Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

6 o'clock is planning and zoning commission regular meeting uh Wednesday July 9th 2025. Call to order please. Zamora here. Harmon here. Larson Vance Beck here. All right. And we do want to welcome we have a new commissioner Aaron Vance. Um and I think Joe wanted to share something as well. Oh yes. Thank you Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair. Hello. Hello. Hello. I guess I don't need a mic. I just wanted to welcome our new uh count commission member, Mr. Vance. Thank you for doing this. I know this is not a highpaying job. So, thank you. And uh we welcome your your advice, your review. Oh, there it is. And your your opinions on these things, but we just wanted to say welcome. Thank you. Yep. All right. So with that, we'll move on with the agenda. There's no conf uh actually any conflict of interest declarations from any of the commissioners. No seeing none, we'll move on. No special presentation. It takes us to item five on the agenda. It's consent calendar. Um I would entertain a motion to approve the consent calendar. So moved. Commissioner Whitbeck. Is there a second? Second. Second for Commissioner Bros. Uh any discussion? No. All those in favor say I. I. Any oppose? Motion carries. So now we'll move on to the review of the proceedings. So uh this is a regularly scheduled meeting for the colo planning and zoning commission. We serve both in a decision-making capacity and an advisory capacity to the mayor and city council. There are two types of public hearings that the commission conducts. The first is a legislative hearing whereby we formulate recommendation on land use requests. Our recommendations are then forwarded on to the city council who makes the decisions on these matters. The second type is uh quasi judicial. Um a quasi judicial hearing involves the consideration of a land use request such as an annexation, reszone classification or approval of a subdivision preliminary plaque. Um the

public hearing procedures as required by IDO code are as follows. First, oral and written testimony will be accepted from those who signed up to speak prior to the hearing being declared open. When providing testimony, please come up to the podium, state your name and address and which will be included into the record. Staff will first present a report regarding the application being considered. This is followed by public testimony that begins with the applicant or the applicant's represent representative who will present a summary of the request for no more than 10 minutes. Testimony um of those in support will be taken followed by those in a neutral position and finally those in opposition to the request um will have an opportunity to speak for no more than three minutes. The applicant will then be offered an opportunity to provide a rebuttal testimony. After the rebuttal testimony is given, the public testimony portion of the public hearing may be closed and no new oral or written testimony will be permitted once the motion to close the public hearing uh portion has been made. So with that, we'll move on um with the agenda to old business. We have uh action item. So case number I would to declare this hearing open. Case number A924-14 SP24-5 SU24-22. With that staff report, please Hello. Oh, there we Oh, jeez. There we go. Eat the mic. Um, thank you, Mr. Chair. Before I start, I did want to hand out a physical copy of a late exhibit that you all received via email this afternoon. But just to give you guys this, this is the applicant's response to the staff report. Uh he and I have had a quick discussion about it as well. So I'll also go into a little more detail about that within my presentation, but this is a physical copy just for you. Okay. Thank you. For the record, my name is Joe Dodson.

I'm the principal planner or planning supervisor here at the city of Caldwell. Uh 205 South 6th Avenue is our new address here. As noted, the project, the first project before you tonight is for the Cane Center. Um it is for annexation, plenary plat, and an SUP, a special use permit. The annexation tonight is for approximately 13.1 acres with an initial initial zoning request of R2 and C1 and a preliminary plaque consisting of 21 multif family residential lots and 10 commercial lots and a special use permit to allow for a retail sales store with gasoline in the requested C1 district. A point of clarification, the original, how do I put this? Public notice that went out has different lot counts. I should say lot really delineation still same total number but I had less commercial lots that's because the one that got published was the quoteunquote old one the application has been through a few iterations and we're finally here but it was actually submitted last year so that's why there's been some discrepancy however because it's a recommend recommendation and because the total lot count has not increased there's no judicial issue there so I just want to clarify that for the record as noted the project was originally submitted in 2024 under the old comprehensive plan, but it was also when the comp plan was being redone and completely made over. Because of that, the applicant and staff met multiple times to discuss how that previous project would or would not work. And it typically would generally not work because by the time they'd get to city council, it was going to be after the comprehensive plan that they submitted under was no longer valid. And therefore, their requested map amendment would be requesting to amend a map that no longer existed technically. So, they kind of went back to the drawing board with staff's assistance there of just coordinating what the new comp plan expects as well as what the new codes are going to be, which also happened near that same time frame. And

so, we have the project before you tonight. And for the for the residents that are nearby, that's why the signs changed so many times. That's why it's been continued, I think, three times. It's because the new code is a little robust and there was the comprehensive plan changes, too. So, they're just trying to get their ducks in a row. As far as where this project is located, we'll start there and then zoom in. So, it's located on a 13acre parcel at the southwest corner of the Homedale and Montana intersection. It has frontage to Homedale, Montana and also to Bayuaway at the southeast corner through a cross access agreement slashnote that is on the Aerolleaf subdivision plat. within about a mile of the subject site, there are several developments that are approved and or actively under construction. So, um I won't go through the whole list, but the main one being Verbina Ranch to the west, labeled as number seven, that's why it's a different color. That was recently approved by city council. Um that has about a 3.6 units per acre, I believe, was the density on that. And most of the surrounding area, as you can see by the green color, is single family residential. Um, directly to the south is single family, but it is R2. And then to the east is additional commercial. I guess kind of got ahead of myself there, but to reiterate, it is surrounded by city zoning in all directions. Now, the map doesn't reflect it only because the map hasn't been updated, but it is city zoning on all four sides of this project. R1 is located to the north, northeast, and the east. as well as to the west for Revina Ranch. R2 is located directly to the south and that is the air relief subdivision with C1 neighborhood commercial directly to the east on the opposite corner the southeast corner of this Homedale Montana intersection within the not zoning districts. There's a majority of single family residential as I noted um and three schools that are

within walking distance. Um there's Valley View High School to the northeast, Valley View Middle, and Falcon Ridge south approximately half a mile or so. Then Falcon Ridge is planned to be open this fall. As far as the comprehensive plan, it's really exciting map. We have neighborhood two with everywhere, including the subject site. And neighborhood 2 is considered the primary residential place type within the city of Caldwell. Place type replaced somewhat of the language of future land use designation, but it means essentially the same thing. This place type encompasses residential areas that provide an array of low and mid-density housing options. Neighborhoods located outside of commercial centers, but they should be well integrated and well connected to nearby services. Neighborhood 2 is the most prevalent place type within the city. They should develop to be highly connected and allow for a variety of housing options. In general, less dense housing is found in areas further from major roadways and corridors and increases in density closer to major roads. Commercial services are low to medium intensity and are generally located at the intersections of major arterial and collector roads, but should be highly accessible to the surrounding neighborhoods. Furthermore, residential densities within this place type should be 2 to eight units per acre and unless a higher density is requested through the available density bonus program. Through the density bonus program, the maximum density is up to 12 units per acre. The applicant is proposing a residential density of 9.6 units per acre on the subject site through the density bonus program. And I will discuss that in a later slide because that is brand new to the city and this is the first one I believe the commission has heard or will have heard. As mentioned before, the applicant did originally submit this under the old comp plan. Now, the original submitted submitt did include a map amendment. It

no longer does. So, I think again some of the original public noticing included a map amendment application number that is no longer valid. It's voided out. No longer applicable. Since the comprehensive plan is no longer applicable, the applicant did have to revise their requested zoning as well as their density and remove the comprehensive plan map amendment. Overall, staff finds that the proposed development is generally consistent with the comp plan with the inclusion of the commercial at the corner and a mid medium high density residential development in the rest of the site that generally transitions from that to the single family that's planned in the area. As far as zoning is concerned, as noted, the applicant is requesting C1 and R2, which will match what's directly adjacent to the site. Uh the C1 area is proposed to be approximately 6 acres with this R2 area being approximately 7 acres, give or take. C1 is generally proposed along the frontages of both Home Day and Montana, including the intersection, with R2 being internal to the site and along the west and south boundaries. The purpose of the R2 community residential zone is to provide areas in accordance with the comp plan that accommodate a larger variety of lot sizes and housing types. Purpose of the C1 neighborhood commercial zone is to provide areas in accordance with the comp plan that accommodate small-cale lower inensity retail, restaurant, office, and serviceoriented businesses that are meant to serve the day-to-day needs of nearby residential neighborhoods. The proposed C2 and R2 zones are consistent with the comp plan, meaning that they are listed as compatible zoning districts within the neighborhood to place type. So, they are good there. And the proposed R2 zone matches the zoning to the south. And again, note the C1 matches what's to the east. Now, to the actual development being proposed. Let's start with the proposed uses. The Cane Center project proposes the following land uses. First, the multif family residential within

fourplex and sixplex buildings. Secondly, a gas station and convenience store at the very hard corner. Um, west of that is a drive-through restaurant that's being proposed. And then they have multiple build to suit commercial retail lots, meaning that there's no enduser anticipated right now, but they are zoning them C1 to accommodate future commercial uses. The proposed multif family residential land uses are permitted within the R2 zone. And so forplex and sixplex are considered respectively. I think it's multif family dwelling forplex and multif family dwelling small scale. The drive-thru is a permitted land use within the C1 zone, but the gas station when retail store requires an SUP. So through that, the applicant has submitted all of those required applications. The proposed preliminary plat includes 34 total lots, 21 for the multif family, 10 commercial lots, and three common lots. Within the 21 residential lots, 23 buildings are proposed, six forplexes and 17 sixplexes for a total of 126 dwelling units and a gross density of, as I noted before, approximately 9.6 units per acre. As noted, only two commercial uses are proposed at this time, the drive-through and the gas station. Uh, both of those areas will be analyzed in more detail with future submitt. So, actually analyzing the site once a specific site plan is proposed for each of those. The remaining commercial areas, like I noted, are built to suit. So none of those can be thoroughly reviewed at this time only because what's on the plat right now, the actual plat won't have the boxes of the buildings. And so it's just lots and then future users will determine how big or small of a a site and building that they need. At this time, staff does not have any concern with the future commercial uses as they'll just have to comply with the C1 zoning district. Um in addition all dimensional standards of the proposed development were

reviewed against the R2 and the C1 zoning districts and they were compliant with all regulations within article 5 and six respectively. Uh that would be for lot size, frontage requirements, lot dimensions and building height. Sorry, let me go here. Landscaping and open space. The applicant is proposing approximately 1.68 acres of qualifying open space which is approximately 12.8%. According to the open space requirements of the new multif family development code, the total open space between the baseline 10% and a per unit requirement is approximately 2 acres, which would be 15.3%. So they are slightly under. As you saw within my staff report, I've recommended a couple different options. The applicant and I and I'm sure engineering as well plan to continue to work through that and where we can fit that in or not fit that in. Since the original response that you guys have for you, the applicant and I have discussed and there's some agreement on going forward with the recommendation that I have made regarding some of that extra parking. Um, there are other areas that can be modified too. Point being, this is an ongoing thing. They will try to do that as best they can prior to city council or risk being continued by city council. The new multif family development code also requires a minimum 60 square feet of private open space per unit. That's not to say they have 126 units and then overall average is just 60 per. That's one way to do it. But the actual code language requires each to have at least minimum 60 60 square foot. So that means their patio and decks have to be at least that large. Some of them are from what I remember reviewing and some of them are not. That has been conditioned. It's been discussed. They're already having the architect work on their floor plans to accommodate this requirement. Staff also did um make recommendations. Oh, yep. About the open space. And I just wanted to reiterate that we will continue to work with them because open space calculations can be nuanced. The

way that they calculated is not how I calculate it. The way that I calculate it may not be exactly how somebody else calculates it. Point being, there's a little nuance there. We will work through it especially as it's new code and we will get this buttoned up as best that we can. As far as general landscaping, trees, shrubs, buffers, things like that. U there's only one minor tree count deficiency and that would be between the commercial lots in the center and the two residential. There's just they just need to have additional trees. That was the only landscaping issue. As far as amenities within the open space, they are proposing eight total amenities. a clubhouse, a pool, a tot lot, physical fitness facility, fire pits with seating areas, a picnic area, electric vehicle charging stations, an internal pedestrian network that is beyond what code would require, and a dog park. The dog park was not previously listed in the staff report because apparently I am blind and did not see that and that is my fault. So that is a total of eight amenities being proposed which leads to density bonus. So again, comprehensive plan and the density bonus program or I should say the density bonus program that is mentioned within the comprehensive plan and now in code 1003-18 is the only way to increase your density within the city at this time. Previous you could use a planned unit development. You can no longer use the planned unit development code or process to increase your density. Now, it's this this new code. Uh we've gone over it multiple times through the code amendments, but just to reiterate, it has been considered and named by both staff, the public, and developers to be a harder bar to clear in order to get the increase in density. Essentially, the old PUD code you submit for a PUD and you meet their few criteria, which was like extra a little extra open space, couple amenities, and extra parking, and you'd get your bonus. And you could go all the way to the max. There was not a oh you could only get

