Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLavander crossing 5-15-23Page 1 of 2 May 15, 2023 Mayor Wagoner & City Council City of Caldwell 411 Blaine Street Caldwell, ID 83605 sent via email RE: Lavender Crossing Apartments – ANN23-000007, SUP23-000004 Formerly Known as Denied Case No. ANN22-000021 and SUP22-000027 Dear Mayor and City Council, I am writing this letter to express my concerns about this application and request that you deny the application for the Lavender Crossing apartment complex – it is not the right time or place for such a project. Simply put, Lavender Crossing exemplifies the numerous and valid concerns I’ve heard each of you raise regarding other multi-family projects you have recently denied in our great city: 1.The building heights are too tall. The application proposes 3-story apartment buildings when there are only one- and two-story homes surrounding this project including the Alante project that was approved and is also only one- and two-story homes. City code allows for a height of 25’ and they are asking for an additional 10’ of height making the buildings even taller and the situation even worse. 2.Surrounding neighborhoods will be less desirable. These 3-story buildings will have a significant impact on the privacy and livability of surrounding neighbors, the value of their homes and potential for re-sale. 3.There will be significant traffic congestion created by this project as nearly 500 vehicles come and go from the site via ONE access point down a private road. This is absurd and is setting the city up for future complaints. A much less dense project would make much more sense given the limited access. Can you imagine the backed-up traffic jam every morning and evening as residents try to leave and enter the project and buses try to pick up and drop off children every day? 4.There is no need for this dense of a project in this location. There are plenty of high-density projects and properties in the area that can better accommodate 288 apartment units. Sites with much better access, more appropriate to the scale of its surroundings, and that provides a better transition of densities than what surrounds this project (see attached maps). 5.Water and wastewater capacity. While the city has capacity now, concerns have been raised in the past about future development and capacity. Less units on this site would make more sense and preserve capacity. 6.Parking count is inaccurate and is inadequate. The application states that there are total of 473 parking spaces and 9 ADA spaces when the site plan submitted is only showing 460 spaces and 9 ADA spaces so the parking provided is a mere 1.6 spaces per unit. Furthermore, there are not enough parking spaces to actually serve the site. There are no public streets to accommodate overflow parking, no garages and no driveways. With 75% of the units being 2 and 3 bedrooms, the 1.6 spaces per unit will not even come close to providing enough parking. Page 2 of 2 7.Regional pathway omitted. This project does not show any connection to the regional pathway that is planned for this area. It should be developed in a similar fashion to the one at the Alante project was required to put in along the Elijah Drain easement and it should cross the canal. Finally, at the Planning & Zoning meeting there was discussion and a recommendation that the applicant should offer to plant trees in the neighbors’ yards if they want screening. Why should the neighbors have to change their property to accommodate this project’s impacts? This amounts to a regulatory taking and is illegal in this situation. Each project must stand on its own and mitigate impacts on its own property, the applicant should be required to change their project to be more compatible, not require the existing residents to bear any burden. I have heard this council wisely express these same concerns time and again, be the voice of reason, and show common sense on numerous applications before this one (please see the attached minutes regarding the Copper Pointe project that was recently denied at the corner of Florida and Ustick). I ask that you apply those same principles to this application. Just because the city code may technically allow this type of project, the code also gives you the explicit discretion to determine what is best for our city. I am in favor of density and can think of numerous other areas where apartments actually do belong in our city, however this location is not one of them and the excessive concentration of proposed units just does not fit. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Brandi Hulme Brandi Hulme 3017 Ray Ave Caldwell ID 83605 Emergency Vehicle Access Only No Connection to Stub Street in Weston Pointe Subdivision to the South (should be EVA at least) Only Access Point for 460+ Vehicles up to Laster Access & Congestion Issues *Site Plan Only Shows 460 Parking Spaces and 9 ADA Spaces Not 473 as Stated in Application Docs. Single Access Point 280 Units 6.88 DU/Acre 288 Units 20.57 DU/Acre 68 Units 0.76 DU/Acre 139 Units 3.71 DU/Acre 66 Units 6.17 DU/Acre 97 Units 3.68 DU/Acre Ustick Road Lake AvenueHomedale Road Laster Ln Copper Pointe 215 Units (Denied 4-18-23)Florida AvenueDensity Compatibility Issues Subdivision Access Point Page 1 of 2 (ACTION ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): REQUEST SUMMARY: CASE NO: ANN22- 000022 /CPM22-000010 (COPPER POINTE): A REQUEST BY GLANCEY ROCKWELL & ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER ROCKBURY 88 LLC., FOR AN ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 8.53 ACRES AND ANY ADJACENT RIGHT-OF-WAY, WITH A PROPOSED R-3 (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DESIGNATION, TO INCLUDE THE APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH