HomeMy WebLinkAboutHE Minutes 7-12-23 EMPage 1 | 5
Hearing Examiner Minutes 07/12/2023
HEARING EXAMINER
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, July 12, 2023 @ 1:30 pm
Caldwell Police Department, Community Room, 110 S. 5th Avenue, Caldwell, Idaho
CALL TO ORDER – Hearing Examiner, Ms. Sabrina Durtschi opened the meeting for the public hearing at 1:30
p.m.
REVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS (OPENING STATEMENT) – Ms. Sabrina Durtschi outlined the procedures for
the public hearing.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Angelica Gomez (Administrative Assistant); Alex Jones (Associate Planner); Morgan
Bessaw (Planning & Zoning Deputy Director); T.J. Frans (Project Manager)
CONSENT CALENDAR:
ACTION ITEM: Approve the June 28, 2023 Hearing Examiner Meeting Minutes.
OLD BUSINESS:
NONE
NEW BUSINESS:
ACTION ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): SUP23-000006: S3 INVESTMENTS LP, ON
BEHALF OF TYLER CLARK, IS REQUESTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR SIX (6) EIGHT (8)
UNIT MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS TOTALING 48 UNITS. THE SUBJECT PARCEL (R32764010B0)
IS 3.206 ACRES BRINGING THE TOTAL DENSITY TO JUST UNDER 15 UNITS PER ACRE. THE
PROPERTY IS ZONED R-3 (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) AND IS DESIGNATED AS HDR (HIGH
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. THE STRUCTURES WILL BE
LIMITED TO TWO-STORIES, ALL ACCESS WILL BE TAKEN ON CELESTE AVE., AND THE SITE
WILL PROVIDE 28% OPEN SPACE. THE SUBJECT PARCEL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION BETWEEN MOSS ST. AND CELESTE AVE., IN CALDWELL,
IDAHO.
Alex Jones (Associate Planner) 621 Cleveland Blvd., provided the staff report by outlining its contents by use of
a PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Jones presented three public responses that were submitted as late exhibits. He
also noted that before the Special Use Permit was approved, the Development Agreement Modification
Application would need to go through City Council.
Ms. Durtschi mentioned that one of the public responses was from Ms. Eldrige, who indicated that this case was
denied previously. She would like to know more information on the property history and why the outparcel on
Dakota Crossing was never developed.
Mr. Jones responded that the applicant could go into more detail; however, he would provide a quick overview.
He noted that this development was supposed to be Dakota Crossing Number 3; they had a Development
Agreement for that. Approximately 50 townhomes were permitted at that time, and then the plat expired. They
returned with another SUP for another apartment complex, which was higher density (approximately 70 units)
that one was denied. They returned once again and made all the buildings two-story, and reduced the density.
In response to questions from the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Jones replied that the plat expired before 2010, and
Dakota Crossing Phases 1 and 2 were built out and completed.
Page 2 | 5
Hearing Examiner Minutes 07/12/2023
Hethe Clark (Representative) 251 E Front St., spoke in favor of the request and provided a description of the
application. He noted they were not asking for a Rezone or a Comprehensive Plan Designation Change. He said
it was in a single parcel. The previous plat did expire and they were not proposing a new plat, since it would be
in single ownership for the multi-family project.
He wanted to reinforce a couple items and stated that this was a project where planning and policy decisions were
mostly completed. They were relying on the Comprehensive Plan, which was designated by the City at High
Density Residential. That allowed up to 25 units per acre per the future Land Use Map designation. The
development was located north of Karcher and west of Caldwell Blvd., near the I-84 Interchange, an area for
plenty of retail and employment opportunities. The project had six buildings, and the proposal was for two-story
buildings. Since there were existing residential neighbors to the south, they oriented the buildings to maximize
the distance between the project and those neighbors.
Mr. Clark mentioned they almost tripled on what was required on the open space, and were significantly above
what was required on the parking stalls. He reported the amenities were a tot-lot and two gazebos. There was
concern that the tot-lot was too close to Celeste, as a result, they added a rod-iron fence that would enhance a
layer of security around the tot-lot. He added they would complete the street section on Moss and pointed out
they were not requesting waivers.
Mr. Clark outlined on the following application history:
What had been entitled – This was part of the Dakota Crossing Number III. He did not recall when that
plat expired; however, they were not proposing a new plat for this project, since one was not required. It
was entitled for 57 building lots and had 3-story townhomes. They believe what they have done has
significantly reduced the existing entitlement.