50% of it or whatever. You would get the full allowable density bonus. Now they have to meet certain criteria and gain points and and acrew points to get a certain percentage of density bonus. And because they are proposing 9.6 units per acre, they will need at least 1.6 points, which essentially two points. Again, they could go up to 12 units per acre through this program, but they are not they're thankfully not going that high. These are the specific criteria that is in code. So, you have the affordable units, universal design, amenities, housing variation, open space, regional connectivity, and inclusion of specific uses. The three categories that this applicant is proposing to use is universal design, amenities, and the open spaces or sorry, regional connectivity. Specific to the site, these are just some of the examples of their floor plan and one of their elevations. They are proposing three and a half density bonus points while not utilizing all of them. the amenities, the eight that I had mentioned before, the regional pathway and all units to be constructed with universal design standards. So all units to be constructed with universal design, not the first floor or half, all of them. That alone is two points. The regional pathway is half a point and the amenities provide one point. So again, that's three and a half. They're utilizing about two points of that. Upon review of the materials including the floor plans, the landscape plans, site plan, elevations, etc., uh the staff does find that the proposed plan is due to pick compliance with all of these proposed criteria and therefore may request the density bonus because the main component of that is the for universal design. I did want to iterate what those criteria are for the commission. So, first is zeroep

entrances into the units. At least one entrance shall have a 36-inch door. Interior doors are required to have 32-in clearances except for a door that provides access to a closet of fewer than 15 square feet. A maximum of a/ inch vertical change at any threshold. Each hallway shall have a width of at least 36 in um and shall be level with ramped or beveled changes at each doorway and then have at least one bathroom on the main floor that is accessible to a wheelchair. So the applicant has proposed all the units with those criteria, but in addition, they've actually proposed all of the first floor units to be ADA compliant, which is taking these and going another step further. However, because that component within the density bonus program has a higher threshold than the first floor units are about 18.5%. They can't use that for any density bonus. So that is just a bonus for that community because these are so imperative to the project. These are something that one are conditioned to be complied with and that they will be verified every step of the way. So at the final plat stage, at construction drawing stage and most importantly at the building permit stage when all departments will be able to review what is actually being submitted and comply with these building requirements for the universal design. As far as access and public services, the proposed development will have adequate access both vehicular and pedestrian and all utilities are available or will be available as in uh noted within the engineering staff report. There was a traffic impact study required and it was reviewed and approved and it does anticipate the recent development in the area. The original one was I believe done in July of 24. It was approved and submitted later that year of 24. Um after Ravina Ranch got approved, the applicant discussed with engineering and they updated the TIS trip generation to reflect the recent development in this

area and that has been reviewed by the city engineer and approved because of the planned roundabout at the intersection of Homedale, Montana and a couple other things were already in the staff report from the previous TIS. There was not additional mitigation required. Now, I'm sure if you have specific questions on that, Haley would be much smarter and better about that than I am. I know enough to be dangerous for transportation stuff here. As far as public hearing notifications, uh, it's been notified per state statute, otherwise we would not be here tonight. So, agenda's been posted, the site has been posted, and the public noticing in general to the neighbors have been done. As far as agency notifications, they were notified earlier in the year. Um, only Valley View and ITD responded with any sort of comments at all. Uh, Valley View noted no opposition or support, but did note that future projections of elementary school capacity in the area is of concern for them due to just increased enrollment and that approved development may exceed capacity at multiple schools. And other letters, I think this one was a little older, they put within 2029, so some years out relatively, but they did note that concern. ITD did not comment except noting that there that the proposed project did not trigger a TIS for ITD despite being within a mile or so of 20 or sorry highway 55. There were three letters of opposition submitted prior to this hearing. They noted concerns with the following. A proposal of multif family dwellings in general. The anticipated increase in traffic with and without the planned uh roundabout. uh proposed connection into Bayou Way along the south boundary and general concerns with increased traffic of all developments nearby, not just this one. As far as sight specific conditions are concerns, I did note one. It was really just a recommendation regarding now that I'm thinking about it.

The trash enclosures. That's right. I forgot was about the trash enclosures which is one of the concerns noted here. So the first is cross access easement and agreement for commercial lots at the corner because right now there's not one shown on the plat and I did not see a plat note. So it was just a sight specific condition to add that as well as correct the open space. As we've discussed they're a little short. They've got a few options to get there and I think we the project can get there relatively easily. Um I'll skip trash enclosures for a second. Uh I did note a requirement to meet the architectural standards that are outlined within the multif family development code. Talks about multiple materials. um multiple colors. The only one that they weren't compliant with was the multiple materials. The applicant has stated in their response that they do actually have three materials, but you just it's hard to see on the elevation. So, I believe that they'll discuss that tonight to make sure that's clear for the commission. As far as the trash enclosures, there are two that were of concern to staff. One along the south boundary closest to Aerolleaf and then one along the west boundary that would be closest to Gerbina Ranch once those homes get constructed. Obviously, trash enclosures can be loud for anybody that's ever lived in multif family or been around a commercial area. Sometimes the loudest thing in the entire development can be when the trash truck comes in and picks those and slams those down. So, staff wanted to ask the applicant to move those to a better location, get them away from the property line. Uh the applicant in their response did note that they would review that and move where those are located. The last one is italicized and separated because I forgot to include this. And so with any motion tonight, I ask that commission add this condition because I completely forgot that the original exhibits reflect their original request and not this one. And through the many iterations of the project, I think we just missed this overall. So that would be highly appreciated with that. If that if commission recommends approval of the subject request for annexation,

preliminary plat and SGP that this request is subject to the conditions as specified within the findings of fact conclusions law and order of decision and any additional conditions including the one I requested as well as any that you may add tonight. And with that, I will stand for any questions or we can kick it straight to the applicant however you'd like to go. Thank you. Um commissioners, at this time typically have our applicant come up and then we'll ask both of them questions. Um, so with that, uh, Brent, um, come on up for presentation of, uh, no more than 10 minutes, please. Name and address into the record first. Thank you. My name is Brent Orton. Address is 1738 Sunnydale Place in Caldwell. And thank you. It's great to be with you tonight. Um, we have with us tonight uh, one of the a member of the owner group, could be more than one. Um, and uh, the owner group is Royal ProC LLC. And this is a group of um, Idaho um, business folks who do a lot of things and um, they're great. They're a great owner group. They've been really good to um, as Joe mentioned, we submitted originally last fall um, last August and um, there's a legally you can say, hey, we want to be heard under the old code. Um we were approached in the um Morgan and Joe got got with us and said, "Hey, the comp plan's changing. Here's the problem. There's not really a comp plan designation to land on. You're going to be doing a map amendment to a no longer existent." You know, it just and um so after meeting with the neighbors a couple times last summer, um this is why there's a lot of changes happening. We did send a letter to update the neighbors on where we've landed so far. Um and so trying to keep everyone well informed. That's not required by code or anything. We just um want to communicate. Well, um so let's see. Does it I can use this. All right. Thank you. Um Joe covered this. I'm going to go through several slides quickly that Joe um covered very well.

And and by the way, for Joe's help, Joe substantially has worked on this case and helped us a ton. Morgan as well helped us with it. And we just want to express a lot of appreciation for very thorough especially with helping us navigate the new code uh amendment. The new comprehensive plan is a really cool um innovative comprehensive plan. Um we're still learning the code and so we've we've uh our open space thing as an example. We've we made a few mistakes that uh um the staff has been great to help us to identify and work on. I'm going to go ahead and move on from this. Um I will say one thing that um the commercial uses we've proposed are the ones we think fit on the site. We have the little drive-through restaurant that's only big enough to be probably like a a coffee shop. It's not going to be able to be a Dutch Brothers. Um we've done some work for Dutch Brothers and their queuing is way too much for uh um just the brand has huge following and and so we can't we won't be can't be putting one of those there and they wouldn't from working with them. We're aware that they wouldn't uh come to a site like that. Um we're open-minded to the owner group is openminded to commercial users of um any that fit in the C1 zone. Um, we did have the traffic study include two more drive-throughs that could be on the other side of the Phyllis Canal there. Uh, let's see if I go back. Is that home? Um, in order to um just be ready to accommodate um to make sure we're covering the traffic impacts that could happen if we have more users that want that kind of a use drive-thru. Um, as you know, traffic generation from commercial users, drive-throughs are kind of at the top of traffic generators. they're one of the most intense generators and then down to like an insurance office or maybe a engineer's office or something which would be at the low end of the traffic generator list. And so we've just done a cross-section of those uses to try to make sure we're representing the possible possibilities that could happen. Joe covered this already. I

won't I won't uh go more into that. um the comprehensive plan N2 um designation, future land use designation and Jill covered that well, but this is this is a cool comprehensive plan that uh has been created and adopted with um a lot of guidance frankly more it had a lot to do with the code. So the staff had to work really hard from the adoption uh in February of the code or of the comp plan to get code installed that would implement the comprehensive plan because it was just not separable. you couldn't really adopt this comp plan and not have new code. Is that fair? Um, all right. So, this just identifies the C1 areas, um, neighborhood commercial areas and the R2 areas. Um, we, uh, one of the things we did is we increased some of the commercial buildings and decreased some of the residential buildings, some of the multif family buildings. We also had some larger um, like a 12plex. We reduced that down to comply with the new codes and comp plan. And so there's nothing bigger than uh six plexes in the development at this point. Um you notice that we've proposed different lots for this. Our notion about how that would work is that there would be um the capability for us to sell lots and sell units, but it will all be managed by one management entity. So everything will look the same, be maintained the same, and it's just a um that's kind of how we make that investment opportunity work for for the people who own the buildings and then provide a lot of uh very nice residential uh multif family residential for people who are um at the stage of life where an apartment is most fitting for them. Um a quick word on the why the cane center. You know that the cane center is there right now. It was a veterinary training facility and um I'll just jump forward uh to a little more. These are some of the notable people who worked at the cane center for years. So this is veterinary professors, veterinary research um and um and students, veterinary students um through University of Idaho. And so this is just a list of several of the names

