't want that.

Well, can you come to the You're gonna have to come and state your name for the record. Name and address, please. My name is Rosalie Shank. I live at 14674 Port Royal Street, Caldwell, Idaho. And um this development, in my opinion, I think it's there's so much going on already. That's just too much here to we got the verbina going up, you know, there's another thousand there. Just too many people in what we call home, you know, it makes it more cityike, not more the way the living how we are currently living. But to answer about your question, I think it was about going through development. I'm in Toll Brothers. Toll Brothers has homes on both sides of Cirrus. They also back up to Montana and there are cars whizzing through there. They have, you know, all the time if um there's Vista, I don't know where that is, but um I don't know where people will or won't go, but just to give that opportunity for people to go through Cirrus, what goes through the development and I don't think there's as now that's There's enough people going through. We don't need more. And I'm really not for this for a lot of reasons, for the traffic, for the implication. These gentlemen, and I'm not trying to hurt anybody, be say in a bad way, are all talking about Gem State and whatever. I don't know where they all live. I mean, you know, they may live in Boyisey, they may live wherever, but this is where we live and it's it impacts us and it's I don't really have anything prepared, so that's kind of it. I'm not really for it. and a lot of the people I invited for other reasons could not make it. So I guess that's it.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Another one neutral is John I Stone Stower Stone.

You don't wish to speak. Okay. Thanks. All right. Um opposed. Joan Crarampton does not wish to speak. Okay. Uh, Mary P does not wish to speak. Ed Crarampton does not wish to speak. Lane Hadlock wants to speak. If you could state your name and address and you have three minutes.

Name's Lane Hadlock. I'm at 16159 South 10th in Caldwell, Idaho. And I'm my response is re really with regard to supply and demand. I took a chance today to go to all the subdivisions south of Caldwell, like 12 of them. And in those 12 subdivisions, there was over 600 homes that weren't sold or just plain lots. That's how much is available as supply. Plus, plus I looked at uh if you look at the Pera subdivision there at 10th in Homedale, that's been there for three years and they still have about half of the lots available to be sold. Uh Cumberland Estates is which is further down Tenth. They just opened up phase six of their of their their estate their their facil their states. I don't know how many of those homes are available, but you know, from a pure supply and demand basis, do we really need another 630 whatever home homes that is, especially when you got Element Ridge with 215 homes been approved and they they've working on that. That's just south of where I live. I mean, just north of where I live and they're tearing all up the farmland to put those 215 in. Then even further north from there, they've forb been a ranch, they've started tearing that up as well, you know, this get that available for sale. That and that's a thousand homes that the city approved last year. Uh so with that thousand, that's,15 homes in just that area north of north of me. Uh do do we really need another 635 homes especially when the supply and demand isn't indicating that? I mean, why would why would uh Pacer Ridge

not why would they open up, you know, well, excuse me, why would Cumberland Estates finally open up phase six of their development? Uh why would why would Cumberland Estates open up phase six of theirs? So, you know, I'm purely from a from a supply and demand basis. Uh, I mean it looks like a good development looking at it on the map for sure, but do we really need that? I mean, with all the subdivisions that are currently out there with lots not not filled with vacant homes, I as I toured all those today, I I was amazed how many there were. I really was amazed at how many are out there and haven't been sold. Um, so from a pure supply and demand basis, I think that uh that basically is why I'm oppo opposed to that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. May I ask a question? Yeah. Oh, excuse me, Mr. Headlock. Yes. I think you have one question if we could. I'm sorry. Possibly. I missed this. What subdivision do you reside in at this point? I I am just south of Element Ridge. And is that a subdivision there? Yeah, it's Yes, it is. And which one is it? That really doesn't have a name. It's Yeah, it really doesn't have a name, but Okay. I Well, Stecker subdivision, I think, is the old name that was affiliated with that. Yeah. Is that in the county then? That is not in the city. It is in the county.

In the county. Okay, that helps me. All right. Thank you. opposed. Kelly Edington does not wish to speak.

Thank you. Eric Edington don't wish to speak. Okay. I got Mike and Susan Leman and I have a question mark. Do you want to speak? Okay. State your name and address and you have three minutes.

