HomeMy WebLinkAboutLauraShannon_Opposition_LateExhibitRegarding: Soterra Phase 2
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
Please deny the application for Soterra Phase 2 because the proposed plan does not align with
the Comprehensive Plan’s vision for this property, and because there is a binding development
agreement (DA) in place requiring the property owner to adhere to its provision for commercial
use, and because C-2 is an appropriate zoning designation for this area, and the city is not
compelled to rezone this property, nor would that action be in the community’s best interest.
The Comprehensive Plan designates this land as a Community Center Placetype, intended:
1) “....as a low-to-mid intensity commercial place type that focuses on creating a
destination for residents” (page 36)
2) “...to become “...a vibrant gathering space” (page 79)
3) To “...provide commercial services that serve the needs of the community.” (page 36)
4) Primarily for commercial purposes, and “...not primarily (for) residential (use)...”
(page 37). In fact, the land use graphic on page 43 of the Comprehensive plan shows
less than 20% of this placetype as residential.
Soterra Phase 2 is a 15.77 acre site which would rezone 11.36 acres to residential use, leaving
only 4.39 gross (3.23 net) acres for commercial use. This far exceeds the percentage of
residential use intended for property in a community center placetype.
March 7, 2022, the (then) owner/developer of Soterra entered into a DA, allowing him to build
61 houses on 22 acres, and obliging him to reserve the remaining 15+ acres for commercial
use. The DA runs with the land, and the current owner assumed those DA commitments when
he purchased the property.
Commitments in the DA document include promises such as:
Article 2 #6: These 15 acres “...shall be developed with service/retail business… residential
uses shall not be permitted.”
Article 2 #18: “...in no case shall the number of buildable lots approved in the preliminary plat be
increased.”
Article 2 #23: “...Soterra Subdivision (will have) 75 total lots, including 60 single-family
residential lots, and 6 common lots… and 8 commercial lots.”
Article 6 #2: “Each commitment and restriction on the development shall be a burden on
the subject property …for the benefit of the subject property, adjacent property and other
residential properties near the subject property, and shall run with the land.”
Article 6 #3: “The DA agreement shall be binding on the owner/developer and… successors.”
Article 6 #4: “...any new owner… shall be liable for all commitments and obligations…arising
under this… (DA).”
Caldwell City Code 10-03-11 says this DA is a legally binding contract that supersedes standard
zoning rules unless it is amended by a vote from the City Council. While Council has the
authority to amend a DA, citizens rely on Council to hold developers accountable to their
obligations by enforcing development agreements. If a DA can be dissolved at the developer’s
ask, then of what real use is a DA to the community, and why do we bother with them?
There is no question Caldwell needs commercial development. This area was earmarked for
such use under the Nancolas administration. And, at a recent presentation by Roger Brooks, he
displayed a chart claiming Caldwell is 60,000 s/f short of professional office space, 60,000 s/f
short of retail space and needs to stop our commercial “leakage”. What better spot to reserve
for office and retail use than this land near two key arterial roads with no potential parking
issues, and multiple existing and approved housing developments within walking distance. The
plat in the DA displays 8 commercial pads on this parcel, an ideal setup for neighborhood &
community commercial options.
Under Caldwell’s zoning code, City Council has the ultimate legislative authority to legally deny
a residential rezone proposal in favor of maintaining commercial zoning, especially since the
current commercial designation aligns with the city’s Comprehensive Plan. In addition, if I
understand correctly, Idaho Local Land Use Planning Act (Idaho Code §67-6511), says a
rezone is always a discretionary legislative decision, never an automatic right.
Soterra’s commercial status will provide convenience to hundreds of households in West
Caldwell, and add to the city’s commercial base. If Soterra wants to bring this back, an
appropriate ask would be that they return with a project that focuses on commercial
development, a commitment they took on by purchasing commercially zoned land with a DA.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Laura Shannon
4707 Middlesboro Way