of people who are very notable in the um existence and operation and um of the uh Kane Center um including Art Kane who was the banker um uh and um a dean and there are several others. We we are using the names of these folks several of the names of these folks for street names just to kind of keep uh remembrance of what was here before and as a long part of Caldwell's history. Um she'll cover the amenities. I won't u be labor that since I need to keep um moving on the for time sake. Um there's a the pool and etc. and then the nice landscape area you see in the bottom right. Um and then an amenity area that's outside of the Pioneer Irrigation District's easement for the um Phyllis Canal. One thing that's notable too, and we have worked with Pioneer on this, is that we are sharing some of their easement space for our ride out just to get as far away from the corner and the roundabout as possible. But we also propose that to be a write out only um so that it wouldn't have a negative impact on the roundabout when it's constructed. Um here's just a floor plan. Um and those I think are in the packet. Uh but each is meant to meet the universal design standards and the ground floor ones will be capable of being ADA most especially because they'll be wheelchair accessible on the ground floor. Um the rest of them are basically the idea of this universal design is that people could age in place. Um, while they may be able to navigate stairs, they may they'll have an easier time getting around and maneuvering and using um their their uh apartment here. Um, this is uh one of the floor plans you see a board and bat. The the three you uh surfaces are board and bat, hardy board sighting, and a stucco band. And um we'll we'll have more contrasting colors and make that easier to see before uh city council. But there's the four and six plexuses. Um, something else notable that I'd love as the neighbors speak and I want to thank them for coming out. I know some of them are are not in favor of the project which we

respect. Um, it's tough to see so much growth and new traffic and things change and your views change. We we understand that we're not pretending that that's not one of the difficult challenges of new growth. Um, but we have we have designed these buildings to have no windows on the outward faces. There's plenty of windows for people to use on the inside and sideways faces of the buildings. Um, the intent here was to not create a situation where people felt uh where adjacent neighbors felt like people were able to look out their window and look over their yard and and whatnot. Um, I would be interested to know as the neighbors testify if they think this is ugly and they'd rather see windows, then by all means, we'll we can include that in our modifications to the redesign of the buildings as we're getting our patios to code required size and stuff. Um, but that's what we've done right now with the intent to um protect the neighbors from from something that could feel intrusive. We've also we've also eliminated on the south boundary, we've modified all those to be two-story buildings only um in order to um again eliminate an imposing structure next door to a single family dwelling. Um, additionally, our site is a little bit lower than the um Aerolaf. Aeraf elevated their site when they built there. And so we've done a we've done a quick analysis um which I'll show later in the presentation um to illustrate how that will feel a lot like it's only 3 ft different than being literally on par with um their their first floor being adjacent to the second floor. So I'll show that. Um commercial lots are clustered towards the primary streets. This is a nice transition from the single family dwelling towards commercial one that's already there. and institutional uses with the school um and the uh LDS seminary building. Um okay, I'm going to skip over that. Joe covered it well. Um okay, so here's the slide that I mentioned. Um what I'd love to do is get

in there with a survey instrument and survey so I can give you precise numbers, but basically what we've done is taken pictures and scaled these. And that's a six-foot vinyl fence at Aerol Leaf. And this is we're looking at Arrow Leaf from the Verbina Ranch site um uh toward looking towards the east. So you can see um the second the two-story building um down in the bottom right you see that's about what we're about four feet above the property line elevation at the um if we go six feet down from the fence that's shown. Usually finished floors are a little bit higher than that but we're just you know to make sure that we're being fair about it. Um then we go down to the property line and the elevation there is 2466 above mean sea level. Um then we go down continue down um where we anticipate the finished floors will be at 2463 and that's just based on kind of balancing and massing the site. I I'm not sure it'll turn out exactly like this. It actually may be better than this. I do I don't anticipate it being any worse than this. Okay. I' I've run out of time, Mr. Chairman. So, I think that Joe covered everything else that we need and happy to to stand for questions. If you would permit me to make just one more comment, I'd like to just mention traffic engineering has provided us with a couple of traffic mitigation requirements that will tide this intersection over or meant to assist with the traffic between now and when the roundabouts built. We recognize there may be some time lag between that. Um, our buildout in the traffic study says will be built out at 2030. Um, that's really tough to know. It's going to be market dependent. It may be longer than that. I don't I don't anticipate being uh sooner than that. Um but we will be building a eastbound left turn lane. So as you're traveling away from the intersection towards 10th from u we'll build build a turn lane there is one of the requirements that engineering has given us um which we agree with to make sure that that traffic can left turning traffic into our site forgive me can be separated from the um home deal traffic and then also a um an eastbound

right turn lane at the intersection. What this will do is separate the Homedale traffic um that's traveling through and uh there's already a left turn. So, it'll give each each different um traffic stream its own lane and that'll help to amilarate some of the problems. The problem with not having that is that your right turners and your left turners, if they're all mixed together, they're inhibiting each other and it lets you spread that queue out too. So, it'll help to amilarate the problems until the roundabout spills. With that, I'll Thank you. I'll shut up and stand for your question. Well, I appreciate that cuz I know there's questions. I have questions about traffic and that's definitely public comments around that. So, at this time, um, commissioners, any questions? Commissioner Vance, I have a question about the, uh, entrances into the commercial lots next to Homedale. The looking at the map here, it looks like the width is the width of that um, entrance and exit, I'm assuming. Is that compliant with what's needed for a commercial site? Looking at it from at the other or the other entrances across the street? Yes, I I I'm trying to remember exactly what those widths were, but th those widths would be in compliance and we'll verify that at the time of construction document as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Vance, I will point out that our ride out is not a full commercial approach. Presumably, we would assume to cut that in half mostly because we're trying to we just want it to be right out and we're also working with Pioneer to make sure it meets their needs for their ditch rider road. Thank you. I have a couple clarifying questions real quick. Um, so Joe, I know earlier in your presentation you had the the bonus density stuff. I honestly I just couldn't see. It was too small for me. Um, so can you tell me what the the thresholds are for amenities that would um generate points? Sure. Yeah, Commissioner Zamora. So the criteria says that it has to be basically twice what the subdivision code would require. Our general subdivision code doesn't require any amenities. So if it was just a plinary plat for single family, there'd be zero amenities required by

code. However, this is multif family subdivision. The minimum is four based upon the number of units. They proposed eight. And so there's still double what the code is, which I told them they had to do in order to get that one point of density bonus for that. Thank you. And how do we define how how how is the amenities defined? There are multiple categories within the multif family development code. uh we're writing like active open space, passive open space. There's like uh other categories that are all part of what are available and then there's also a caveat of things that just kind of make sense of that I didn't write an exhaustive list because it's the code would never end. But there are multiple categories and they've provided at least one within each which is the minimum required plus obviously they've done double the amount overall. Okay. Um, I'll open it up to other commissioners right now. Commissioner, you Commissioner But okay. Uh, engineering on page 27 of the application, it describes the traffic impact study and indicates the Montana Homedale intersection will fail in 2028 unless the planned roundabout is constructed. Where is that roundabout on the capital improvement plan? Commissioner Commissioner Bros and um, other commissioners. That's a great question and thank you for asking about that roundabout. We've actually are budgeting to do the design of that roundabout this upcoming fiscal year. So, we are moving that roundabout design and construction forward, anticipating that the roundabout at Homedale and Montana will be designed 2026, begin construction 2027. So, so by the end of 2027, it should be uh operational. That's our current plan. Yes. I I have more. Hold on. Okay. Uh, the Indiana Homedale roundabout is expected to operate at

level of service F during the AM peak hour as a single lane roundabout. And the application says there are no improvements programmed. That's in the traffic impact study on page 126. Is is that correct? for for the Indiana home deal. Yes. Let me just look um pull up. I have the CIP in front of me. So, I just want to verify really fast. We are not planning on moving forward with the Indiana roundabout in the near future. Okay. Thank you. And Oh. Oh, sorry. I was just sorry. I was checking to make sure if it's on our on our CIP. Yep. Okay. Uh page 125 of the application details the traffic to impact study and addresses the 10th Avenue and Homedale intersection and describes that intersection as failing by 2027. And they note that it already has a high crash frequency and there are no improvements programmed at that intersection. Is that is that also correct? That is correct. Okay. Well, oh, wait. What? Oh, I'm sorry. I misheard you. Um, 10th. My apologies, Bros. Commissioner Bros. I misheard you. That was um that intersection is being constructed as part of the neighboring uh development. they are going to be constructing that intersection um as part of their first phase of development. So, do we have a rough idea of when that will be operational? They're coordinating with engineering right now on the design. I expect them to be submitting those plans very soon.

I suspect that that will be constructed and operational by the end of next year. By the end of 2026. Yes. Okay. Um Mr. Chairman, Yes, sorry if you're pardon. It's um if you're willing to allow me to make a comment, it could be helpful to answer commission. Um I do I would note that the updated traffic study also in regards to Homedale and um Oh, come on. Brain by Pep's house. Come on. Thank you. Holy cow. That was a crazy one. Um Homedale in Indiana. The traffic study does uh identify that uh just right-hand turn slip lanes at that intersection would help would ameliate the traffic problem there. So it doesn't have to be beefed up to a full two-lane roundabout to to solve that problem. Thank you. U commissioners questions. Um Mr. um what did your I mean I in construction and everything and there's always delays and everything like that. What uh is your projected timeline of completion for this project? Um if it were approved, yeah, if we were to be approved, um we would immediately begin on construction drawings um and build infrastructure. Um the construction drawings, I anticipate we would we would have some offseason work to do on the Phyllis Canal. We have to widen the Phyllis Canal. Also, there's some utility work to do there. Um there's already a water line that runs through this. the the developer before we submit an application um they gave an ement to the city and it allowed us to when I worked for the city it allows us to connect zone three through together um which is helpful to that uh area so we'll serve water for that corner from um zone two and then zone three is upstream of the canal there um we so we've got that constraint so I would anticipate that it'll probably take us in the very best case scenario we'd be able to start building infrastructure um in 202 2026.

