Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHE Minutes 04.28.26Page 1 of 5 HEARING EXAMINER MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, April 28th, 2026 @ 1:30 pm Caldwell City Council Chambers Room, 205 S. 6th 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); Joe Dodson (Principal Planner); Garline Davis (Planner I); Hallie Hart (City Engineer) CONSENT CALENDAR OLD BUSINESS: 1. ACTION ITEM: Public Hearing Quasi-Judicial: Case Number DEV25-000010, SPP25-000019: The applicant, Tiffany Llanos, on behalf of BST Dev LLC, is requesting a development agreement modification to the previously approved development agreement for Covington Square, and preliminary plat approval for Covington Square Subdivision, a residential subdivision with 59 single-family lots. The site is designated as a Neighborhood-2 place-type within the Comprehensive Plan. The 14.89 acre development is located on the south side of W. Linden St., east side of Farmway Rd., and the west side of Dorman Ave., approximately 275 feet east of the intersection with Farmway Rd., in Caldwell, Idaho. This application was continued from April 14, 2026, Hearing Examiner meeting. Jeff Bowers (Representative) 605 W Bannock St, Boise, signed in favor of the application and gave a brief overview of the project by use of a PowerPoint presentation. In response to the Hearing Examiners question Mr. Bowers stated: • The previous plat was approved in 2019. • The time extension expired. • Stated that the attached townhouse use is permitted in the R-1. Joe Dodson (Principal Planner) 205 S. 6th Avenue, provided the staff report by outlining its contents by use of a PowerPoint presentation. In response to the Hearing Examiner’s questions, Mr. Dodson stated: • He agreed that the old application was based on old zoning code. • In the old code this application was low density designation and old comp plan required one to one zoning. • The first option is to terminate the old development agreement and then enter into a new one based upon the new proposal. • The other option is to amend the old development agreement but there would be a lot of strike through and underline that would make it difficult to understand. • In the old code duplexes were not allowed in the R-1 zone. Single family attached was also not allowed. • The zoning code update in 2025 made them both permitted uses. Page 2 of 5 Hallie Hart (City Engineer) 205 S. 6th Avenue, in response to the Hearing Examiner’s questions stated: • Round about will be completed and open in May. • This project did not have enough homes to trigger a traffic impact study analysis. • Highway District does not want access off Farmway road. • The proximity from Dorman to Farmway makes access off Linden not allowable. • It is preferred to align access points, so having a single access point aligning with Quail Meadow is the ideal coming from the traffic flow perspective. • Dorman is maintained and under Highway District 4. • Once the Highway District brings Doram to City standards then the city would take the roadway over. Public Hearing Testimony was opened: • Tim Trumbull, signed in opposition, 2903 Farmway Rd, stated his concerns are setbacks, there not being a buffer between his property and the subdivision and the flood irrigation drain that needs to stay open and usable. In response to the Hearing Examiner’s question, Mr. Dodson stated the rear setback for R-1 is 20 feet. There is not a buffer from single family to single family. The applicant is proposing solid privacy fencing along the shared property line. • Bill Pike, signed in opposition, 2722 Quail Meadow Loop, stated his concerns are about access, density, and parking In response to the Hearing Examiner’s questions, Ms. Hart stated there is secondary access to the southern portion of the subdivision off Farmway Rd. It will be blocked off with bollards, but emergency vehicles can remove them for access. • Jennifer Merrit, singed in opposition, 2815 Doorman St, stated her concerns are on density and taxes. In response to the Hearing Examiner’s question, Mr. Dodson stated the development is still R- 1. The only difference between the old code and new code is the single family attached homes. • Brad Crenshaw, signed in opposition, 2909 Dorman St, stated his concerns are access point being on Dorman St., increased traffic and public safety. In response to the Hearing Examiner’s questions, Ms. Hart stated the city does not have the funding for all improvements around the city. The city does rely on new developments to install the curb, gutter and sidewalk. • Susie Brown, signed in opposition, 1008 W Easy St., stated her concerns are increased traffic and public safety, access, and there being no TIS. In response to the Hearing Examiner’s questions, Ms. Hart stated there was a TIS done for the southern developments and not this one. The 100-trip trigger for a TIS is a national standard that the city follows. The city does rely on master planning documents that are updated every few years. In response to the Hearing Examiner’s questions, Mr. Dodson stated all the interior streets inside are public so they can park on the street inside the