Kuna planners table Seasons Creek North subdivision after staff, applicant identify recorded development agreement conflict

Kuna City Planning and Zoning Commissioners voted to table consideration of the Seasons Creek North applications — a requested rezone, preliminary plat and design review for roughly 60.92 acres — after staff and the applicant reported a recorded development agreement and a remaining C‑2 zone that do not match the applicant’s current single‑family residential proposal.

The applications, filed to subdivide 60.92 acres into 280 single‑family lots and multiple common lots, were presented to the commission by Troy Buchanan, senior planner with Kuna Development Services. Buchanan summarized the property’s long history, saying the site was annexed in May 2006, originally included in a larger planned unit development and local improvement district (LID), and had an associated development agreement recorded with the county. Buchanan said the development agreement references a past rezone and a C‑2 commercial area that staff cannot find recorded separately in the county’s ordinance records, and that the development agreement remains in effect. Staff recommended tabling the hearing to allow the applicant to resolve the discrepancy and to proceed with required coordination with other agencies.

Elizabeth Keckritz, representing the applicant, said the team has revised plans to respond to prior commission comments and that the current proposal splits the larger Seasons Creek master plan into three phases (North, South and East). Keckritz said the developer has agreed to work with staff and agencies and intends to return after amending the development agreement at city council if needed. She described the planned integration of a roughly 10.5‑acre school site and park/open‑space areas and said the developer had added larger lots and improved connectivity per prior direction.

Commission discussion noted the property’s complex history and the need for the applicant to address the recorded development agreement and the C‑2 zoning shown in earlier approvals. Commissioners acknowledged staff’s recommendation to table and asked that the applicant return with the modified documentation and any necessary rezone and development agreement modifications. The commission then approved a motion to table the three related cases to a date uncertain; the chair closed the public hearing portion for that item and said no public testimony would be taken because of the tabling.

The commission did not take a final vote on the rezone, preliminary plat or design review at the July 8 meeting. Staff and the applicant said they will return once the development agreement and zoning discrepancies are addressed.