Uh, and it will probably take quite a while to acquire the commercial users and to acquire um we'll also be relying on investors um for to come to the table to help uh build the buildings. We do have some possibilities of um of some investors that we're talking to now that are some of them larger investors that could make it happen uh more quickly. But I guess to get to the point, I don't think we'll see anything happen faster than late 2026. Um, and I certainly don't think we're going to be in a buildout scenario, no matter who our investor is, before the projected um 2030. So maybe we get a few of those. I don't I I I could be wrong, but that's that would be my expectation. And you're just referring to the commercial lots, not the residential. Correct. Um, the whole thing. The whole thing. Whole thing. Yeah, we would definitely pursue both of them simultaneously. And then if as we acquire users to to buy or rent space, then we would be pursuing construction. Okay. Thank you. I have a question. Sorry, I'm having technical difficulties here. Um so they're helping me out. Um so one of the amenities that I heard was and I don't have it in front of me now. um the regional pathways was one of the amenities, but in the staff report and I don't know specifically what page when you talked about um that there was a there was a note in there in which there was no connectivity to the neighboring subdivision. And so I guess my wondering thought is how are we rationalized that as being regional connectivity if it's not actually connecting to the neighboring um area? Mr. Chair, great question. Um I guess I should have explained that a little better in the staff report. So, Verbina Ranch that was approved to the west is including their segment that will connect all the way from Moss and like the north side of the schools there all the way through their site up to the very southwest corner of this site. So, they will connect the my initial comment regarding it not showing connectivity is they show it stubbing

right to the south boundary. That's not accurate. it will have to kind of turn into the west southwest corner which they've already noted that they'll address and work with verbina ranch to make sure that the slope as well as the location of that connection point matches so there will be that regional connectivity. So is there is that conditioned is one of your conditions? Yes sir. Okay. Any other questions for applicant or staff from commissioners? If not um thank you. So we'll move on to the rest of public testimony. So we have individuals signed up in favor. Um, we have Tanya Orton who signed up and not to speak. Uh, and David Orton didn't check. Would you like to speak, David? You know, I would. All right, come on up. Name and address and no more than three minutes, please. Davidson, one of the things that I wanted to address that is a big uh that I got to work on was not actually able to be used as a bonus density point, but is an extremely important point for the city of Cwell and Greater Valley in general is the ADA um ADA construction of all of the first apartments. What that means is that people who are aging in our community that can no longer climb stairs, ADA requirements will allow people who are in wheelchairs to get in and out of those homes and live there comfortably as opposed to uh trying to make things work with ramps and other devices in older constructions, you know. uh and that is that is something that I don't know that we've really taken into account the explosive growth in the city of Cwell in particular. uh that is just an enormous uh I've had an opportunity in my career to work with uh making things accessible to people with disabilities including you know blindness and and and mobility and even

finger dis disabilities and that is something that while it's not in the code is going to be a big bonus and a draw for people who are aging in place here in Caldwell who are uh disabled who have disabled children and uh that is what I wanted to note. Thank you. Thank you. All right, we have one person signed up. So that was everybody who signed up in favor. I have one person signed up in neutral that wishes to speak. Cindy Tinker. I'm sorry. Was that in favor or this was in neutral? Um I had one person signed up in neutral. Hello Cindy Tinker 1203 Talon Court. Thank you. Um, I was neutral because I am against the gas station and the convenience store. That does not need to be there. There are five gas stations uh within four miles of us. We don't need another one. It brings crime. Couple of years ago, there was an explosion in Idaho in a small town. Couple people died. I just don't see the need for that. I feel like something else should go there. We take pride in our neighborhood. I spend a lot of money and time, my husband and I, in our neighborhood. I like to see it kept a quiet place. And I don't see how that could happen with that. Um, and maybe something like a sitdown restaurant. There are a lot of kids that go to school. might be nice for them to come by after school, have something to do besides get in trouble at the convenience store. I just And also, um, there are no easements on Montana. You have to stick your car almost out in front when you're going left. Every morning I'm like edging out there. So,

that's also an issue because those fence lines back in the day just right up butted up against the sidewalks. Um, let's see. And also, um, I how many parking places are going in these, uh, businesses? Because once the TI is put in there, we don't know what's going in there. So different things depending on if it's a hair salon, you're going to have to have more parking spaces and something else wouldn't require that. So I feel like we need to be careful with those parking spaces as we go forward and decide what's going to go in there. And um last I saw that they were doing board and batten harden board and stucco finishes. And it would be nice to have three architectural elements in place in these buildings just to make them look a little nicer and it's not going to cost that much more. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Um so that was a she was the only person that signed up in uh neutral. So we move on to several people signed up in favor. So I'll go down the list. Uh Scott West opposition opposition. I'm sorry I I meant opposition. Uh I I misspoke. I was um looking at the sheet too quickly. Uh opposition um name, address, and then you'll have three minutes. Scott. Uh my name is Scott West, 16709 Ryland Avenue, and I live in the Hartley. And I did bring some of my communication. Thank you. But it's actually So I I have two uh two major concerns. One is traffic and one is the set back in building height. And it looked like the building height has been reduced to twotory. Is that correct? Is the setback

been changed from 10 ft? It's working on that. Yeah, it's 15 right now. We're working on that. Okay. If if that's the case, then I don't have any concerns with that except for traffic. And I did want to bring up on traffic that on uh currently on Montana, if you go up to Montana to Carter, most of the traffic turns left on Carter to go down towards Napa and the freeway. That's the fastest way to the freeway. So now when the 55 gets revised here, that will be a right turn only. So that means nobody, all the traffic that's currently going up to take a left can't take a left anymore. So that means they're going to have to go back down to the roundabout, go all the way over to Indiana and to go back up to get to Carter. So I wanted to make sure that was a valid point because that means you have three neighborhoods no longer to be able to go up. They have to go down to the roundabout. The new grade school, all that traffic has to go down to the roundabout. Okay? And Valley View at the very top up there, Gym Academy also now has to go down to the roundabout. So all that needs to be thought about on how much traffic is it going to be pushing on that roundabout. Uh now also of course the thousand homes that are going in uh with Rabina Ranch and now we're going to add this apartment complex all right there. My second concern on traffic right there would be the right exit only going out of the gas station onto Montana. Um, you've got a high school kitty corner to that. A lot of the kids are going to go in there to get coffee and such. Now, you're putting a lot of pressure just on the other exit. If people go out and take a right to go on Montana, and their original intent is to go uh north, that means they're going to have to go through the Heartleaf or Arrow Leaf neighborhood to turn around. So to me,

that is a little bit of danger for families and kids that are in there having an an excessive amount of traffic that it's going to turn into that neighborhood to turn around because they took a right hand only and they need to get back to go to the other direction. So that's my concerns. Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. Um we have Dave Marle signed up um in opposition and chose not to speak. Is that still true? Okay. And then JT ShraMM not not wanting to speak. Okay. but also in opposition. Um, Dan Diaz um would like to speak. Come on up. You have name and address into the record and you'll have three minutes. Yeah. My name is Dan Diaz 1220 Talon Courtwell Idaho. Uh, retired chief district attorney investigator. I retired in 2019. I have some documents I'd like to pass on to everybody here along. Thank you. I also have three pictures, but I don't know how. Yeah, I'm not sure we'll have that capacity. The three pictures would be actually the first three of that document that I just gave you guys. Um I'm here with regards to the health and safety of the area. Okay. And uh let me explain that. Um, if you look in the the first picture that you got on that I just gave you guys, you can see the relationship of the Phyllis canal to where the pumps are going to be, there are underground tanks that hold the petrol, okay? And those leak, okay? And so I I the other articles that I have there, three different articles, and it's just a matter of time as to when they're going to leak. We don't know whether it's going to be 5 years, 15 years, 30 years, 50 years, but at some point they're going to leak. And when they leak, it's going to go into the canal and all those particulates are going to be carried

downstream to every lot, every uh subdivision, every crop downstream. Okay. So, this is going to be possibly a huge health and safety issue with regards to this. Okay. Um the and not only the health and safety, but then you've also got the cost for cleanup. Okay. which there's one article in there that talks about the cost which it's enormous. So those are that's one of my largest concerns is the health and safety. I don't want gas particulates being sprayed on my lawn and then having my grandchildren playing on my lawn. Okay, that that's my concern because it they do leak. Okay, and that's what those articles that I shared with you guys talk about. Okay. Uh it's a huge problem throughout the United States and throughout the world with these underground tanks leaking and we're talking feet the distance from the canal to where these buried tanks are going to be. That's a major problem in my opinion. Okay. Um that's uh I ask you actually I ask you all to do your own research with regards to this also. Okay. And this is just a potential problem in the future that could happen. Okay. And then we're going to have a big mess. Okay. Okay. And I'm trying to help to prevent that. Um, but please do your own research because there's tons out there with regards to linking leaking buried tanks. Um, going to move on now to the single lane roundabout. Okay. There's not that's not going to have enough capacity in my opinion. Okay. Currently the Homedale gets backed up. Okay. When school is in session and or when it's it's entering or when they're leaving. I've been having problems getting out of my subdivision. Okay. So, now we're going to add Verbana Ranch with all their units. We're going to add this. We're going to have people coming to That's your time. I'll let you finish your last sentence. Okay. People coming to this and so we're

going to be making more traffic at this same location here. Okay. Um, thank you. That was your three minutes. Okay. Well, you guys let him continue on afterwards, but I would expect the same, but apparently not. that um it it was a response to a question we were going to ask. So um we have Pep Weight um signed up to speak Pepe 1910 East Homeell Road, southwest corner of Homeell in Indiana. We also own 10 acres in the northeast corner of South Indiana Homeell that's agricultural and we're farming now. I appreciate your um your goals. Your mission statement is to preserve high quality of life for its residents, workers, and visitors. Thank you for that. Um, I've learned a lot since we've had this introduction of this development down here. And I am concerned about the same things that these previous gentlemen are concerned about. We live on the corner. We we had to give we gave up our wealth to our agriculture for the roundabout. It's only it's only a onelane roundabout. It doesn't provide access to keep traffic flowing. were affected every day because of that. And just as of a couple of months ago, I didn't realize there was a roundabout planned for Homeell and Montana, but a single is not going to work. It needs to be a double at least. I'm against the development at this point. Um, which I could be maybe later on, but I agree with Mr. Das about the canal and the gas station. We have agricultural. We get our irrigation water from that. I'm concerned about that. And if you look at the map, they've only got two entrances. If I if I'm reading this right, they've got an entrance by that coffee shop. And I'm not a coffee drinker, but I've seen the traffic that has uh down by Walmart with that Dutch Brothers. And there's there's cars and everything all everywhere. You can't turn left. There's a stoplight on on 10th Avenue. Then they have to go that way. And you can't turn right

because you go right into the intersection and cloud. There's at least 15 buses that the high school has during the school year. There's seven or eight buses from the middle school. I was told that there's buses from the high school that have to go to the middle school to get the students or vice versa. So, you have everything going to that intersection and I don't feel it is prepared properly to to take all that traffic. And I'm concerned about up the entrance to where the grade school is. There's not a pedestrian crossing with flashing lights like they have in front of the high school. I'm concerned about the safety of the children in our area and so is a high school. So is a school board. So I just want you to reconsider and I would really like to know I appreciate your questions Mr. Bros that you asked this gal and I also would like to know what what are the things that that contribute to your decision of whether or not you approve of this development? I mean, I don't think you make the final decision, but you recommend to the city. Is that correct? Correct. To the to council. So, what how do you make your decision of the recommendation to the city council is my question. Yeah. So, uh this opportunity for you to just provide us information, but as part of this process, we do deliberate. So, you'll watch us deliberate as we make a recommendation here shortly. You're going to do it right tonight. are we will ultimately make a decision on this case um that will go to council. Yeah. Wow. Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you. I have uh Patricia Aston um signed up in opposition. Did you want to speak? Okay. Sorry.