Prior Application – He clarified that was a previous applicant who had an interest concerning the
property. His understanding was that the application provided for 72 units. Based on the neighbors and
City’s concerns, their application brought it down to 48 units.
He concluded by noting they were in agreement with all the proposed Conditions of Approval. He emphasized
that this application complied with the existing planning for the site; they were adding to the variety of housing
types, and were in excess of minimum requirements. They met the SUP criteria, and were in agreement with the
staff proposed conditions.
In response to questions from the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Clark stated they would like to build next year and
would rent at market rate.
Ms. Durtschi asked Mr. Clark if he attended the neighborhood meeting and if the neighbors’ concerns were met.
Mr. Clark responded he did not attend the neighborhood meeting; however, he was informed that some questions
and concerns were typical as other neighborhood meetings. One concern was the play area and that was addressed.
In response to questions from the Hearing Examiner about required bicycle parking, Mr. Clark replied that was
an oversight, they do have the required bicycle parking.
Preston Retter 251 E. Front St., signed in favor of the request but did not provide testimony.
Christopher Clark 1800 E. Sha Mountain Rd., signed in favor of the request but did not provide testimony.
James Hirsch 12633 Moss St., signed as neutral for the request but did not provide testimony.
Donald Burck 12677 Delphia St., signed in opposition of the request but did not provide testimony.
Judith Barratt 12456 Karcher Rd., signed in opposition of the request and stated she lived directly across from
Dakota Crossing, and had been dealing with development issues at the site for 2-3 years. She said to bring more
Page 3 | 5
Hearing Examiner Minutes 07/12/2023
people would be a nuisance, although, she liked the fact that the number of units went down. She mentioned that
having only one access point was a bad idea, and suggested they add another access point. She also expressed
concerns with school overcrowding, irrigation and safety. She added that they need more police patrols for safety,
since there were many people speeding.
In response to questions from the Hearing Examiner, Ms. Barratt responded she did attend the neighborhood
meetings and her concerns were still the same. She appreciated that the density and the height were lowered.
Ann McBride, 12599 Dimarie Ct., signed in opposition of the request and expressed concerns with parking. It
was her understanding there would be two parking spaces per apartment; however, her question was where would
the guests park. Other concerns were safety and school overcrowding. She noted that to put many people in a
confined space, with the existing school overcrowding, and not having enough safety resources would be a bad
idea.
David Rabiola, 12599 Caldwell., signed in opposition of the request but did not provide testimony.
Jammie Simmons, 12498 Moss LN., signed in opposition of the request and stated Moss Lane did not have enough
right of way; therefore, it could not be paved. She expressed concerns with traffic, safety and overcrowding of
schools. She affirmed that an apartment complex was not the right use for that land.
TJ Frans (Project Manager) 621 Cleveland Blvd., stated that Moss Lane currently functioned as a single lane
unimproved gravel roadway. City engineers were engaged with property owners to negotiate the purchase of a
portion of their property for lane improvements in that area.
The Hearing Examiner asked the following questions and Mr. Frans responded:
Traffic Mitigation – Celeste and Moss were constructed to City standard requirements.
Ms. Simmons referenced a project where access was denied – that was Canyon View Estates, it was the
only development in that area and was surrounded by private owned fields without access to anywhere
else. When that project was approved, the connection to Highway 55 was a temporary connection until
roadways to the south and or the west were completed.
What would trigger a traffic study for a multi-family development – 500 trips per day would trigger a
requirement for a Traffic Impact study.
What would be the estimated traffic count for this development – This development should have
triggered a study. Mr. Frans would check to see if a traffic impact study was completed for this
development.
Bruce Winker, 12498 Moss LN., spoke in opposition of the request and indicated he did not attend the meeting;
someone went to his house and showed him the design. He agreed it was a great design; however, not for that
area. He expressed concerns with traffic on Moss Lane since it was an old County road, not wide enough for
shoulders or sidewalks. He had multiple conversations with City staff concerning irrigation, traffic and school
overcrowding.
In response to questions from the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Jones stated the Comp Plan was updated in 2020.
Ms. Durtschi asked Mr. Winker if he was aware of the update. Mr. Winker replied no.
Ms. Durtschi asked about Mr. Winker’s drainage issues and if City staff cut off original drainage point.
