Council denies SoTerra rezone request after intense neighborhood opposition

The Caldwell City Council unanimously denied a proposal Dec. 2 to modify the Sotera subdivision's plan and rezone approximately 9.09 acres of previously designated commercial land to medium‑density residential (R‑2). The Planning & Zoning Commission had recommended denial, and councilors said public testimony reinforced the commission's recommendation.

The proposal and developer response: The applicant (Ardura / the ownership group) presented a revised plan that reduced multi‑family density (from 90 to 80 units), removed three‑story buildings and shifted some commercial acreage to medium‑density residential after saying they had difficulty attracting commercial tenants for deep, low‑visibility commercial lots. Ardura said the design increased qualifying open space (about 18% vs. the PUD minimum of 10%) and would add neighborhood commercial pads in a later phase.

Why residents opposed it: Neighbors from the adjacent Cumberland Estates and other neighborhoods urged the council to preserve the previously approved commercial frontage along Ustick and Kimball, arguing the commercial acreage was meant to be the area's retail core and that converting it to multifamily would diminish long‑term commercial viability, increase traffic, strain school capacity and reduce property values. Scott Tillman summarized the neighborhood view: “We just spoke earlier about the need for commercial retail amenities, and now we're giving it away.” Other speakers warned of cut‑through traffic into the nearby single‑family subdivisions and cited a unanimous planning commission recommendation to deny the rezone.

Staff and developer response: Planning staff outlined conditions that would be required if council approved the request — including a revised landscape plan and berming along Ustick and Kimball — and said the proposed R‑2 density falls within the draft new comprehensive plan’s community‑center concept. The applicant emphasized that without modifying the plan they could not attract commercial tenants for sites set far from Ustick and lacked market interest in deep commercial lots.

Council decision and rationale: Council members said they were persuaded by the planning commission and neighborhood testimony that the corridor should preserve commercial frontage. The motion to deny carried unanimously. The council noted a path forward for the applicant would be to retain or return the site to its originally approved commercial configuration or to pursue lower‑intensity residential that more closely matches the existing pattern, and the council spelled out that a revised application addressing the commercial frontage concern could be considered in the future.

Provenance: Planning staff presentation and applicant testimony (P&Z materials) were presented starting at SEG 3724; public testimony and council deliberation spanned SEG 4080–5256; council voted to deny with unanimous support near SEG 5256.