Because I actually thought this was the town call. I just left my glasses back. Name and address and then you'll have three minutes. Patricia Aton 1046 Cal or I'm sorry Homedale 10496 Homedale Avenue. Not Homedale. Geez, I'm nervous. Um too nervous. Shannondoa court. Anyway, I attended the town council representatives from the seed company that made it critical that their world work is not just for Caldwell but globally. They showed the unchecked development threatens farmland that feeds people, creates jobs and sustains our heritage not only for here but for the world. one of well that was the town causes us to skip what I wrote there but um unchecked growth is just ruining us now I don't know I think this is just we've already approved it this is to annex into the city so they can build more quit letting them annex into the city am I correct is that what this is about this would one of the one of the things that we will decide is a recommendation Whether it's to approve or deny um for annexation is one of the items that we're considering tonight. Yes. Okay. So, if you don't allow the annexing, they still can build. No. No. Okay. Well, I recommend that you don't approve. I do like it that they're putting that they're wanting to put um handicap in, but if they really care, it should be in all the units, not just the bottom floor, because that's what 10 10 people in the whole county anyway. So, um I drove through Meridian yesterday and thought, is this what Caldwell is turning be into? Overbuilt, overrun, and

overwhelmed. Our schools are bursting. Our roads are strained. Our water supply outlook is concerning at best. We are already beyond capacity and yet developers continue to be welcomed with open arms. So I am here tonight to urge you to say no to this annexation. Thank you. I have uh William Tinker signed up in opposition but does not want to speak. Is that correct? Yeah. Okay. U I have Michelle. Is it Stan signed up to speak? Stan excuse me. uh name and address and then you'll have three minutes. Okay. Um thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee. My name is Michelle Stanovich. My address is 14566 Dartmore Street. I'm in the Aerolleaf subdivision right behind the proposed development. Um I do appreciate all the questions that were asked regarding traffic because that really did answer a lot of my questions. Um my email is in your packet. My my concerns still remain traffic and safety. Um I like that the study was redone after Verbina Ranch and the new Falcon Ridge Elementary. I still agree with Scott that the traffic flow might not have been considered and is a huge concern. Um but just safety in general for our kids. Um Mr. Dodson made the the comment that there are three schools walkable nearby and I don't think they're walkable at all. I think it's difficult to get to the elementary school. I My kids were in middle school last year. I wouldn't let either of them walk that far. Um and now definitely not with all of the traffic that's coming. My son will be entering his freshman year at Valley View High. I can see the school from my backyard and it still freaks me out that he's going to have to cross a busy roundabout with this density just to get to school. Um, and I I drive that route all the time. And I'm

I'm not sure that they've taken things into account that residents see. You know, the the sun's glare heading west on Homedale towards that roundabout in the mornings after school drop off is intense and sometimes you cannot see. And I I worry about the roundabout. I worry about safety. Um, I think Scott's points were excellent on traffic flow. I think um Dan and Cindy's points on the gas station are spot on. I would not recommend that be installed there. Um the in Aerol Leaf were locked in. Our only two exit points are onto Montana. I exit off by you. Now with the gas station exit, right turn only and the apartment exit. You've just put two more traffic flow patterns out onto Montana between Bayou and the roundabout. That's a short section of street. I don't know if you've been there, but those three outputs in such a short area, it's going to make it near impossible for our community to leave our development. Um, so I think those are that about sums it up. Um, Brent, I do appreciate you not putting windows facing my backyard. So, um, definitely keep that. Move those trash cans and if you need an amenity and open space, throw in a dog park that we can use. Um, you're welcome. I also don't like that there's pedestrian access between the property and Aerol Leaf because I do worry about them parking on our streets. I know we say we have a lot of parking. We just eliminated some parking. You could have up to three cars per apartment. So that concerns me too. Thank you for your time. To the where is that in relation to

directly to the south? In the R2. It's an R2. It's the R2 south. Is it single family or they're multif family homes? It's all single family. Okay. They're all about I looked. They're about 6 to 7,000. It was the rest of the orange on the map, but I was just couldn't Yeah, maybe we can't pull it up like that. I have it right. It's complicated unfortunately. Thank you. Thank you for that. Um I have a couple others signed up in opposition. Kiara Preston um not wanting to speak. Is that correct? Actually learned a little bit about this project and I would like to Okay. Right. So name and address into the record and then you have three minutes. Crustin 4804 Oxbow Avenue Caldwell. And uh I grew up in the Bay Area and I watched the bottom dump trucks cut the hills away and go down and fill the bay 24 hours a day for years because I lived up in the hills. And I remember 101 when it had stoplights on it and my father used to stop and buy chickens and corn where Moffett Field is. And that area is so crowded now it it's not even habitable. And if you're a rig, they don't even have a a filling station anywhere in the Bay Area because they've built so much. The orchards were all knocked down. And that's what we're doing here. And it's breaking my heart because I saw that happen in Silicon Valley. And it's just a crowded mess. I'm glad I'm not there anymore. and I thought I moved to a more peaceful area and now learning that we're not even going to have access to 55 from Montana, it it's going to be a traffic nightmare again. And I didn't

know that you were even considering putting apartments. This is an area that has single family homes and I don't think that we need that much density and I'm sorry that you're even considering that for that area. I I see that the neighborhoods and the people that live there and their schools and they're happy with the way things are. So, I'm not in favor and all of this development. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Um I have Kirstston Hutton signed up to speak. Come on up. name and address and then you'll have three minutes. Kirstston Hutton, 16624 Smoky Mountain Avenue, Caldwell, Idaho. Thank you. Um, while I appreciate the fact that a traffic impact report has been done for the cars, it does not seem like there has been enough done on walking on people, pedestrian traffic, because we have a lot of of of teenagers and kids who walk all over the place there. And I'm really worried and concerned like to the point where I'm like worried about having the roundabout because people don't look they don't check for pedestrians on any of the roundabouts in this city right now. So why putting a round why having a roundabout why having a roundabout next to the schools? I just that's a poor decision. It's a extremely poor decision. I was a teacher. Um, and that's something that So, student safety is something of great concern to me. And I I beg you to look further into that. Um, I'm not sure if the roundabout is part of the development or or a city thing, but if there's going to be that

much traffic, people need to have a stoplight to to like to make them look to see if there's if there's student traffic. There's going to be kids walking. There's going to be teenagers walking. There's going to be adults walking their kids to school. There's people who bike that road. A lot of people who bike that road. So, is there going to be a bike lane? Like, is that even a possibility? What are we is this is something that really needs to be addressed before this moves moves forward. Um, I like a lot of the things that they have planned, but I'm really concerned about the walking traffic and it should not be a roundabout if there's schools anywhere near because people don't stop. And I've seen kids trying to get across the current four-way stop. People don't. It's my turn. They don't stop for the kids now. So, how do you I don't understand how a roundabout is going to help the community in any way possible. In fact, it's a detriment to it because people people people are going to get hurt. Thank you for your time. Name and address and you have three minutes. All right. Kevin Hutton, uh, 16624 Smoky Mountain Avenue in Caldwell. Um, the issue to me is, it seems, and this seems to be a a chronic issue across all of Caldwell, is trying to cram too much into too little of a space. I looked at the at the plots, you know, the map they have for the commercial parking and everything. You've got businesses planned with like four parking spots in front of them. Uh, where's everybody supposed to park? you know, how are you

supposed to access these services and, you know, amenities and things? Um, it's a chaotic issue. The in the next 5 to seven years, all those fields all the way out to 10th Avenue are all going to be houses. Um, gas station, sure, you want to put a gas station there, move it down away from the intersection, you know, put it in a different commercial available spot. Um, you're about to have you have three elementary schools within or three schools within walking distance, but you're about to add 5 to 6,000 cars a day on those roads. And if you can't access Carter Road from Montana Avenue to head west or to head east, there's nothing out west. And uh if you can't turn east on there, you're either forcing them to 10th Avenue or Indiana Avenue, which already they can't handle it. That uh the roundabouts, I don't understand the city's infatuation with roundabouts. I don't understand why we're doing a light uh or not doing a light. Um I feel like that would be again, like my wife said, it would force people to stop and look. I don't know if you've used the roundabouts at uh Eustic Road, uh for instance. I see people trying to cross there all the time and they can't. Everybody looks left cuz they're waiting for the next car to come through so they can clear. If somebody's trying to come from this side, they're invisible. And uh I mean, we've seen it. There was I think a child hit near Sage Valley Middle School earlier this year. Um there's there's big concerns about all these schools and being walking distance. Where's the sidewalks? Where's, you know, the safety for these kids that are supposed to be walking to school? Um those are our major concerns. That's all I got. Thanks for your time. With that, that's everybody who signed

up for um public testimony. So, with that, um, we'll I'll ask Brett to come on up and you will have three minutes for a final rebuttal. Mr. Chair, prior to Brent speaking, may I touch on some of the items that are more city oriented for the residents? Um, sure. Thank you. Um, some great questions that were asked. I'll try to speak to more so of the the overall questions versus project specific just to make sure it's clear. Um, I'll leave the parking to the applicant. I guess the setback buffer along the south boundary. Just want to reiterate that the they did increase that from 10 ft was the original. They've gone to 15. That was a point of uh contention condition within the staff report because the multif family code requires 25 ft. They're working to get as close as they can. Ultimately, they're probably going to be asking for a deviation from that from city council. Um the recommendation criteria. Okay. So there was a question regarding you know how do you guys approve or recommend or however that works. There are specific criteria within code that talks about what the applicant sorry what the commissioners are reviewing these things against and every application has specific criteria. Um those are both what the commission has to review and what the applicant is trying to meet and then also what the city can and can't get sued for. So there's very specific criteria as far as the process. Just to reiterate and and educate here that the this is just a recommending body. None of these applications are being approved or denied tonight. They would be recommended to city council including the special use permit because that is contingent upon these. They will run concurrently with the annexation and the plat. And those will all go to the city council hearing, the future city council hearing. So this is no final decision tonight. And currently they're in the county. So they just continue to do whatever they can do in the county if if

they get denied by council later on. Um I'll let leave access points to the applicant and then the overall transportation plan definitely understood on the concerns there with what is it it's going to be what they call I think an arcut intersection or something similar to that at the Montana and Carter now which means that you will not be able to turn left from Montana onto Carter and vice versa. Um, however, with the Verbina Ranch project that is humming and and moving along pretty well. Moss will get constructed all the way from 10th to Montana. So, there will be an easier route for this project as well as the existing residents in Aleaf to head south, head to Moss, and then back out to 10th. So, they wouldn't even have to use the roundabout at Montana Homedale. At least the overall transportation plan anticipates that. Um, I'm sure Brent and our city engineer can speak to that better than me, but I just wanted to touch on those main points there. Thank you. All right, Brent, [Applause] members of the commission. Also, thank you to the um public. It's I recognize it's a lot of time out of people's schedule to come and and that the concerns that are expressed are important um and are uh important to the citizens. And so um I know that by de facto you don't like me because I'm presenting this project. If you're against it, I appreciate but I do think it's valuable and helpful to exercise the public discourse and do that. Thank you. Um, I want to just try to address the comments and questions and concerns that have come up. Um, first of all, um, the gas station convenience store. Um, thank you for the comments on that. Uh, we're frankly if something came along that was better, we'd be happy to do that. One one time when we were talking at a neighborhood meeting, someone said, "Well, why not at Trader Joe's?" I'm like, "Man, get Trader Joe's to come here and we'll totally do that." Um, it is really a market driven thing. Um and so um and

the gas station is what seems to fit the site um best. Um so anyway, but that's it's not set in stone. If um if we had other users, a sitdown restaurant, you know, that would be welcome. We just uh we just are attempting to use what is known in order to adapt the site to uh the most probable user. Um, I have several kids that go to Valley View High School and I will for a lot of years. I've had uh three of my kids graduate there. So, we do we do we are there a lot and we do appreciate the the concerns about that. Um, and so anyway, um, parking, um, totally appreciate that there's concern about parking. No one wants parking to overflow out of a multif family development onto their street or onto other streets or other places. Um at this point the development exceeds the parking requirements and um even if we reduce some of the parking in order to um get our open space to where it needs to be, we'll still have more than the required parking um in the development. Um, another point that we owe thanks to the staff team for identifying the parking spaces that we have proposed are larger than they're required to be. Um, a typical parking space is only 18 ft deep. We've got 20 foot deep parking spaces. Um, we can reduce that some and that'll help allow us to shift the buildings further away from um from Hartleaf Leaf. Um, let's see here. Architectural surfaces on buildings. Um Cindy mentioned that and that is the plan to have no more than or excuse me no less than three architectural surfaces on each building. Um Hardy board, sighting, um board and bat and stucco um would be used on each surface. That's what's proposed and that and so we do proposed three different architectural surfaces. And Cindy, if if I'm missing what you're saying, please