My name is Susan Layman. Address 14138 Towers Drive, Caldwell. Uh we're in the subdivision that you guys have referred to tonight that is going is in the county and um our home my husband purchased it 50 years ago and most of the homes in that area aren't as old as ours but they have we're just a real small community and we have larger lots and my biggest concern is not that we don't want neighbors because we're all for growth and so forth but I haven't been able to determine whether or not some of the studies that I would think would need to be done before a development of that size would go in. One of them is the um deer flat wildlife refuge that's just right just right in that area. You know, every night and every morning we have thousands of birds that come from the lake and go out into the fields to feed and then back and then they do that at night. Same thing. and the developments that are are coming in out there. I'm wondering where these birds are going to go for their feed. A lot of them are local. They don't migrate in the wintertime, so they're there year round. And then there's others that do migrate and they use that as a stopping point for a few days in route to where they're going. And um I would I would just be curious as to how that's going to affect them when you put in another take out that many more fields um in that area where they go where where they will go. Um that's that's of concern. Also um we we have a well and we're very concerned about what will happen with that many additional homes going in in the area. They'll be on city water, but just the uh disturbance of the property um around

them as they build sometimes creates problems. And we're just wondering if our well were to go dry um whose responsibility would that be to fix? Um we we don't think it should be ours if that's the case, but that's another thing we were concerned about. Also, we have been irrigating um out of a out of a pipe that comes from the water that comes off the fields on Jim State Academyy's property and have done that for many, many years. And so, we're going to lose that irrigation water right there. And again, wondering if there is some way that that can be uh plumbed in or or that we don't lose that from what we've been doing now for five decades. And then um other than that, I think the we talked about the single homes around there. We moved up there because of the view and it is just absolutely Is that my am I done?

Go ahead. Go ahead and finish your thought. Okay. Just the view is beautiful up there and one-story homes wouldn't be too much of a problem, but twotory homes is going to bo just box us in to where we won't be able to see that the surrounding area is areas at all. That will affect our property value. Um, our retirement is based on having that home be able to sell for a certain amount if we decide to. And I I just have a lot of concerns about that. And I hear a lot about well they're just towers drive but we're people and we've been there for a long long time and we just want to make sure that it's everything is equitable and handled properly. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Um could the applicant come back up and maybe address some uh those concerns?

Uh Mark Tate again for the record. Nobody else to testify. Okay. Um, yeah, appreciate the opportunity to come back up. Um, I did hear a couple things um that I did want to address. Um, as it relates to kind of what's out there for supply. Um, there are a lot of subdivisions. Um, the market is not uh in an overs supplied sense. We track that very closely. Um, and what we really pay attention to is, you know, what are the communities that we might be competing with? And there really is not a lot like what we're doing in in Caldwell or Canyon County. And I think that's the important distinction. Um did want to address the irrigation water that we would uh continue any irrigation deliveries uh that are currently going through the property. Um that we would continue to coordinate with the ditch companies uh to make sure that we're not cutting off anybody's water. um and that we are on city water uh from wells that are currently located north of uh Carter Road. So, I think those were kind of the main things that I heard from testimony as far as kind of just traffic and general impacts. I think now's the perfect time for this project with Carter Road uh going to be wrapped up by the time anybody's uh in houses out there. Um, I could understand the concerns from folks living out there uh without that road, but I think we're in a in a much better place right now. Uh, you also heard from uh some of the gentlemen from the um Gem State Academy and we're just thrilled to be working with them. Um shared our vision. uh spent two years working with their entire church family uh from their committees to board to entire constituency to take a vote on it. Um and so part a lot of that was interviewing us as a company and what is our vision for the project. they wanted to be part of something really great uh

in the long term and as he mentioned this project and property will allow them to uh expand their school and upgrade their school and have have an endowment in perpetuity. So I think it's a great win-win. Thank you. Yep. Do we have any final clarifications by the planners? Anything from you guys? Commissioners, do we have any final questions that we want to ask? No. Okay. Can we get a motion to close public testimony? Move we close public testimony. Second. All in favor?

