Council rejects Sotera subdivision rezoning after commissioners recommend denial

The Caldwell City Council unanimously denied a proposed modification for Sotera subdivision on Dec. 2 that would have converted a portion of an approved commercial frontage to medium-density residential and added 80 multi‑family units. The Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended denial at its Sept. 25 hearing.

The applicant had proposed reducing commercial acreage along Ustick and inserting multifamily buildings — initially including 3‑story, 6‑ and 8‑plex options — but later revised the plan to 80 two‑story multi‑family units (in 2, 3 and 4‑plex configurations) and reduced density from 90 units to 80 after public comment. Staff’s analysis acknowledged compliance with many code standards, but recommended the council decide whether replacing commercial acreage with multifamily matched the covenant in the earlier development agreement and the city’s policy goals.

Why it mattered: Residents and planning commissioners raised two main issues: preserving commercial frontage along Ustick as a corridor for future businesses, and whether the proposed residential density fit the established vision and served the local market. A commercial broker’s letter submitted as a late exhibit warned that overly concentrated commercial parcels can sit vacant without sufficient traffic or visibility, and that residential density alone does not guarantee retail success.

Council rationale: Council members said the prior approvals reserved the northern portion for commercial uses intentionally and that the proposed conversion to medium‑density housing risked undermining the city’s corridor strategy. After deliberation, the council voted to deny the amendment; staff noted the developer may choose to pursue other permitted uses consistent with the current zoning or submit a different proposal that retains commercial frontage.

Key facts: The revised proposal would have left 6.71 acres of commercial along Ustick, moved 9.09 acres from community commercial to medium-density residential, and retained approximately 22.2 acres of low-density single-family housing previously approved. The proposed overall density for the modified project was about 8.8 units per gross acre under the revision.

Next steps: Because council denied the change, the project’s existing approvals remain in effect. Developers seeking to alter the commercial allocation must either submit a new application that better preserves commercial frontage or pursue the uses allowed under the existing C‑2 zoning along Ustick. The council’s action preserves the corridor designation and signals the city’s preference to maintain commercial depth on Ustick pending evidence that denser residential would reliably support retail uses.

Direct quotes from the meeting: “We don’t need to change this right now,” Planning and Zoning members told council; residents said the approved plan “made a lot of sense” and argued the original mixed commercial/residential balance should stand. Developer representatives said they had tried for three years to find commercial buyers for deep parcels with limited frontage and believed the revised plan would make the site more viable.

Bottom line: The council sided with the planning commission and area residents, denying the rezoning and PUD modification and requiring the developer to retain the prior commercial orientation or bring a materially different proposal for council consideration.