grab me afterwards and set me right. Okay. um to Scott's questions and concerns. Um traffic, the setback and the building height. Thank you for your uh appreciation of that. I also owe some appreciation to a gentleman named John U B who reached out to me and asked some questions and I always think that's great. Um also got a lot of great dialogue with the with several of the citizens at the neighborhood meeting. There's a timer. Go on. Go ahead. Thank you. Um, I guess to I'll get to that that qu that concern. Um, Montana and Carter. Um, so I worked in public works. I was a public works director for for Caldwell actually for 13 years. Worked for Caldwell for 19 years. Um, helped a lot with planning of the Carter. Uh we worked a lot in the 2000s to get ITD to take some kind of method that will help ameliate the traffic issues with Carter Road, including trying to use the concept of the El Camino Rial um in California, which is basically have an extra lane that accommodates right turns. Later in 2011, Idaho transportation department worked with us, city of Nampa, um, and other stakeholders to come up with a corridor plan for Carter called the median turn treatment. Um, and that is what went out to bid uh, with the Carter Road intersection. The intent there is that although you come at intersections like Montana, Florida to a right only that you have an opportunity to U-turn. We analyzed the delay per vehicle that would occur with that and um it was 13 seconds to be able that make that right turn movement. 38 seconds total by the time you were able to weave over, get in the left turn lane to make the U-turn and then go back in the intended direction of travel, which is significantly better than the traffic signal function at that point. Um, so I do believe that that U-turn opportunity is still intended to be part of that um,

corridor plan and I'd be happy to be corrected by Haley if she knows better than that, but um, that is it won't be it won't be something that prohibits the ability to move there. Thank you. All right, this time u commissioners um, if there's any last questions for the applicant or for staff before we close public uh, testimony. U, Mr. Orton, you mentioned that you Sorry. You mentioned that the um the parking lots or parking uh stalls are going to be 20 feet in length. Uh what's the st what is the standard width that you're proposing on those? Um I don't remember off the top. They're either nine or 10. I'm sorry for not knowing off the top. Okay, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Vance, it's 9 ft wide by 20. They have 7 foot sidewalks. Uh Cwell code allows if they have 7 foot sidewalks, they can reduce the depth of the parking stall striping to 18 ft. And hence I mentioned that within the staff report that's where they can kind of shift the whole site if they do that for even just two dry vials. They got eight feet right there just to pull them a little further away from the residence. Okay. Thank you. Anything else? All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So at this time uh I would entertain a motion to uh close uh the public hearing. So moved. Commissioner Bros and second for Commissioner Whitbeck. Uh all those in favor say I. I. I. Anyone oppose? All right. Right now, it's time for us as a commission to deliver and come up with a decision. Commissioners, as as always, I have a lot of things. So, would you guys go first? Um, Commissioner Bats. Um, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, at the time, I'm still learning. This is my first day this time, and so um I haven't had uh an appropriate amount of time to review all this, but I am learning a lot and I appreciate everyone answering my questions and as a as I'm learning on this. So, I will just leave it to my seniors to kind of answer on this. Thank you, Commissioner Wbec. I'll defer for a moment. I just I have a couple thoughts and you likely you may hit on some of these that I just want to throw out there. Uh, one

thing I do I it sounds like the developer is really trying to be accommodating and it sounds like there's a good report with in being flexible to the extent that they can. Overall, my concern as I sit here and look at this um is really the compatibility of of the area is although it be and this I have the map here on my on my screen but the one that was up earlier although this is zoned R2 and the south of that is R2 if it's they're all single family homes that there's the compatibility of that doesn't make sense to me and I think that's also part of the work when we're doing um land use and reviewing land use it's that compatibility to that neighborhood and so that's probably my biggest concern with this area. I think there's a lot of if it were in different spot, it could be really great and have a lot of good opportunities, but I'm concerned with the compatibility. Commissioner Bros, and I agree with that. Um, so I'm going to go through in in in some detail here. So, page 12 of the agenda packet shows that this application is compliant with all applicable city codes, regulations, and policies. But pages 29 and 30 describe non-compliances with code and Joe actually addressed those in his presentation. Um, further than that, page 13 states that uh they're they're asking to utilize the special use permit process to reduce the multifamily buffer requirement along the south boundary and that southern the southern boundary abuts a single family residential area. I think they need to comply with code and that's going to mess up the development and I apologize for that but but it needs to be in compliance uh to be a good neighbor. Page 14 states that the Valley View School District provided a school location of future children all nearby

schools. No opposition or support stated, but noted future projections of elementary school enrollment numbers due to approved development may exceed capacity at multiple schools. The Valley View letter actually states that the district will be over capacity in 2029 due to other already approved developments before this development is complete in 2030, the buildout year. And uh looking at a page 158 of the application, you could read the Valley View letter yourselves. It's more strongly worded than was implied in the application. Um the Valley View is getting more and more clear about they don't have capacity after a certain date and there's no path for them to have capacity. Uh okay. So, uh, Joe already addressed the minimum open space requirements. Uh, there's a staff recommendation that goes into detail about changes to the plat that could get the application closer to meeting the open space requirement. But even if those recommendations are taken, they would only be halfway to meeting the total open space requirement. Um then uh and Joe talked about the the proposed patios and decks needing to be 60 square feet. That's something that's in the new code and they they need to meet that right now. Uh they're not I don't know what changes would be required to this development to meet that space requirement. Um but that's another point of non-compliance with code. Uh you've talked a little bit about the the trash enclosure locations and that just indicates the plant needs

more work to repl those are going to go. So in summary, this application suffers from several faults. It's incompatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. It's not compliant with the code required open common open spaces or private spaces. Valley View School District is going to be over capacity by the buildout year of this development. Traffic is already difficult and it will become worse even with the understanding that there are mitigations in place. And the the new issue that came up tonight that we don't have the expertise to address is the proximity of gas station tanks to the Phyllis Canal. That sounds like it might be a big deal, but we don't have the expertise to be able to assess that. That kind of issue requires a deeper dive on that topic with people who could say what kind of underground structures are required. So, so we can't really address that in what we're doing. But I've seen enough that to say commissioners, I can't support this development and recommend that this be denied. Yeah, my back. My greatest concern is still the traffic issue and uh it would seem that uh with this particular project, the amount of of children would increase greatly and and that part of of the discussion about the roundabout and the proximity of adding retail on that intersection as well is a concern. And and if you go up Montana, you know, Montana and Carter is already a a high rate of of uh accidents and fatalities. And so all of this concern, my greatest concern is is the impact of traffic. I agree. I that safety, but I mean always and because there are schools so many so close to that area. Um my one

only other comment as I was reviewing my notes from all the discussion my question my wondering around the density the bonus density and the eight amenities that are provided would we count EV parking lot as an actual amenity be great for those you know three or four however many get there first and have that but it's that's not like a pool that somebody could choose to use or a park in which they can go and use and so right um that was one that I I don't know if I necessarily consider that an amenity that would count towards you know giving the density bon the additional points either only toward only towards that community not necessarily for the rest of the community. Yeah. And would typically I think it is for their own community but I mean it's a finite amount of you know if you have an electric car then that's going to be great for you and if you get there first that's going to be great for you. Any other comments from commissioners? If not I would entertain a motion at this time. I can do that. Um, all right. Based upon the testimony and evidence and record in this matter, and upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth herein, I do hereby determine and move that the request for annexation of parcel R 327210 with a zoning designation of C1 neighborhood commercial and R2 community residential, a preliminary plat for 21 multifamily residential lots and 10 commercial lots, and a special use permit for retail sales with gasoline. for Cane Center subdivision is recommended for denial because it is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. It is not compliant with the code required common open spaces or private spaces and Valley View School District will be over capacity by the buildout year of this de development. Further traffic uh is already difficult. We are concerned about safety and we are concerned that the proximity of the gas station tanks to the fiddles canal could

be an emergent problem. Thank you. So that was a motion for Commissioner Buch. Is there a second? Second. There's a second from Commissioner Whitbeck. Um a roll call. So uh just an affirmative vote would be to deny it. Um so roll call, please. Trust. Yes. Whitbeck. Yes. Zamora. Yes. Larson's not here. Harmon's not here and Vance. Yes. And with that um that will be the recommendation that moves forward to council and um we will close this hearing and move on to the next item on the agenda. But with that, I'm actually going to request that we take a 5m minute break. So we'll come back at um 7:09 or 7:39, excuse me.

All right. So, we'll move on with our agenda. We're moving on to item eight of our agenda, which is new business. So, move uh one item. So, action item one, open this public hearing. This is case number A&24-8 and SUB24-33. And with that, staff report, please. Thank you, commissioners. Thank you, commissioners. Katy Wright, associate planner, 205 South 6th Avenue. Before you tonight is Copper Point, ANN 2408 and SUB 2433. And this has been analyzed under the newly adopted code as the last one. Uh the project location is 8.46 46 acre parcel located on the southeast corner of Ustick Road and Florida Avenue. The site has frontage along both Florida and Ustick. The project site's currently surrounded by single family residential to the north, commercial to the east, undeveloped land to the south, and existing and approved mixeduse developments to the west. There are nine developments within a onem radius of the subject site that are either actively under construction or have been approved for entitlements. The applications before you tonight are for an annexation of 10.37 acres of land into the city of Caldwell with the initial zone of R2. You may notice that's a different acreage that just includes the adjacent ride ofway to provide a potential connection for any future development. um and then a preliminary platform for a mixeduse subdivision. Tonight's request consists of the applicant's proposal for an annexation with the R2 zone. The purpose of the R2 community residential zone is to provide areas by zoning procedures in accordance with the comprehensive plan that accommodates a larger variety of lot sizes and housing types. This includes missing middle housing types such as triplexes, forplexes, and smallcale

multif family or sixplexes. Supporting our secondary land uses may um be commercial activities and services that are generally found on the major intersections of arterial and collector roadways, which this is on the corner of an arterial and a collector roadway. The proposed development is surrounded by R2 to the north, south, and east, commercial to the east and west, and R1 to the west with some Canyon County property in all directions. Staff finds the R2 zone is a compatible zoning district next to other R2 zoned properties along with the commercial zones in the area along Ustik as this proposal does include some commercial uses along the roadway as required by city code. The comp plan place type is community center and the proposed development is consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan as the intent is to have commercial along the arterial roadways and a gradual reduction in land use intensity out from the road. The proposed density is in compliance with the comprehensive plan. In April 2023, the applicant submitted for an annexation with the zone R3, a comp plan amendment from medium density to highdensity residential and an SUP to allow for 215 apartment units with an overall density of 25.21 dwelling units per acre. This proposal was denied by city council due to their desire to not have a comp plan amendment for the increase in density for the area. After several conversations with staff regarding the new comp plan and the new zoning code, the applicant has provided the proposal you're seeing here today. This proposal is for 128 residential units with 12 3plexes, um, five forplexes and 12 sixplexes with four commercial lots. All residential uses on this site are permitted and there are several commercial uses that are permitted within the R2 zone. Commercial uses will be reviewed along with their respective parking and adequate landscaping at the time of building

