Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-12-13 Pinnacle Land Development Randal S. ClarnoPINNACLE Land Development Ilc December 12, 2019 City of Meridian (cityclerk(@meridiancity. ora) Attn: Mayor and City Council 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Re: 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - H-2019-0101 Dear Mayor and City Council: I have been involved in residential development in Meridian for almost 20 years, and I have been following the City's comprehensive plan amendment process. I recently learned the City is considering policy language requiring one acre minimum lot buffers along all rural residential estate lots that are at least five acres. As an infill developer, I can tell you this would be a poor policy for Meridian and its citizens because it will prevent assemblage infill projects, and it will frustrate the City's land use designations and forecasted zoning density. In the last five years I have focused on medium density residential infill projects like Shelburne in south Meridian. Over several phases, Shelburne has added 150 high quality single-family homes to the City, and I currently have an application filed for Shelburne South that will add 100 more homes in Meridian. Shelburne is not green field development. It has been a slow accumulation of rural Ada County parcels primarily zoned RUT, which I hope to continue as land becomes available. Using Shelburne as an example, in our multiple phases we were required to decrease density on our exterior borders for neighboring large lot residences. Staff and our neighbors worked with us to provide an appropriate density transition on a case-by-case basis looking at many important factors. If I had been required to plat one acre lots along all rural estate lots in each Shelburne phase, we would have lost dozens of homes which would have increased development costs and home prices significantly. 7629 East Pinnacle Peak Road #110 • Scottsdale, Arizona 85255 9 Office: (480)401-0800 PINNAC�E Land Development Shelburne also shows that rural residential lots typically redevelop. On several occasions, large lots that once abutted the Shelburne project were eventually redeveloped as part of Shelburne. It has been my experience that RUT county properties redevelop as they are brought closer to the City limits and as urban/suburban housing projects begin to surround them. In the case of Shelburne, if I had been required to plat 1 acre lots in the early phases, those lots would have eventually been sandwiched between higher density development as our assemblage continued to acquire RUT county parcels. The proposed policy would also prevent the City from achieving the density goals in the comprehensive plan and FLUM because it will effectively change the minimum lot size designations in the City's zoning code. Looking at the new FLUM, I see unincorporated areas designated as Medium Density Residential that are adjacent to rural county estate lot subdivisions. Unless developers can assemble all of the adjoining parcels, one acre buffer lots would greatly reduce density, particularly in smaller developments with a lot frontage on rural county estate lots. If strictly applied, a one acre buffer lot requirement would be a down zone of property. I understand the importance of transitioning density and buffering. However, the City does not need a strict one acre buffer policy; the current buffer/transition policy (Section 3.05.02F of the comprehensive plan) is better for the City because it allows more flexibility to ensure the City's overarching goals in the comprehensive plan and FLUM are carried out. The City should not be sacrificing much needed infill housing for the benefit of Ada County residents whose parcels are likely to redevelop. Thank you for your attention to this issue. Sincerely, Randy Clarno cc: Caleb Hood (chood0meridiancity.org) 7629 East Pinnacle Peak Road #110 • Scottsdale, Arizona 85255 9 Office: (480)401-0800