Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-11-27 Hethe Clark - Clark Wardle T. Hethe Clark (208) 388-3327 hclark@clarkwardle.com Via electronic mail (chood@meridiancity.org) November 26, 2019 Caleb Hood City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Department 3 E. Broadway Ave. Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Proposed Amendment to Length for Cul-de-Sac Streets (H-2019-0107) CW File No. 21895.0 Dear Caleb: Our firm has had the opportunity to review the proposed amendment referenced above. As noted in the Staff Report, a number of other jurisdictions have, for quite some time, allowed longer street lengths than currently allowed by Meridian. We agree that greater flexibility is appropriate and largely support the Staff Report language with one exception. In our view, the proposed twenty (20) unit maximum on any cul-de-sac street should be removed. There is no such limit in the existing ordinance and imposing it here is ultimately counter-productive for a number of reasons. First, the intent of the ordinance is to provide flexibility. There is currently no twenty-unit limit on cul- de-sac streets of 450 feet or less. We do not see why such a limit would now apply when previously that would not have been the case. In addition, a twenty-unit cap is based on an arbitrary number. There is no scientific or life-safety basis for a limit of twenty units. We also believe a strict limit on units would force increased lot size. If this lot limit is imposed, lots must increase in size to fill the length of the proposed street, which would have been designed based on the slopes or other physical characteristics of the site. This would force lower density that may not be appropriate or even allowed in a zone. We do not believe this is appropriate, nor does it support the intent of the amendment or the comprehensive plan’s goal of providing for a variety of housing types. If a proposed cul-de-sac street meets all of the standards required by this proposed amendment for additional length, then the density should be in accordance with the underlying zone. In summary, we are in support of the amendment with the language proposed by staff so long as the twenty-lot maximum is removed. We do not see why a twenty-lot maximum is necessary. It does not currently exist in City Code, yet would now be imposed for all cul-de-sac streets. To the extent it is required, it is arbitrary and has unintended consequences of unnecessarily reducing density. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, T. Hethe Clark thc/bdb