permit and business permit. The proposed development project has been analyzed for compliance with city codes and policies and staff finds the proposed development is in compliance with all parking and landscaping requirements, all bulk standards for lot size setbacks, frontage and height of buildings, all multifamily requirements such as facade, landscaping, open space and amenities and all other zoning and subdivision ordinances. The proposed development will have adequate site access and all utilities are available or will be available as outlined in the engineering staff report. Public agencies were notified and asked to provide comments. The only agencies that responded were Nampa Highway District 1 stating they had no concerns. ITD stated they anticipate little impact of Highway 55 with this proposal and have no concerns. And City of Nampa Planning and Zoning has no comments. Staff has received no public comments at this time. The site specific conditions for this project have been discussed with the applicant and they are accepting of them. The specific conditions are all rather general either mentioning additional reviews of the at the time of submittal for future applications or items that need to be submitted prior to city council to ensure the proposal is in conformance with the city code and comp plan. These items include an updated landscape plan that will identify fencing around proposed private open space for the town home style units and a 10-ft multimodal pathway along Ustik and Florida, which the applicant has agreed to. They will also be providing an updated open space exhibit that reflects the calculations shown on the landscape plan. They're well over their required open space. Um, this is just a correction. Um updated elevations with greater variety in roof pitch will be submitted as well as an updated lighting exhibit that will include additional lighting along pathways and per the new code uh developments along key corridors which Ustick is called out as um go through a design review process and this will be done prior to building permits. In the review there were a few

items for building facade that were mentioned as being conditioned. the conditions were deleted in the staff report that was sent out as the applicant had addressed those items yet the note um above was not removed during the analysis portion of that. So that will be modified prior to the final report for city council. And then staff recommends that if the commission recommends approval of the request that such requests are subject to the conditions as specified in the findings of facts, conclusions of law and order of decision. And thank you. ask Michael to come on up and provide um his presentation um for no more than 10 minutes, please. Good evening and members of the commission. My name is Michael 94253 West LG Good Lane, Meridian, Idaho 83646. Um, I represent Copper Point development. And I just want to say thank you for the opportunity to present uh our proposed multifamily development, which we are confident will be a vibrant and thoughtful designed addition to our city. And I say our city because um we are part of the city. We've our family's been a part of this community. Uh grandfather uh was homesteaded out on Sunny Slope 100 plus years ago and this is where we grew up. We had our family. We've had our homes. So, uh what we are proposing is um is part of us. And so we've tried to be very thoughtful with what we've

what we are proposing that not only uh meets code and requirements but also is a benefit to our community. I would like to extend my sincere thanks uh to our city planner Katie Wright. Thank you. And the entire planning zoning staff for the invaluable assistance in helping us reach this stage. As a small local developer and builder, we are deeply committed to creating communities that align with the character and needs of Caldwell, Idaho. Tonight, we requesting approval for the annexation of the property and the approval of the preliminary plan to bring it into the city's jurisdiction and align with your comprehensive plan. Annexing this property will contribute to the city's tax base, generating revenue that will support community maintenance and growth. In addition, it will create both temporary construction jobs and permanent positions uh such as property management and commercial tenants. Uh two years ago, Copper Point was initially proposed as a highdensity multifamily project. Uh while it was approved by planning uh the planning commission, it was ultimately denied by the city council as Katie mentioned, primarily due to concerns over density, parking, and its fitting within the city's comprehensive plan. Ultimately, it would be changed. Uh we have carefully considered and addressed all of this council's concern in our redesign. This new proposal aligns with the goals and visions outlined in the city's comprehensive plan and it complements other nearby projects already approved by the commission and the council. In response to the council's feedback and following two major revisions, this new design within the existing R2 zone reflects a 41% reduction in density, a 50% increase in sight amenities, and a

12% increase in parking above city code requirements. This includes covered parking, EV charging parking, parking stations, and bicycle parking. compared to the originally submitted project. Additionally, the project fully complies with the newly adopted city code and comprehensive plan. Copper Point's mixed use is designed to meet the current demand for both quality housing and commercial space. Our plan includes 10,000 square feet of commercial space, helping to support local businesses while aligning with the city's vision for growth. The development will feature a variety of housing types and architectural styles showcasing a commitment to highquality design. The plan includes town homes, two-story apartments, and three-story walkups. Notably, our first floor units will be designed to accommodate any demand for accessible and special needs housing. This mix of housing options ensures that the project contributes to the city's goals of housing variety and affordability. Jim Glansancy with Glansancy Rockwell Architects is here tonight and in a moment uh he will provide additional details on design and the visual appeal of the project. Furthermore, the development exceeds the city's open space requirements by 40%. And offers a range of amenities beyond the city's require quantity of four amenities. These amenities fall under uh varying categories and uh which are the following quality of life. Uh we have the amenities of a clubhouse and fitness facility. Open space, we have picnic areas and a plaza that's adjacent to the clubhouse.

Uh recreational amenities, we have a sports court, a tot lot and walking paths. And for multimodal, we have the EV charging stations that were mentioned before and a bicycle repair station. And we look at this as um a community advancement because uh with people able to commute right from uh the location where our property is located directly to the east uh that's where lots of shopping and businesses are located. And we see with the current developments that are designed to our east that bicycles can easily be a big part as well as walking uh within walking distance of those businesses. The project's location near key key shopping and community businesses makes alternative transportation modes such as bicycles particularly viable, enhancing the overall connectivity of the neighborhood. This development is designed as a singlephase project with all of the units managed by a single property management team. The property management office will be conveniently located on site to streamline tenant services as well as landscape and building maintenance. And at this time, I'd like to ask Mr. uh Jim Glansy to come and present some information on the buildings and the building types. station. Three minutes. I'll be very quick. Uh Jim Glansy with Glancey Rockwell Architects, 1257 West River Street, Boise, Idaho. Michael covered most of what I have to say. So, I will just continue on with generally how the site was designed. You can see

the site plan, 128 units on the board. Next sheet shows the main traffic pattern through the site. Our access to Florida is as far south as we felt we could and we moved the access to Ustick as far to the east as possible which would be a right in right out. The traffic goes diagonally through the site with the clubhouse more central and the several pickle ball courts and the open space. So it gives a good traffic flow through the site where the rest of the apartments surround it and don't have to be backing up pulling and pulling out also for access with the um access for the commercial space that's up on the northeast portion of the site. This next slide shows the townhouse style units that we have. So along the south side of the property and some onto Florida, they're two-story walk up townhouse style. So the living space on first floor, bedrooms on the second. They're two-bedroom units. You don't have balconies overlooking neighbors. And there's a single family home on the southwest corner. We have a 25- foot setback specifically there and good screening to avoid impacts to the neighbor. The next group that I'm highlighting are the on the corner. We have twostory three-bedroom units. These are our fourplexes. We don't have many three-bedroom units. We have some here. There's some good open space and we separated those from the other side. So, those are twotory. Internally, we have the threetory sixplex units. They're small footprints um as there's only two units per floor and they're walkups as Michael indicated. The ground floors would be accessible and the others are

are not. There's good connectivity through all between all the units throughout the site as well. Um we're showing two build there's four lots on the north for the commercial and we're showing two buildings at this time. It could end up being one building or three, however that is worked through. This shows the buffer we have on the corner, the intersection. We have a walking path going around on that side. We also have extensive landscaping and burming um to buffer from the roundabout and the lower height buildings at that corner will also help. The internal is the main open space area. You can see the clubhouse. It has barbecue, picnic areas, a tot lot there, um two raetball courts, a large grassy area for games or whatever. And again, there's interconnected pathways throughout the site. the buildings. Um colors aren't exactly finalized, but we have these are the general building designs. We have a multitude of materials and colors and m we're using vertical um board and bat siding. We have some shingle siding. We have horizontal siding as well as masonry. We're looking at stone and we considering using brick as well. So, we have a lot of mix and I know we have to work through that with the design review. Um, and that's it for my presentation. I thank the staff for all their help. We've it's been a long process with the new code. It's very extensive your planning and zoning code now and thank you for your time. All right. This time, um, uh, commissioners, any questions for staff or the applicant?

Commissioner Blue Trace, I can't help myself. I I I I have a question which is really not important. What is a bicycle repair station? So, we like to put emphasis on um bike transportation. And so a bicycle repair station is uh a stand that's got tools and equipment on it that they can repair any spokes. They can repair tires. Um there's tools there that they take a bicycle apart. Um, so it's a it's a little hard to explain, but it's a stand with multiple uh tools on it that are connected to ropes that they can use to pull their bike up to um pull tires off, chains, uh repair anything on a bicycle, and um gets them back on the road. So, it's a outdoor bike repair station. And you're not imagining the tools are going to wander away. I I was I was thinking maybe it would have compressed air, which is certainly a feature, but but apparently not. There is a pump. Thank you for clarif the the the tools are all uh connected uh mechanically. So, you can't just like cut something and run off with it. Like they've got chains and different things. So, it would be I've been working on bikes since I was a kid. Yeah, it would be hard to use a spoke wrench that was tied to something, but never mind. Thank you. So, that's what it is today. Thank you. Um, no other Oh, Commissioner Vance. Uh, I have a question for staff. Um, on the commercial lots, what would the proposed zoning for those be? Chair and Commissioner Vance. Um, yes, that's a good question. And so, um, it's actually the whole the whole property is going to be R2, but with the new code, there are several commercial, uh, uses

that are permitted. Um, if they were to, um, propose something that would require a special use permit, it would come come back and be heard. So, but at any point, could those lots be developed as residential versus commercial? No. Okay. Uh, Commissioner Butcher, I I I have a question for Katie. Um, I didn't see a letter from Valley View School District in this package, but there was a statement that they did not express concern. Chair and Commissioner, I did double check they did not submit a letter. So, if that were the case, that is that is incorrect and I can make sure to correct that. Okay. Thank you. All right. So, um we have uh several people signed up um for public testimony. We have Ron Hodgej who signed up to speak. Ron, and these are those that signed up in favor. My name is Ron Hodgej. My address is 2606 West Jefferson Street, Boise, Idaho 83702. I'm the land surveyor of record and represent the engineers of record. I'm here to answer any questions you might have about any of those elements of the plat. And I just like to say it's been a pleasure working on this project. Uh most of the jobs I work on these days, the architects and developers show up with a list of things they want me to do that are substandard and they're going to ask a variance on. I didn't have any of those on this. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Um Jolene, did you signed up not to speak but in favor? Is that correct? I am in favor but I'm considering speaking. Well, you're welcome to. Now's your time. You have come up and you can have three minutes. All right. Well, name and address and then you'll have three minutes.