Mr. Frans responded that he was not familiar with that exact corner, and could not confirm or deny whether or
not the drainage disruption. He said the City built the southern leg of Celeste; however, Brittney Heights
Subdivision was required to build the curb, gutter and sidewalk on the north and east side.
Page 4 | 5
Hearing Examiner Minutes 07/12/2023
Donald Black, 12677 Delphia St., signed in opposition of the request and stated property value drop when they
build high density around single-family housing. He expressed concerns with traffic, fire access, and problems
with dirt road off moss. He asked why they were putting high density in a low-density area.
In response to questions from the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Frans responded emergency fire access was not required,
and it was determined that a Traffic Impact Study was not necessary.
In rebuttal, Mr. Clark addressed the concerns from the public as follows:
Irrigation – They have an irrigation delivery point on the southeast corner. They were in contact with
Pioneer Irrigation to have an internal easement relocated.
Single Access Point – Fire Department provided comments that the single access point did meet fire
code; therefore, an additional access point would not be required or necessary.
Fencing – Rod iron on the east. Privacy fencing on the west and south.
Traffic Impact Study – City Code states “traffic impact study was required once above 100 pm peak
hour trips” they would be below 100 pm peak hour trips with only 48 units.
Moss Lane – Moss Lane and Celeste were completed and punched through.
Parking – Code requires 72 and they were at 96. They were well above code requirements for parking.
Schools – They did not received comments from the Vallivue School District.
Drainage – They would be accommodating all the drainage onsite.
In conclusion, he would like to discuss density and multi-family. He reported that in order to accommodate different
living needs, they would need different types of housing. When the City created its planning, they took those needs
into account, and designated the area for High Density Residential.
In response to questions from the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Frans stated that per code, the trigger for a traffic impact
study would be 100 trips per day.
Discussion followed concerning the possibility of doing a traffic impact study. Mr. Frans stated that Code did not
provide them with the ability to require impact studies. He said they did not meet the threshold outlined at 100 trips
per day. The calculation for this project was 52 trips per day, which was half and well underneath the threshold for a
traffic impact study.
Discussion followed concerning mitigation fees collected prior to construction to offset trip generation costs. Mr.
Frans stated the fees would be used within one and a half mile radius to relieve traffic congestion caused by this
development.
Ms. Durtschi closed the public hearing testimony 2:34 pm.
COMMENTS BY THE HEARING EXAMINER:
Ms. Durtschi noted that with the information of the mitigation fees, and since they were under the threshold for
the traffic requirements, she would not request a traffic impact study.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSSIONS OF LAW FOR Case Number SUP23-000006:
The Caldwell Hearing Examiner accepts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law outlined in the staff report,
public testimony, and the evidence list. All adopted ordinances, standards and codes were used in evaluating the
application. The proposed use was conditionally permitted by the terms of the ordinance and such conditions of
approval.
ORDER OF DECISION FOR CASE NUMBER SUP23-000006:
Page 5 | 5
Hearing Examiner Minutes 07/12/2023
Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Caldwell Hearing examiner hereby orders that Case
Number: SUP23-000006: S3 Investments LP, on behalf of Tyler Clark, is requesting a Special Use Permit for six
(6) eight (8) unit multifamily buildings totaling 48 units. The subject parcel (R32764010B0) is 3.206 acres
bringing the total density to just under 15 units per acre. The property is zoned R-3 (High Density Residential)
and is designated as HDR (High Density Residential) on the future land use map. The structures will be limited
to two-stories, all access will be taken on Celeste Ave., and the site will provide 28% open space. The subject
parcel is located on the southwest corner of the intersection between Moss St. and Celeste Ave., in Caldwell,
Idaho. The Caldwell Hearing Examiner approved the application with the conditions of approval outlined in the
staff report.
ADJOURNMENT
Planning Issues: None
The next regularly scheduled Hearing Examiner meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 1:30 p.m.
The Hearing Examiner adjourned the meeting at approximately 2:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by Ellen Miller, Meeting and Records Clerk.
MINUTES APPROVED AND SIGNED BY THE HEARING EXAMINER, SABRINA DURTSCHI, ON THE
DATE NOTED BELOW:
_____________________________________ ________________________
Ms. Sabrina Durtschi Date
ATTEST:
______________________________________ _________________________
Robin Collins, Planning and Zoning Deputy Director Date
A digital recording of the public hearing is available upon request.