Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Caldwell council denies annexation of roughly 13.1-acre Royal Pro c LLC parcel
Summary
The Caldwell City Council voted 4-1 on Sept. 15 to deny annexation case AN24-14 for about 13.1 acres proposed to be initial-zoned C-1 and R-2; related subdivision and special-use permit requests were rendered moot.
CALDWELL, Idaho — The Caldwell City Council voted 4-1 on Sept. 15 to deny an annexation request for roughly 13.1 acres submitted on behalf of Royal, Pro c LLC, closing a multi-part application that included a preliminary plat and a special-use permit.
Councilor Williams moved to deny annexation case AN24-14, Councilor Stoddick seconded, and the motion carried with four councilors in favor and Councilor Dittenburg casting the lone opposing vote. Councilor Register was absent and sent an email expressing opposition.
The council had reopened the matter after a Sept. 3 hearing was followed by an executive session for legal advice. City Attorney Oscar told the council the executive session “was just legal advice” and that no deliberations on the application occurred there. After the legal briefing the applicant was allowed three minutes for rebuttal.
Applicant Brent Orton, representing the project team, used the allotted time to respond to concerns raised in public testimony and at earlier hearings. He told the council the developer would comply with applicable codes, offer architectural finishes and windows where neighbors preferred them, and place any fuel tanks subject to engineering and building-department review. “We will comply in every respect with the code,” Orton said. He also said the project would be responsible for about $498,000 in traffic impact fees.
Councilor Dittenburg, who had introduced a motion to approve the annexation that failed for lack of a second, argued the site is an infill parcel surrounded by developed land and said annexation would prevent it from remaining an isolated enclave. “This property should be annexed into the city of Caldwell so that it's not an independent enclave,” Dittenburg said. He was the only councilor to oppose the denial.
With the denial of the annexation, staff noted the associated preliminary plat and special-use permit requests are moot and will not proceed. The council also recorded that Councilor Register submitted written opposition from offsite.
Background details discussed during rebuttal and council debate included the requested initial zoning designations—C-1 (neighborhood commercial) and R-2 (medium residential)—and the applicant's statement that the site is approximately 13.1 acres. The applicant also said traffic counts for the project were conducted as 24-hour counts over multiple days, not only peak-turning-movement counts, and that no commercial fuel user is currently committed to the site.
No further action on this application was taken at the meeting; council members and the applicant indicated the annexation denial concluded the council’s consideration for now.
