Council adopts sweeping zoning code rewrite including density‑bonus program after contentious public comment; 4–2 vote

The Caldwell City Council voted to approve a comprehensive set of zoning ordinance amendments on April 21 that reorganize the city’s development code, revise landscaping and parking standards, restrict certain signage and establish a voluntary density‑bonus program that awards additional residential units for specific public benefits.

Joseph Dodson, principal planner, summarized the package as a major reorganization that moves provisions into clearer articles for residential, commercial and industrial districts, updates definitions and creates measurable standards for landscaping, buffers and multifamily design review. Key changes discussed at length included:

- A voluntary density‑bonus program that grants additional allowed units when applicants provide qualifying public benefits such as deed‑restricted affordable housing, enhanced open space or other amenities. The ordinance requires deed‑restricted affordable housing approvals that seek a density bonus to be considered by the City Council via a council‑level special use permit.

- Changes to landscaping standards (reducing minimum turf, requiring greater drought‑tolerant species, adding planter and parking‑lot landscaping), and a new landscape‑bonding mechanism requiring a bond equal to 150% of deferred landscaping when a developer postpones construction of approved landscaping or amenities.

- Revised parking standards: commercial parking simplified to a 1 per 500 sq. ft. rule in many cases, multifamily parking based on bedrooms and additional guest parking; staff removed a separate EV‑stall requirement after a recent state bill.

- Sign code updates to align with court precedent, restricting freestanding pole signs and electronic reader boards outside specific corridors.

- Downtown and overlay changes, including codifying a downtown framework and extending design‑review provisions; some automotive and heavy industrial uses are restricted downtown or in traditional neighborhood areas.

Planning staff noted multiple rounds of stakeholder outreach (developers, architects, public open house) and revisions since an initial council workshop; staff also summarized public comments opposing the density‑bonus program and some use changes. Several business owners and property owners testified about specific use impacts (for example, requests to keep light‑industrial and RV sales uses in C‑3 zones where they had been permitted). Staff said an option for individual property owners is to request a rezone to C‑4 if uses are needed that the new C‑3 table no longer permits.

Speakers during the public hearing included supporters and opponents. Supporters emphasized infill and locating density where infrastructure exists; opponents questioned the density‑bonus philosophy, the outreach claims for the comp plan, and the potential for council discretion to appear uneven. After discussion, Councilor Denberg moved to approve the set of ordinance and bill amendments as presented (bills 9–21, ordinances 3661–3667 listed in the agenda packet); Councilor Doty seconded. The council vote was 4 in favor and 2 opposed (Councilor Stoddick and Councilor Register voted against); the mayor announced the motion carried.

Council members who spoke in support highlighted studies and design standards that, they said, make the program a tool for encouraging higher‑quality infill and avoiding outward sprawl. Opponents urged caution on fiscal impacts and said the proposed changes should be debated in additional public forums before adoption.

The vote implements a comprehensive code rewrite; several property owners and businesses asked staff about transition provisions, rezone options and whether certain uses could be allowed again by special use permit or rezone.

• Primary action: Adoption of the zoning ordinance amendment package, including the density‑bonus program, landscaping and parking changes, overlay updates, downtown design rules and multifamily design standards. • Vote: Motion to approve carried with 4 votes in favor, 2 opposed (Councilor Stoddick and Councilor Register); councilors in favor included Doty, Denberg, Doty (mover/second listed), Allgood and others noted in discussion.