I testimony is closed. Time for us to deliberate. I mean, again, very big project. it it's very nice product looking at a lot of the other projects that the developer has done it it is very nice it they're larger lots they're they're it not the same I understand the supply and demand but the they're not being compared adequately on that so I think this is uh a development that stands on its own

I agree even though we do need attainable housing um this is just a different product and it's just appealing to a totally different um clientele I think that city of Cwell doesn't get a lot of is that as far as decent size of houses and lots and um and the amenities that go with them and I will have to agree you know with the with the applicant that you know Carter Road will probably be done by the time they start start construction open one

I would upon upon the condition of approval. I would ask that the the parcel there at R 32717013 it's not as staff pointed out it's not normal that we don't see uh a preliminary development for that. That is a very small lot. They've did a lot of work on the main lot. I know the commercial lot that we're talking about um are 32719. That one we're going to keep a little open for speculation, but since the other one is single family residential and residential seems to be one of the main concerns even of the public, I think for condition approval with council, I would like to see that that um preliminary uh plot be uh be shown as well uh not just be left out and just be added as part of the annexation. That would be one of my recommendations for approval. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Vance, I in order to do that, that would change the scope of the project. They would technically have to restart because they'd have to go to a neighborhood meeting and then resubmit. It's

Yeah, it' be a whole another application number. So, they would have to be delayed, I should say, and they'd have to restart the process just for that plat. Um, theoretically, that could be done, but it would be very difficult. Um, you can make that as a recommendation or or I maybe even just a note and that would be included in the packet to council and and they can make that ultimate determination. Could I make a recommendation or could I make um a recommendation for approval with that particular parcel being excluded from the annexation? Yes. Let me quick question. So if that stays in though, when they go to do that, they still have to bring that one back through, right,

Mr. Chair? Correct. After they annex, they they would have if they subdivide it, which is R2. They're going to have to come back. See it again. Okay. They'd come back through PNZ as well as um city council. Okay. Okay. That's that's why I just want to be able to see it because I like I said, I don't want anything slipping through. No, absolutely. No, they'll have to come back through the public hearing process.

Okay. I think the biggest piece to me is just the difference the competition word jumped out at me that the the difference between the development of the properties all surrounding especially to the north and to the south of this property and compared to what this projection is. It's something that Caldwell really needs. I I would be in full favor of it.

I I think the commercial really helps us a lot to me. I agree. I really like to see a lot a lot of commercial and everything. I mean, we need it. Caldwell really does need it, especially um from a tax base standpoint and everything. Um there's a fair amount of commercial. I know that the medium or the high density residential is being put in in order to meet certain standpoints on there, but normally it wouldn't be a condition approved on that. But I think as of right now, we're we're asking, you know, it'd be good to to get what we can right now. Yeah, that particular location for that section of it to be R3 is really appropriate.

Agreed. Rather than some other places, commissioners, you have any thoughts? I think the the the main reason I would say yes would be because of the commercial. Not really any other reason. I mean, I think everything else about it looks great, but I think the commercial is what Caldwell needs. So, agreed. That would be the the only factor that I'm really thinking about. I think it has some great qualities, but I just have some reservations as far as congestion. Traffic is just always going to be an issue, right? Um, I also have some questions that there's no conceptuals really with um,

what we're looking at as far as multif family and then the housing on the single side. Those are just things to me that I think and it's not that I'm against it in its entirety, but I just think it would be best if we had more information in some of those areas before we move on. But that those are my concerns. And I could be wrong, but I think when when they were showing us the other subdivisions they did, I think they're all about the same, right? So that whatever you're seeing in those housing things is what I would say is going to be the same. And that that could very well be, but

to me, it's just an incomplete package without having that information um and a comfort zone of that. So I would I would like to have seen a little bit more information We are only voting on annexation, right? Well, you are it's going to it's going to come up to the next phase before any of that would ever be. But you are also voting on us. Um it's not just the annexation, Mr. Chair. It is um it's both. Um sorry, I thought you were done. Sorry. Apologies, Debbie. Um it's not just annexation. Am I correct in that that there is a subdivision correct

request with it? And usually with those subdivision requests, there's a little bit more information on the conceptual end of it.

