Council approves North Ranch development agreement change to allow 119-room hotel and 98 apartments after split votes and an abstention
October 20, 2025 | Caldwell, Canyon County, Idaho
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Caldwell City Council on Oct. 20 approved a modification to the North Ranch development agreement permitting a 119-room limited‑service hotel and a 98‑unit apartment building on a 3.92‑acre parcel north of Highway 2026.
Katie Wright, city planner, told council the site is zoned C‑3 and located in the mixed‑use center place type; staff found the proposal consistent with the comprehensive plan’s intent for higher‑density residential and hotels in mixed‑use centers. Wright said the apartment proposal seeks deviations from multifamily standards: the project would provide about 7.8% open space where 10% is required and about 85 of 98 units would have private patios that are smaller than the 60‑square‑foot minimum. The applicant proposed to make up for reduced exterior open space with additional amenities—six rather than the three required by code—and with interior amenity space.
Applicant representative Dale King (Faber Construction) said the hotel would be dual‑branded (Hampton Inn/Home2Suites) to accommodate a mix of short and longer stays and that a shared‑parking agreement with nearby properties would handle hotel demand. King said the apartment building would be an urban design with interior corridors and on‑site amenities to substitute for reduced exterior open space.
The Valley View School District submitted a letter urging council to consider school capacity; staff said the area has other active developments and that Compass found net fiscal benefits. Councilors voiced mixed views: Councilor Allgood said he supported the hotel but was “struggling with the multifamily apartment building” because of density on a small site; Councilor Register voted no citing school‑capacity concerns; Councilor Stottick abstained from the vote.
Councilor Denburn made the motion to approve the development agreement modification and Councilor Dodi seconded. Voting closed with four in favor, Councilor Register opposed and Councilor Stottick abstaining; the motion passed with conditions in the staff report.
Ending: The council concluded the project aligns with the mixed‑use center goals and approved the development agreement modification with conditions; the record reflects a divided council on the apartment component and a formal abstention from Councilor Stottick.
Katie Wright, city planner, told council the site is zoned C‑3 and located in the mixed‑use center place type; staff found the proposal consistent with the comprehensive plan’s intent for higher‑density residential and hotels in mixed‑use centers. Wright said the apartment proposal seeks deviations from multifamily standards: the project would provide about 7.8% open space where 10% is required and about 85 of 98 units would have private patios that are smaller than the 60‑square‑foot minimum. The applicant proposed to make up for reduced exterior open space with additional amenities—six rather than the three required by code—and with interior amenity space.
Applicant representative Dale King (Faber Construction) said the hotel would be dual‑branded (Hampton Inn/Home2Suites) to accommodate a mix of short and longer stays and that a shared‑parking agreement with nearby properties would handle hotel demand. King said the apartment building would be an urban design with interior corridors and on‑site amenities to substitute for reduced exterior open space.
The Valley View School District submitted a letter urging council to consider school capacity; staff said the area has other active developments and that Compass found net fiscal benefits. Councilors voiced mixed views: Councilor Allgood said he supported the hotel but was “struggling with the multifamily apartment building” because of density on a small site; Councilor Register voted no citing school‑capacity concerns; Councilor Stottick abstained from the vote.
Councilor Denburn made the motion to approve the development agreement modification and Councilor Dodi seconded. Voting closed with four in favor, Councilor Register opposed and Councilor Stottick abstaining; the motion passed with conditions in the staff report.
Ending: The council concluded the project aligns with the mixed‑use center goals and approved the development agreement modification with conditions; the record reflects a divided council on the apartment component and a formal abstention from Councilor Stottick.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting