Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-10-17 Chuck Sundby1 Charlene Way From:gbandcs@aol.com Sent:Thursday, October 17, 2019 11:39 AM To:Meridian City Clerk Subject:Chuck Sundby Comments on Future Land Use Map The following comments are respectfully submitted by Chuck Sundby (6155 W. El Gato Lane) to the Planning and Zoning Commission and others as appropriate for consideration at the Public Hearing on October 17th. On October 7, 2019 a petition was submitted to the City Clerk by Gloria Beattie and Chuck Sundby on behalf of, and in cooperation with, the residents of El Gato Lane and the immediate vicinity. This petition has eighty one (81) signatures and clearly states the opposition of the signatories to the proposed change to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) land use designation for the affected area from Low Density Residential to Industrial. The Staff Report of October 11, 2019 acknowledges this opposition in the section titled “Black Cat – Cherry - Railroad Area,” stating on page 17 in the second paragraph the following: This area is difficult and contentious as the existing County subdivision on El Gato is strongly opposed to the Industrial future land use change, and have expressed a desire to remain Low Density Residential, long-term. The petition submitted on October 7th identifies five areas of concern that provide the basis to the opposition to the proposed land use change. Change to the FLUM land use classification in the affected area: • 1. does not consider existing development. • 2. does not protect private property rights. • 3. does not preserve farmland. • 4. does not adequately address public comments. • 5. does not recognize that there are other more suitable parcels within the AOCI for transition to Industrial Supporting information from text in the Comprehensive Plan document was provided in the petition for each of the five items. The principal concern is that the proposed action conflicts with a key principle expressed throughout the entire Comprehensive Plan; namely, the protection or retention of 2 existing land uses, existing approved use, and existing facilities and “being respectful of what is on the ground today.” The Staff Report affirms this principle by three statements contained on pages 2 (paragraph 3), 14 (paragraph 3), and 25 (item 5): For those that may still have questions or concerns about what the Plan is and does, and said here for the public’s benefit, no part of the subject application includes: • Proposed future land use designation changes that conflicts with any existing approved use(s); In most of these cases, these areas are on a tipping point, where existing land uses are one thing considered, public sentiment varies, realistic expectations are diverse, long-term needs are expressed, and market forces are suggesting or requesting change. Staff has tried to keep all of that in mind; being respectful of what is on the ground today while also planning for the future, when proposing the following alternative FLUM designations. The amendment will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. • Staff finds the proposed Plan will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. Additionally, the Staff Report acknowledges that the existing properties are “in demand.” As a matter of fact, three properties have sold this year and are now occupied by families with young children who seek the lifestyle the area offers. The Staff Report justifies the inclusion of the affected area by stating “There is a need to designate more lands in Meridian’s Area of City Impact for future industrial uses.” The report further states that this change “reflects the opportunity to be something else in the future, if and when “higher and better” market forces suggest industrial/commercial opportunities.” The report also asserts that the “look and feel” of this area may be altered by the development of planned industrial uses to the west and south in Canyon County; which presumptively could trigger a desire of residents to move on. The need for the additional industrial land is of course derived from extensive analysis and the collective experience of your planning team. I do not question their expertise nor frankly their conclusions. What I do question is the need to designate the affected area as Industrial at this time. The Staff Report uses the following language: • • Future • • If and when • • Long-term • • Ultimately 3 • • It’s entirely possible that it may be decades from now • • Something else in the future These words speak to the crux of the issue. Imposition of an Industrial land use designation on the affected area may indeed be a legitimate action at some future date which, no matter how strong your experience or expertise is, cannot be reliably predicted. There is much uncertainty relative to the actual demand for Industrial use in the future. There are numerous impediments to overcome in order to implement a physical change to Industrial use to include: • • Land acquisition • • Re-zoning • • Infrastructure, i.e. water and sewer mains • • State Highway 16 construction, primarily the I-84/Franklin Road interchange • • Private property owner opposition • • Uncertainty relative to the actual demand for Industrial It is safe to assume that long-term optimistically means at least a 10- to 20-year process at which time the Comprehensive Plan will require an update to reflect reality that exists at that time. There will be an immediate impact to the affected area associated with the proposed change which will be negative to more than 30 existing property owners. The dark cloud resulting from a “future” Industrial use designation will, without a doubt adversely affect the marketability, and hence value, of properties in the affected area! This unintended consequence is precisely the type of event key principles of the plan seek to avoid. In conclusion, it is premature to implement this land use change in the affected area by adoption of the proposed FLUM in it current form. The crystal ball is too cloudy, the impediments are significant and will take many years to overcome. The current land use designation of Low Density Residential can remain in place with no long-term detrimental impact to the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan or subsequent planning studies. Do not take an action that will have an immediate adverse, negative impact on the current residents of this community. Retain the Low Density Residential land use in the current FLUM in the affected area!