Jolene Basabi Kiggy 11646 Lawrence Drive Caldwell Idaho 8367 I've lived in Idaho be before it was cool. I was born here raised here. Michael and I shared the same farm, our heritage farm that our grandfather established in the early 1900s. I love this development because it has a heart for community. Everybody wants to live in our fabulous community. We love it. People move here because they want community. They want quality of life which we share. They want connection. And I support this because it supports that. I am also a uh taxpayer for Valley View School District. my pictures on the wall, my husband's pictures on the wall, all of our children graduated from Valley View. And Valiv is a great school district and it's seen a lot of ups and downs and I want our school district to remain strong, but you know, Value is responsible for providing good quality education for all of our kids. So that's why I'm in support of it. and this has been very educational. Thank you all. Thank you. Um, also in favor is Randy Keniggi. Do would you like to speak? All right, come on up. Name, address, and then you'll have three minutes, sir. Randy Keniggi, 11646 Lawrence Drive, Caldwell, Idaho. Um, thank you for this opportunity after

having the opportunity to set through the last uh project. I see that many of the issues and I I totally agree with the decision that uh the commission made on that. Uh I see many of those issues being addressed in this project and uh the the for one the location is much better. Um I don't think the traffic impact is going to be nearly as severe. Uh primarily due to the fact that uh that the ingress and egress of the location is good. Plus we also have a roundabout there now that was just recently completed. So I think that will all aid in in the traffic factor involved in that. Um, also as my wife said, you know, the the reality of life in this area is we're growing and and that's not going to change. And so we have to provide figure out a way to provide people with affordable housing. So I think multiple family dwellings is a good way to go in a lot of those situations. um a lot of people can't afford to go out and buy their own own home right now, especially with the impact that the realy market has on people today. So, in in many ways, this project makes a lot of sense and uh I have to be in favor of it like like my wife said, yes, it will add some load to the school district, but again, we're paying taxes. The school district is responsible for that. not your problem. You know, they that's the reality of it. We've been paying taxes to the Valley View School District for I don't know, most of my adult life. So, anyway, um very much in favor of this for all the reasons that uh have been discussed so far. I think it's a great

project and we got to have the growth that's inevitable. This is a good way to do it. Thank you for the opportunity. Thank you for your testimony. Then I also have Jennifer Nye um in favor but not wanting to speak. Is that correct? Okay. All right. So that's everybody that signed up to participate. So uh Michael, you have uh three minutes for any rebuttal or any response that you'd like any parting thoughts you'd like to leave. Well, I don't have much for rebuttal, but I I just want to finish my notes here um by just saying in summary, uh Copper Point offers multiple benefits to the city. Uh, it provides diverse and muchneeded housing options, creates a cohesive and attractive neighborhood with high quality amenities, supports walkability and active living, delivers new local jobs, expands the commercial tax base, and promotes sustainability and thoughtful growth within the framework of the city's comprehensive plan. This this project aligns with the city's goals in several important ways. It directs growth to an area identified for expansion. It offers a variety of housing types and integrates a mixeduse component that fosters a walkable and usable neighborhood environment. Uh we respectfully request your support for the annexation of this property and approval of the preliminary plat as presented. We as a team are committed to working closely with the city staff to meet all technical requirements and to deliver a community that the city will be proud to have within its boundaries. Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to partnering with the city on this project and see that this vision becomes a reality. Thank you. Thank you. I had a couple of traffic related questions I neglected to ask staff if I if I may. All right.

Um, the traffic impact study recommends that Indiana Avenue and Eustic Road intersection be expanded to a dual lane roundabout. Is this in the capital improvement plan? And when is it programmed? Commissioner Bros, I apologize for the delay. I wanted to verify with our capital improvement plan. It is not currently programmed in our capital improvement plan at this time. All right. Thank you. Um Florida Avenue and Homedale Road is recommended to be reconstructed as a single lane roundabout. Is that in the capital improvement plan? That is in the capital improvement plan and we are moving forward with the design of that roundabout uh next fiscal year. Uh well, so long as our budget as proposed is approved. Okay. Uh when do you expect operation? Um we anticipate design next fiscal year, construction 2027, operation end of 2027. Okay. Um the Solstice development is to the east of this development. What's the housing type in the Solstice development? Chair Commissioner Bros. uh Solstice is going to have 28 um town home units and 72 detached single family and they're also going to have point4 acres of commercial. So are the town homes close to this or are single family homes close to this?

Chair Commissioner Bros, the I apologize I'm going off of memory. Um I've have been working on this project. So um based on my memory, the commercial is in the um northwest corner of that development. Um and then the attached I believe are up along Ustick on just the other side of the access point into solstice. So they'll be along Ustick. Oh, so um going south along the common boundary it would be single family homes. Chair and commissioner, that is correct. There isn't a direct touch there. Um there is a big chunk of undeveloped land um that's that's right there between them. But but based on my memory and I I apologize. I can look it up in a second, but I I thought the undeveloped land immediately to the east of this application was Solstice. No, I apologize. On page five of the staff report, it does call out um the approved development. I I see the image here. Okay. And my last question is the Beverly White property is immediately to the south. How close is this development to the residence on the Beverly White property? Chair and Commissioner, it Let me pull up a good aerial really quick. Based on the aerial, it is not close. um to that property. Are you talking about the single family home? That's just the out parcel. Yeah. Um so their development, they do have um

25 ft on each of those property lines that's required by code. So it's a 25 ft setback right there where it's going to be landscaped um north and east. Oh, is the is the Beverly White residence up in that cutout? No, sorry. That is just a separate single family home. The Beverly White property. I Yeah. So, she's saying this. I apologize. This is not the This is not the Beverly. There's a residence. This is um Can we chair and commissioner? I I am familiar with Beverly White's property. I I did her annexation. The one that I'm familiar with that is her property is on Montana. So this was marked as So this is a different property owned by her. Okay. So the out parcel happens to also be owned by Beverly White. Busy lady it seems. And um that just goes back to my other statement um that the there is the 25 ft buffer on this property adjacent to both of those properties. Thank you. So it's it's a non-issue. Thank you. Sorry. Um yeah, that was everything. Any other questions from commissioners? If not, I would entertain a motion close public uh yeah public testimony. Commissioner Webeck may second. Second for Commissioner Bros. All those in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? All right. Time for us to deliberate. Commissioners. Commissioner Vance. I have nothing at this time. I I think this I have the same reaction uh to to this development as I did to the previous one. So, uh it's interesting. Uh, Valley View didn't send

a specific letter here, but the their other letter uh covers this in general location and in time to build out. So, the idea that Valley View is going to be over capacity by 2028 is as true for this development as it was for the other development. Um, so that that's still an issue. uh traffic is still going to be something of a problem. Um the points the points I I see are it's it's still incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood because of the density. Uh the Valley View School District is still going to be over capacity by the buildout year of this development and traffic in the area is still going to require mitigation by the buildout year and that kind of improvement is not uniformly in the plan. I I I think like the other one this should be denied. I I respectfully disagree on the basis that part of what you're saying, a lot of this is surrounded with commercial and so the density of the other project that was discussed is surrounded by massive additional homes where this property is not and will not be. the the traffic issues. The the uh right turn in and out on on Ustick is is completely compatible because it leads exactly where you need to go for any kind of shopping or anything else you're doing. The access on Florida is reasonable. So I respectfully disagree and I agree with Commissioner Whitbeck in this case. I do think that there are a lot of there are similarities not far from the other proposed development but to the points made by commissioner wetbeck I think we're we're talking about two different things certainly uh

moreover I I'm hesitant to speak on behalf of uh of value or any other body that has elected officials and staff so um certainly that we can presume th those numbers are still true but um they certainly have that same opportunity to reply and speak for themselves and so I I certainly can't consider consider that um you know speak for them. So with that I I'm actually in support of this. I think u we certainly see public participation probably more recently over the last handful of years that I've been on this commission than others. Um and seeing nobody here only those in uh nobody here in opposition that is and only those in favor also kind of speaks to to the impact of those that are living locally. So with that I'm in favor of that. other comments to state that that we don't know there is a lot of land still around here that has not been developed and we don't know where and will where it will go. So the traffic is still a concern because you know other other multif family developments could be put on those ones. So it's still something to be concerned about going forward. But we also don't have the same issues with C uh down at Carter and over at the boulevard that we did on the other project. So they are different in that regard. Yeah, totally. And I I certainly don't disagree with that sentiment and we have to go based on what's in front of us now and what's being proposed now. Right. Other discussion for commissioner. If not, I would entertain a motion at this time. Chair, could I make one last comment? Sorry. Just for um a little bit of clarification and just on the record, um all of the undeveloped land in this area presumably would have to fall under the comprehensive plan. Um most of that being the community center which would promote similar types of uses and things like that. Um, and our code does require

that along arterials within the place type of community center, it does have to have commercial up against there. So, just to keep that in mind as well. Thank you. All right. I would like to speak to that on staff. Um, Kitty, the amount of commercial on on a development like this, the amount of commercial that has to be included that, what what percentage is that usually? chair and commissioner. Um that's been a very talked about topic. Um there's some language in the code that addresses the frontage. How much counts as frontage, right, is something that we have discussed as well. Joe may be able to speak a little bit more to that. Um, but I know that has been a heavily discussed topic internally. Um, because it is a little bit of a blurry word saying frontage. Um, but I'll let Joe speak to that if he has any additional comments there. Thanks, Katie. Mr. Chair, for the record, Joe Dodson, principal planner here at the city. Good question, Commissioner Vance. There's nuances for sure. Code is not specific, and it's not specific because every property is different. Every project is different. Every private property right is different in this case. And so there's we've kind of leaned on the comprehensive plan a little bit more to provide a little broader guidance. And so there hasn't been a specific oh every single community center property has to be 50% commercial, 50% residential. If we did that, I assure you we would be getting comprehensive plan map amendments out the wazoo again because they would everybody would say the market will not allow that much commercial which in my experience is correct that that just probably wouldn't pencil out for anybody. Um it's going to be a mix at least along the frontage of Ustick. There will be and is the requirement to have the commercial along there. So I know there's projects along here that aren't

compliant with that because they came in before. That just means there'd be even more incentive for staff, commission, and council to push to keep that commercial along Ustik as this project proposes on along their frontage too. So, um, in general, we have talked about the frontage being maybe the depth of like one lot, which would be like a building and their required parking, right? Hasn't been put in code, but that's the intent of what uh the director and staff has discussed. So, this complies with that, too. Well, and I like that that that is it is put in here because part of the reason I decided to join this board is because um commercial a good balance between commercial and residential needs to be established and as you just stated, you don't have that quite yet. You're working towards it. Um I think that I like that both of these projects have had commercial brought into it because again, you bring this many people into into community, they have to have some place to go. They have to have a place to work uh and parking and and etc. So, um, yeah, that's just one of my chief concerns right now is, uh, as much residential as we want to bring in, we also need to bring in fair amount of commercial and speaking from the commercial side, which is what I do. I can tell you right now, Caldwell is running in deficit in that. I am seeing it with my customers. I am seeing it with lots of conversations. So, this is something that um, I like seeing that these are here. That's why I ask questions about could these be developed into residential later and they can't. I like that. But at the same time, um I think commercial is something that needs to be addressed uh in all properties and at each site. So I just wanted to bring that up. Thank you. Other uh comments from commissioners? If not, I would entertain a motion at this time. I'll make a motion. Based upon the testimony and evidence and record in this matter and upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth herein, I do hereby determine and move that the request for annexation with a zoning designation of R2 medium density residential and preliminary plat

for Copper Point is recommended for approval subject to the conditions of approval as presented. Okay, that was a motion from Commissioner Webeck. Is there a second? I second. Second for Commissioner Vance. Uh roll call, please. Whitbeck. Hi. Vance. Hi. Harmon's not here. Zamora, yes. No. With that, the motion carries. Um, and close that um action item. Move on to the next action item on the agenda, which is adjournment. So, I would entertain a motion to adjurnn. So, moved. Commissioner Buchos. I commissioner Vance second. All those in favor say I. I. your turn.