Sure. And that's what I was going to state is if uh as a condition, you guys can add that the as part of your recommendation that they submit building elevations that are conceptual and they can speak to the builders that they've used previously to just submit pictures of what's built, whatever they need to do in order to meet that. Um, as far as the multif family though, again, they're not the builders. they have to come back through for that. And so that I think from a planning standpoint, we'd not want to pin them down to something that they may or may not even do. It's just a a zoning and a general use at this point. Um but theoretically, I think I did discuss this in my staff report, the multif family lot as it's being proposed doesn't have a plan right now, just a concept plan. Theoretically, they could get that zoned R3 and if council or at any point in the future if they decide they don't want to do the highdensity residential there, other land uses of residential are allowed within R3, which could be town homes, could be something less dense, something more in the their wheelhouse, they wouldn't have elevations for that, which then would create a conflict. So, I um from a planning standpoint, I'd recommend that we get some building elevations of the single family, but not yet the multif family because it's just not developed yet. Joe, can I ask one question? Absolutely. So, um,

that would be more for council, correct? Because planning and zoning, we're not an architectural committee. Am I Am I correct in that? Like, we we're not voting on or recommending or denial based on an elevation or a house plan. I I think we're just doing land use. Am I correct? I would say there's nothing in the criteria that discusses building elevations, that's for sure. But that is something typically part of an application packet or or something that would just give commissioners and council an idea to clarify. And I understand what it is.

And as I noted, it wasn't just that portion that I was concerned about. It was also congestion. And I really appreciated um the gentleman that talked about um supply and demand because there is there's a lot going on within our community. And I understand this looks like a very high quality and I'm glad for that. I think that's wonderful. But I just have some reservations. Yeah. At that. Well, and then to speak about supply and demand. I mean, with more supply, technically price levels do drop. So, that could be when you talk about bringing in families and and and them getting into houses

and actually a supply and demand issue in this. Um, and then to speak to the road access, if I'm right, the Vista, because the intersections of Indiana and 10th, those are the ones that have um, stop lights on it and the Vista Drive is the idea of that is to funnel most of the traffic to those intersections. So, Montana not being the primary.

That is correct. So, if this development were to not be approved, I know that there's concerns with Cirrus Drive receiving a large amount of traffic, that would be the backer road um for Highway 55 for Carter Road. So, this will supply that Vista Drive supplies that additional level of backer roads. So, it theoretically, I'm not a traffic engineer and even traffic engineers, traffic engineering is an art. It's not a science. Um, but theoretically the more backer roads that you can get to our major highway corridors, the more it alleviates the individual backer roads because it spreads that traffic out on a larger range.

And just for Sears Drive, I live in a development that Sears Drive goes through. Everybody accesses everybody's subdivision through no matter what. It doesn't matter if it's Sears Point, if it's Sienna Hills, if it's Cedar Crossing. Um the new subdivision coming over by lake is going to access Cirrus Drive. So how do we let four subdivisions go through Cirrus Drive and tell one they can't? Right. Exactly. So just my um another question actually uh foring um the access coming out of the commercial going onto Carter that's most likely going to be a right turn only obviously right?

That is correct. So any access going on to Carter Road will be controlled by ITD. They will have the final say on that access. Um I can tell you confidently that ITD is only going to allow ride in right out on Carter Road if they were to permit a ride in right out at all. Okay. Anybody else? Can we get a motion? I would make a motion for approval. approval of the proposed plan.

The page, Mr. Chair, as um Commissioner Vance, as you make that motion, if you agree with my recommendation to strike that condition 8, please include that in your motion. Okay. The which condition were we talking about? Condition eight. Regarding the additional pathways along, you can just say strike condition 8 stash recommendation. It was crossed out. Oh, that's right. Yeah, I would make it. Okay. Uh, more prepared before I made that. Which one of the commission subdivision?

The civil division. Okay. Okay. Based on the hearing and testimony and evidence of record upon the matter upon the findings of facts and conclusions of law here and I do hereby determine and move that I request for a25-16 oh no I'm sorry there it is a25- or 0010 and a25-000013 and 25-0014 and-250014 the silver leaf subdivision beh uh recommended for approval with the condition uh with restricting condition 8 from from it and I look for that second.

We have a second. Can we get roll call? Vance? Yes. Whitbeck? Yes. Carmen? Yes. Larson? Yes. Guyer, no.

