Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLauraShannon_SummitGrove_OppositionFrom:Kristina Buchan To:PZ Subject:Fw: Summit Grove Subdivision Date:Monday, February 9, 2026 4:35:30 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png Outlook-vtlkqkkp.png For the record. Thanks! From: Eric Phillips <ephillips@cityofcaldwell.org> Sent: Monday, February 9, 2026 4:24 PM To: Kristina Buchan <kbuchan@cityofcaldwell.org> Cc: lauraleeshannon@gmail.com <lauraleeshannon@gmail.com> Subject: FW: Summit Grove Subdivision Please add to the subject enclosed within. Thank you. From: Teresa Yost <tyost@cityofcaldwell.org> Sent: Monday, February 9, 2026 9:28 AM To: Eric Phillips <ephillips@cityofcaldwell.org> Subject: FW: Summit Grove Subdivision From: Laura Shannon <lauraleeshannon@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 8, 2026 11:35 PM To: Teresa Yost <tyost@cityofcaldwell.org>; Scott Tilmant <stilmant@cityofcaldwell.org>; Chuck Stadick <cstadick@cityofcaldwell.org>; Diana Register <dregister@cityofcaldwell.org>; Geoff Williams <gwilliams@cityofcaldwell.org>; Chris Allgood <callgood@cityofcaldwell.org>; Mike Dittenber <mdittenber@cityofcaldwell.org> Subject: Summit Grove Subdivision Laura Shannon 4707 Middlesboro Way Caldwell, Idaho 83607 February 8, 2026 Dear Mayor and City Council Members, Please deny the Summit Grove Subdivision, a potentially spot zoned project that is incompatible with the surrounding area. January 14, 2026, I attended the P&Z hearing for Summit Grove and noted the following inconsistencies and inaccuracies: (1) The terms "55+ targeted housing" and "55+ restricted housing" were used interchangeably. Both terms were used throughout the Summit Grove presentation; it was stated that Summit Grove ownership would be exclusive to those age 55+, but that occupancy would be open to all ages. The Master Land Use Application (pages 10, 27 and 29) and the neighborhood meeting flier specify Summit Grove as restricted 55+ housing. I question the legality of this claim when the applicant does not intend to comply with HOPA (Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995) regulations. Each of these terms has a distinct definition. "55+ targeted housing" is a marketing term which implies the design & amenities of said housing might appeal to those over age 55; there are no legal age restrictions on those who can purchase or occupy these housing units. " 55+ restricted housing" is a very specific legal term which allows for age & familial discrimination in communities which adopt HOPA regulations, which include a ban on permanent residents under age 18, the requirement that 80% of units have a resident 55 or older, and policies for ongoing age verification of residents. At what point does a project become misleading if it claims to be a "55+ targeted" community, but has no real amenities for senior citizens? ....No clubhouse, no ADA features, and no proximity to essential services. 55+ projects seem to get special treatment regarding permitted locations, allowed densities, and reduced parking requirements. While Caldwell could definitely use 55+ restricted (HOPA) housing, standard residential projects such as Summit Grove deserve no favored status in the land approval process. (2) Summit Grove was identified as being in the "Farmway Corridor" (P&Z Meeting 4:15) In fact, Summit Grove is not adjacent to, nor does it have access to Farmway. Instead, its access is onto Dorman Avenue which is classified as a local, semi-rural road. This developer's future plans west of Dorman, together with Summit Grove, could potentially result in 100 new homes dumping traffic onto Dorman. Add to that, their creation of a new exit point from Manchester Park Subdivision, and this kind of vehicular impact on Dorman Avenue deserves a traffic study if it receives future consideration. (3) The neighborhood was portrayed as a walkable one, with a nearby school. (P&Z 9:56 - 13:30) In fact, Zillow gives the house at 2615 Dorman a walkability score of 3/100. A walk to Wilson School, would entail navigating busy streets with intermittent sidewalks. There are no stores nearby, there are no businesses nearby, there are no parks nearby. (4) The difference between R1 and R2 zoning was minimized. This parcel is within the Neighborhood 2 Placetype, which allows for R1 (neighborhood low density) or R2 (community medium density) housing. From the Comprehensive Plan (p. 25) "... less dense housing is found in areas away from major roadways...", such as Dorman Avenue and Manchester Drive. This development is surrounded on all 4 sides by R1 and county rural land; to avoid effectively spot zoning this small pocket of land in an established R1 neighborhood, a zoning designation of R1 is reasonable. An R1 zoning would be compatible with City Code 10-05-02 to "...maintain the desired physical character of existing and developing neighborhoods." And to "...ensure that new development is compatible with the city's many neighborhoods." *** ***10-05-02: DISTRICTS: (1) Intent: Caldwell’s residential (R) zoning districts are primarily intended to create, maintain, and promote a variety of housing opportunities for individual households and tomaintain the desired physical character of existing and developing neighborhoods. While the districts primarily accommodate residential use types, some nonresidential uses are also allowed. The R district standards provide development flexibility, while at the same time helping to ensure that new development is compatible with the city’s manyneighborhoods. In addition, the regulations offer certainty for property owners, developers, and neighbors about the limits of what is allowed. Thank you for your time & consideration! Sincerely, Laura Shannon This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint Essentials. Click here toreport this email as spam.