HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-12-12 Larry D. WilliamsDecember 11, 2019
City Council
City of Meridian
Attn: Mr. Caleb Hood
33 E. Broadway Ave., Suite 300
Meridian, ID 83642
VIA FIRST CLASS US MAIL and
E-MAIL chood@meridianci or and ciNclerk(aimeridiancity ore
Mayor De Weerd, Honorable Council Members and Mr. Hood:
First, we'd like to thank the City of Meridian for its careful consideration of planning/development issues.
Meridian is one of Idaho's premier communities as a result of your leadership.
The Lary and Marianne Williams Family Foundation ("Foundation") owns a+/-112 acre parcel at the
northwest corner of Linder and Amity Roads ("Foundation Property").
It is our understanding that certain language is being proposed for the City of Meridian Comprehensive
Plan, that states:
to as " ("Proposed Language")].
The premise of the Proposed Language seems to be that larger lots must be protected from proposed
development effects by minimum lot sizes unless specified buffers exist.
The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to provide for well-planned, orderly and efficient future
development to suit the needs of Meridian residents.
The Foundation opposes the Proposed Language for the following [minimum] reasons:
lots. Many of the 5+ acre lots and parcels were created under County zoning. Many would no
longer be permitted under current City or County zoning. Some of these parcels block annexation
paths and prevent efficient, orderly development of properties within the City's Area of Impact.
Some of these parcels block municipal utility extensions, preventing pragmatic utility
infrastructure. In short, some of these 5 -acre developments impede well-planned, orderly and
efficient development. It is contrary to the interests of the City of Meridian and its residents to
protect and prolong these lots/developments.
Notwithstanding the above:
2. The Proposed Lmimaze is ambiguous and unclear. Does this language require that a single (-
acre lot be created? Does it require a row of one -acre lots? Or does it require that the entire
"proposed development" consist of one -acre lots? Does it require one -acre lots adjacent to "rural
estate properties" only? Or are they required anywhere that "linear open space" buffers do not
exist'? A term such as `linear open space" is subject to very broad interpretation. For example, is
an irrigation drainage ditch a linear open space? And if so, what width/length must it be to
comply? This kind of language does not assist planning; it causes confusion and controversy.
3. The Proposed Language lacks basis. The language is based exclusively on a land area
requirement; specifically, one -acre lots. It does not explain why one acre is the appropriate size.
It also fails to explain why other potentially more important compatibility factors, such as use
conditions or constructed buffers, are not considered.
4. The Proposed Language does not make practical sense. Why would the language specifically
require that a transitional buffer or linear open space must be "existing"? How is a
created/constructed buffer inferior to an existing buffer?
5. The Proposed Language improperly discriminates a ag inst proposed development. The language
seeks to have proposed development provide greater land area for the benefit or protection of the
estate parcels. As mentioned above, it fails to support this requirement Moreover, it is
reasonable to anticipate that many of these "estate" -sized parcels will be m -developed in a denser
configuration as the area grows. This would make the language's buffer requirement moot and
discriminatory. Further, the language is so vague and ambiguous that it could be used to oppose
proposed development no matter how well-planned and compatible the proposed development
might be.
6. The Proposed Language is contrary to good comprehensive planning and is fundamentally unfair
to the City of Meridian and its residents. This language acts to preferentially benefit estate -sized
lots. Many of these 5 -acre "rural estate residential properties" are not within the City of Meridian
and refuse to be annexed. Many of these developments would not be allowed today for reasons
of cul-de-sac length, lack of public utilities, etc.. Many of these lots refuse to grant annexation
paths and utility extension easements. These properties may sit squarely in the way of orderly,
efficient and well-planned development. It is fundamentally unfair that City of Meridian future
development should bear the burden of providing benefit for non -Meridian estate parcels while
those same parcels obstruct the City's efficient growth and development.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Council remove and reject the Proposed Language from its
action(s) on any Comprehensive Plan update or amendment.
We ask this letter be submitted for the record of the December 17, 2019 Council Meeting and any
subsequent meetings related to this matter.
Thank you for your consideration of this critical issue.
Sincerely,
±1J.M der
On behWilliams, Trustee
Larry and Marianne Williams Family Foundation
u/t/a dated February 12, 2008
101 S. Capitol Blvd, Suite 1801
Boise, ID 83702