All right, that passes. So, we will move on to New business. We'll move on to new business. Action item public hearing quasi judicial case number ANN25-12 SP25-16. The applicant NV5 on behalf of Endurance Holdings LLC is requesting annexation of parcel R3523601 0000 with a zoning designation of R2. Concurrently, the applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat application for Traverse Landing Subdivision, a single family residential subdivision with six buildable lots and one common lot. The site is located within the neighborhood 2 place type within the future land use map. The approximately 1.07 acre site is located on the north side of Marble Front Road approximately 1,040 ft west of intersection with North K Road in Caldwell, Idaho.

All right. Can I get the applicant, please? Good evening, members of the commission. Um, it's nice to see you. It's been a while. And Debbie, it's nice to see you in a different seat. So, um, this evening, my name is Bonnie Leighton. I am here. I'm no longer with NV5, but I'm still on the project team representing this project. My address is 5561 East Hudall Drive in Boise, Idaho. And tonight I'm here to request uh your recommendation of approval to the city council for annexation and zoning with a preliminary plat for this uh one of the smallest projects I think I've worked on in a short while here. Um just to give you a little bit of uh background. So, our vicinity map, if you can see up towards the top of the screen, Lincoln Road, we had previously come through the city and were approved with um a project called Traverse Creek. Um and you can kind of see that up there just below uh the Lincoln Road text. Um at that time there was a small out parcel that we are here to talk about this evening. So, um Traverse Creek was a much larger uh project. um great access to uh obviously the North Ranch Business Park. Marblefront Road runs along our southern boundary. Um there's some major uh north south connections as well. Um and so with that, I've kind of included the overall uh on the left you can see the overall uh Traverse Creek project that we had originally done. And then I zoomed in there. So, our project is just the little little parcel there in the uh

red dashed box. And so, the details on that and because I don't have my glasses on um right, I I can do it here, but for some reason it's not clear enough there. Need to go to the uh eye doctor, I guess. So, our total site area is 1.07 acres. Um, and we've got one common lot, which is the um common lot along Marble Front Road that uh we're required to have. Um, we're connecting into uh the stub street that was provided uh with the Traverse Creek project. And so we have a total of seven lots, the one common lot and uh six residential building lots. And so with that we have a re residential density of 5.61 dwelling units per acre. Um actually this project is small enough that the city doesn't require us to have uh open space and this project will be part of the larger Traverse Creek and um share the amenities there. So, it'll be folded into the HOA and everything. Again, it was an out parcel at the time that we went through. Um, we've since acquired uh the parcel and so we worked with staff to to come up with this design. Uh, this a little bit more technical. So, we've got four narrower lots. They're somewhat consistent with what's happening to the east um in the previously approved project. and then uh a couple of uh standard single family lot sizes. And just for a frame of reference, so the overall Traverse Creek phasing plan, I put this up here just so you guys could get a sense of how this project is

going to develop out. Uh this uh parcel that we're here for tonight in the red box is uh would be part of the phase 4. We would anticipate just developing it with the rest of the project. So phase one of Traverse Creek is supposed to start in the northwest. There's some pretty significant um improvements in Traverse Creek that we're required to do. Um there will be frontage approve improvements of course um all along our frontages um for Traverse Creek and then also this piece uh touches that as well. So, the types of homes we build, um, the two larger lots will have our standard single family detached lots like this. Uh, these are some examples of what we build. Um, and then more uh the four narrower lots could um would have something similar to uh these elevations. So, a little bit more lock and leave um be able uh for folks that um maybe don't want to um have a larger yard or a lot of yard maintenance. So, little bit of diversity in a small project. Um and with that, I'll stand for any questions.

We'll do a staff report real quick and then go to questions. Thank you very much.