development. There is ample parking within the development. Page 3 of 5 • Peggy Waterman, signed in opposition, 4603 Middlesboro Way, stated her concerns are increased traffic and public safety. In response to the Hearing Examiner’s questions, Ms. Hart stated a turn lane analysis is part of the TIS. Would require a turn lane if there was allowed access on an arterial road. Do not require turn lanes on local roads because of the speed. Trying to keep access on the local road to minimize accidents. In response to the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Dodson agreed that the criteria of the application met the standards so the Hearing Examiner can hear the case. • Tereasa Waterman, signed in opposition, 1215 W Linden St., gave a letter and it was read into the record as exhibit 1001. Her concerns are density and buffer setback from her home. • Christopher Altwer, signed in opposition, 3308 Dorman Ave., stated his concerns are increased density and traffic on Dorman Ave., and public safety. In response to the Hearing Examiner’s question, Mr. Hart stated she has not heard that Highway District 4 is planning to improve the road besides typical maintenance. More than happy to reach out to them to get an answer before city council. • Mr. Altwer continued with his concerns, stating he doesn’t believe that adding more homes is going to be beneficial. He also stated that Farmway Rd is going to open but will be closed again for future improvements. In response to Mr. Altwer, Ms. Hart stated Farmway road will be open. Any improvements along Farmway Road will not be a full closure. • Courtney Thompson, signed in opposition, 203 Winn Ave, stated her concerns are about the water, increased density and traffic. In response to the Hearing Examiner’s question, Ms. Hart stated there likely will be a well on site for irrigation. It is something Engineering works through with the developer on construction document review. The city is going to be doing work to help with pressure zone 1 and pressure zone 2 for better consistency and flows in the area. • Laura Shannon, signed in opposition, 4707 Middlesboro Way, showed a picture and was read into record as Exhibit 1002. Her concerns are ROW that will be taken from homeowners on Dorman Ave. In response to Ms. Shannon, Ms. Hart stated the ROW is piecemealed together with property owners and as they acquire ROW that is when they can start looking at completing improvements. In response to the Hearing Examiner’s question, Mr. Dodson stated that no one has made a formal complaint about the church and the on-street parking. • Roger Howe, signed in opposition, 16121 W Linden, stated his concerns are about the irrigation and placement of the waterline. • John Sellin, signed in opposition, 3314 Dorman Ave., stated he would like to see the comprehensive plan to be revisited for Dorman. Did not know about the Comp plan update. Page 4 of 5 • Paul Webster, signed in neutral, 1102 Laster St., the Caldwell School District has plenty of room for the students. The students from this development would go to Wilson Elementary, Jefferson, and Syringa, and Caldwell High or Canyon Springs. • Lin Waterman, signed in opposition, 1215 W Linden St, stated his concerns are increased density, traffic and noise. As well as lower water tables. In response to the Hearing Examiner’s question, Ms. Hart stated the property owner will be required to use their surface water right first before they can use their well. The city sometimes requires the supplemental well because they don’t have sufficient surface water guarantee from the irrigation district. Jeff Bowers (Representative) 605 W Bannock St, in the rebuttal stated: • Wanted to be clear that there are 59 units. 35 single family detached and 24 single family attached. • Water has been addressed well and everything that Ms. Hart stated is correct. • Will have privacy fencing around the entire perimeter of the community. • All the local roads within the development will have sidewalks as well as the community pathways. • There will be no apartments in this development. • The development has doubled the parking spaces that were required. • No overflow parking. In response to the Hearing Examiner’s questions, Mr. Bowers stated: • The applicant would be willing to give the out parcel the strip but it could be tricky because one parcel is in the city and one is in canyon county. • Would be willing to increase setbacks from 20 ft. to 40 ft. on the lots to the south. • The two or three lots to the southwest and 3 lots adjacent to the outparcel. • Would be willing to commit to doing single story on the two lots to the southwest. Modified conditions – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSSIONS OF LAW FOR CASE NUMBER PUD25-000004, SPP25- 000013: 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 NUMBERS PUD25-000004, SPP25-000013: Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Caldwell Hearing Examiner hereby orders that Case Numbers PUD25- 000004, SPP25-000013, is recommended for approval by City Council, subject to the conditions of approval listed in the staff report. Ms. Durtschi closed the public hearing testimony at 4:13 pm.