Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kuna council tables reconsideration of Seasons Creek development agreement amid questions about density, schools and traffic
Summary
The Kuna City Council debated whether to terminate, negotiate or let stand the 2008 Seasons Creek development agreement after a denial of a modification; councilmembers flagged risks including loss of commercial entitlements and potential litigation and voted to table further action to allow staff review and follow-up.
Kuna Mayor Stear and the City Council on Wednesday discussed next steps for the Seasons Creek development agreement after the council denied the developer’s requested modification at a prior meeting and the applicant signaled it would seek reconsideration.
Planning and Zoning Director Doug Hansen told the council the recorded 2008 development agreement remains active and that termination would remove the agreement’s entitlements, reverting the property to agricultural zoning and requiring future rezonings and preliminary plats for any new development. Hansen noted a terminated DA would leave the site subject to Kuna’s future land‑use map (R6) and standard subdivision review rather than the DA’s specific provisions.
The council’s questions centered on what would be lost or preserved if the DA were terminated, how many school sites are already dedicated in nearby developments and what traffic and public‑safety impacts a higher‑density outcome could create. Hansen identified multiple school sites in the planning inventory and said the nearest existing KSD charter school site (part of the Madrone Village project) is under a mile from the Seasons Creek area. He said a developer could propose up to 1,087 lots at an R6 gross density (6 units per acre) subject to the subdivision process and a required minimum of 12.5% open space; actual lot counts might be 15–20% lower after netting for roads and required open space.
City Attorney Mark Bybee told the council the city can initiate termination, a city‑led modification, or await a developer reconsideration. He cautioned that a narrow reconsideration only revisits the applicant’s request; a city‑initiated amendment or termination would formally open a wider public process and would require notice and a hearing. Bybee also said staff has mapped an inventory of other recorded development agreements and suggested the council could proactively review those agreements.
Councilmembers voiced competing priorities: some members said terminating the DA risks losing commercial entitlements the city needs, while others said termination could allow negotiating different terms later or prevent a higher density than the current DA might allow. After extended debate about traffic‑study thresholds, neighborhood meetings and litigation risk, a motion to table further action on item 7B (Seasons Creek) was approved; councilmembers instructed staff to gather additional information and to place the item on a future agenda (the council discussed July 7 as the next meeting date).