Yep. Thank you. Thank you, chair and commissioners. Katie Wright, Planner 3, 205 South 6th Avenue. Uh, Leighton Planning and Consulting LLC on behalf of Endurance Holdings LLC is requesting annexation of parcel R3523601 with a zoning designation of R2 and approval of a preliminary plat application for Traverse Landing Subdivision, a single family residential subdivision with six buildable lots in one common lot. The subject parcel is 1.08 08 acre parcel located about 1,500 ft east of Sme Parkway on the north side of Marblefront Road. The parcel is currently located within the county and within the city's impact area. The parcel is contiguous to city limits. Therefore, an annexation request um is permissible. The applicant is proposing single family residential detached homes which conforms with the purpose statement as specified within the Caldwell city code for community residential R2 zone which states that the R2 zone um accommodates for single family residential. The proposed density of 5.61 dwelling units per acre is compliant with city code which requires a minimum of two dwelling units per acre and a maximum density of eight dwelling units per acre. The subject parcel is currently occupied by a vacant single family home. The property is surrounded on three sides by the previously approved Traverse Landing subdivision, which the applicant touched on, um, and Topaz Ranch subdivision to the south across Marble Front. The subject parcel is located in the neighborhood 2 place type within the comprehensive plan. The neighborhood 2 is the primary residential place type in Caldwell. This encompasses res residential areas that provide an array of low and mid-density housing options.

These neighborhoods are located outside of most commercial centers but should still be connected to nearby services. The design and character of the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding area and as spec specified in the comp plan. And the required R2 zone is a compatible zoning district within the R or the neighborhood 2 place type. And the preliminary plat request is for six buildable lots. um six detached homes and one common lot. The project doesn't have enough lots to uh require open space. Again, as the applicant discussed, and this development is proposing to be part of the existing Traverse Landing, um a planned unit development that was approved in 2024, consisting of 265 single family detach lots and 14 town homes shown in the lower left of the screen. Uh if approved, Traverse Creek would be within the Traverse Landing HOA, allowing them to utilize the neighboring open space and amenities within Traverse Landing. And the development will take access through Traverse Landing development, and none of these lots will have direct access to Marble Front. Due to the size and scope of the development, a traffic impact study was not required at this point in time. And the construction drawings for phase one of Traverse Creek have been approved and staff has reviewed this development for compliance with all site and development standards and has found the proposed development is in compliance with the standards that apply. All utilities are available or will be made available to serve the proposed single family development. Uh political subdivisions including school districts were notified and provided opportunity to comment. Um, the only one that stated anything was Valley View School District. They provided their memo mentioning that this would provide additional pressure to Skyway Elementary, but that this isn't currently at capacity. And no additional information was included about the middle school or the high school. And public notices were sent to all property owners within 500 foot radius of the

property. And staff received no public comments at this time. Staff's initial review found that the proposed project is in conformance with all applicable city codes approval criteria per code and per city code and Idaho code and the adopted comp plan and future land use map and all other applicable city adopted master plans. The planning and zoning commission has the authority to recommend approval or denial of applications based on the approval criteria within Caldwell City Code once they reviewed the record and evidence and heard all public testimony. And I stand for questions. Thank you. Any questions for staff commissioners? Pretty straightforward.

My question, does the the lots proposed match the lots for the other subdivision? Yes, chair and commissioner. They're very similar in size. Any other questions? Okay. I would make a motion if we're ready. Um, no, we got to go public test. Oh, we got to talk about it. Thank you. Oh, the public. I forgot the public. We just got one in neutral. Uh Jack Sutz does not wish to speak. I don't think anybody's here. Okay. So, um you don't need to rebuttal anything unless you want to.

I should uh again, Bonnie Leighton, for the record, I just uh would like to say that we've reviewed the staff report. We're in agreement um with the staff report and the recommendations and we appreciate your this uh time this evening. So, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Anything further from staff? Okay. Motion to move public testimony. Second. All in favor? I. All right. So, let's uh any questions? Commissioners have any concerns? Nothing. Um, okay. So, do we have a motion?

Based upon the testimony and evidence and record in this matter and upon f findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth therein, I do hereby determine and move that the request for&m 25- 13 25. I better put my glasses on. No, that's last one. 12, excuse me. 25-12 and 25 SP25-16 traverse landing subdivision is recommended for approval subject to the conditions of approval as presented or amended. We have a second. Second. Roll call. Whitbeck. Yes. Larson, yes. Armen,

yes. Guyire, yes. Zant, yes. And with that, do I have a motion to adjurnn? So move. Second. All in favor? Hi. Hi.