Council upholds Planning & Zoning denial of Pinto Apartments annexation and special‑use permit

The Caldwell City Council voted to deny an appeal and to uphold the Planning & Zoning Commission’s decision denying the annexation, comprehensive plan amendment and special‑use permit for the Pinto Apartments project, which proposed 36 multifamily units on a 1.45‑acre parcel at the northwest corner of Midland Boulevard and Laster Street.

The vote followed testimony by the applicant, planning staff and public speakers, and extensive council deliberation on compatibility, building height and the project’s relationship to adjacent single‑family homes. The council moved to deny the annexation and the requested special‑use permit; the motion carried 5–1.

Why it matters: The project would have introduced a higher‑density, three‑story building adjacent to existing and approved single‑family residential parcels. Council members and residents expressed concern that a 45‑foot midpoint height allowance and the proposed massing would be incompatible with nearby low‑density housing. Supporters of the project, including the applicant and its architect, argued the design included mitigation measures—setbacks, reduced eave heights and landscaping—that would limit direct overlooking and act as a buffer to Midland Boulevard.

Key details

- Proposal: Applicant sought annexation into city limits, a comp‑plan amendment to high‑density residential, and a special‑use permit to allow multifamily use and up to 45 feet building midpoint height for a 36‑unit multifamily building (approx. 24.8 du/acre) on 1.45 acres.

- Planning Commission: On Dec. 19, the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended denial of the annexation and comp‑plan change, and denied the SUP for multifamily and the requested height increase; the applicant appealed to council.

- Intergovernmental comment: The City of Nampa initially submitted a letter of concern; after further review and clarification from the applicant the City of Nampa subsequently informed staff it had no objections.

- Council concerns: Several councilors cited immediate adjacency to single‑family homes and expressed that a 45‑foot midpoint height would be excessive next to existing R‑2/R‑1 properties; council asked whether a lower‑height design (e.g., two‑story on the west edge) had been considered.

Vote and motions

Councilor Williams moved to deny the annexation and related requests (thereby upholding the commission’s denial of the SUP); the motion was seconded and passed 5–1. Staff read the Planning & Zoning findings as part of the record and recommended denial of the annexation if council upheld the SUP denial.

Ending: Council instructed the applicant that a future submittal to seek approval in this location should better align with an R‑2 designation and the council suggested design options that would reduce height adjacent to single‑family parcels.