ANN22-000022. CONCURRENTLY, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO INCLUDE APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 422-22 ASSOCIATED WITH CPM22-000010. THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED AT 4125 AND 4211 SOUTH FLORIDA AVENUE (PARCELS R27474 AND R27475), CALDWELL, IDAHO) The Mayor declared the public hearing open. Katie Wright, Associate Planner at 621 Cleveland Boulevard, provided the staff report by outlining the contents of a PowerPoint presentation. All public agencies were provided with a request for comments. Vallivue School District as the only political agency, which expressed concern noting the issue of overcrowding. No public comments were received at the time that the staff report was completed. The request complies with the Caldwell City Code, is consistent with the goals and objectives/policies of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, and is in harmony with the surrounding land uses. Staff recommends that if City Council approves the request, the applicant be subject to the Conditions of Approval as specified in the staff report. The Planning & Zoning Commission approved the Special Use Permit; however, if would be subject to the approval of the annexation and Comprehensive Plan amendment. She noted that the building to the southwest, immediately adjacent to the single-family residential property, must not exceed two (2) stories, which has been met with the submission of a revised plan by the applicant. No revised elevation plans have been submitted in reference to Condition of Approval Items #21 & #22. In response to questions from Councilor Williams, Mr. Orton addressed plans for widening Ustick Road. Councilor Stadick stated his concern with the increase of multi-family housing units and recommended future consideration by staff of an ordinance to limit the influx of such developments. Councilor Register expressed her concern with the excessive amount of multi-family housing developments already approved along Ustick Road. Councilor Williams inquired regarding the Wastewater Treatment Plant capacity in association with the increase of multi-family development and commercial/industrial growth. Mr. Orton outlined the current WWTP capacity limits and the water supply. In response to questions from Councilor Allgood, Mr. Orton reviewed the City’s policy for traffic mitigation to accommodate the development, including the roundabout construction. Michael and Jennifer Nigh of 4254 W. Lovegood Lane, Meridian, signed in favor of the request but did not provide public testimony, Nate Heintzman, Applicant, Glancey Rockwell & Associates - 2532 North 27th Street, Boise, spoke in favor of the request. He provided a PowerPoint presentation outlining details of the development. He noted that the high density multi-family residential development is needed in review of the current growth rate of Caldwell. Funding for traffic mitigation requirements has been approved by the applicant. The plan has been revised to provide two 2-story units as requested by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Other units will be three-stories in height. There will be a total of 215 units being planned for the site. A landscaping buffer will be included between the site and the existing single-family parcels. A traffic study was conducted and the parking standards have been exceeded with 1.73 spaces per unit being accommodated. Additional design elements were added per recommendations by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Construction will be completed within a two-year period. The Mayor reported that as of April 1, 2023, the actual population for the City of Caldwell is 69,910. In response to questions from Mayor Wagoner, Mr. Heintzman reported that covered parking would be provided for Page 2 of 2 the development pursuant to the City Code. Ms. Wright outlined the parking requirements per the Caldwell City Code. Councilor Doty expressed his concern with the current parking standards outlined within City Code. In response to questions from Councilor Stadick, Mr. Heintzman reported that no agreement has been established with the Vallivue School District in relation to the development. MOVED by Stadick, SECONDED by Allgood to close the public testimony portion of the hearing. MOTION CARRIED EVIDENCE LIST FOR CASE NO. ANN22-000022 /CPM22-000010: Staff Report and presentation documents 1.Sign-up sheets 2.PowerPoint presentations by staff and the applicant. COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL: Councilor Allgood expressed his concern with the high-density development and changes to the Comprehensive Plan Map in association to traffic concerns and overcrowding of the subject area. Robin Collins, Planning & Zoning Director, reported that staff would be addressing updates to the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan Map in the near future. Councilor Williams provided comments regarding the outstanding design elements of the development; however, he expressed concern with the request by the applicant for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan applicable to the Ustick and Florida area. Councilor Register concurred with previous comments regarding the high-density development. Ms. Wright reported that there were two other recently approved applications on Indiana and Ustick: Greenmont & Hoshaw developments. ORDER OF DECISION ON CASE NO. ANN22-000022 /CPM22-000010: MOVED by Allgood, SECONDED by Doty for denial of the request based on the excessive concentration for the subject area, thus it not being the right time or right place for the development. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Allgood, Williams, Register, Doty, Stadick, and McGee. Those voting no: none. Absent and/or not voting: none.