HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-12-16 Julie Langlois1
Charlene Way
From:Julie Langlois <julie@langloisdds.com>
Sent:Monday, December 16, 2019 8:35 AM
To:Meridian City Clerk
Subject:testimony for Tuesday 17th meeting
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the final policy changes being considered for
the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
Of course we are disappointed that the City Council will be removing the Rural/Estate Designation
and that the Low Density designation will so nearly resemble Medium Density, thanks to R-8
dimensional standards and density bonuses. It is discouraging that the City has added density
bonuses-- in order to encourage what? More homes per acre? Is that what the residents of Meridian
are asking for?
We believe that the plan to transition our properties with 1-acre lots could be a fair compromise-- but
we are concerned that the wording of the new policy will actually discourage the 1-acre lots and
encourage collectors or narrow linear parks, leading to even worse transitions. The new policy states:
“Provide a minimum one-acre lot when proposing residential development adjacent to
existing rural estate residential properties that are 5-acres and where transitional
buffers such as roadways and linear open space do not exist.”
When Caleb spoke about this he used the term, “existing” roadways but the text just says roadways.
Because ACHD is planning a collector road running North to South we would not want the developers
to circumvent the 1-acre policy by putting the collector road on our eastern border; we would
consider that 0 transition. One of the homes in Stetson Estates sits less than 10 feet from that
eastern border.
We also assume that developers will utilize the least costly design the City allows to avoid putting in
those 1-acre parcels. It will be cheaper for them to put in a “transitional buffer” and we are back to
defining what is an appropriate transition between existing rural properties and medium density
housing or Multi-Use Residential. This is why we are asking for a sub plan for South/West Meridian
with a specialized FLUM. This would protect our community identity and give specific direction to
developers. Unfortunately, with so much Medium Density currently planned in South/West Meridian
we are becoming just another crowded area of Meridian with cookie cutter neighborhoods with
minimal open space and amenities, no distinctive identity and the loss of something that we can
never get back.
At the November 26th meeting there was a concern as to whether we understood the difference
between zoning and annexation. I have not seen the letters you have received, but I would imagine
that some of our residents were concerned after seeing the proposed maps of our area with the
medium density designations for our subdivision, collector roads bisecting our subdivision, multi-use
paths planned diagonally across some properties, the multi-use designation on our western border,
and an email received by one of our residents asking them to sign, have notarized and send back an
easement agreement running through their property.
2
There is something that we do find difficult to understand though. If the City Future Land Use Map
designates an area Low Density why is the City allowing such an expansive definition for this
designation? Hundreds of residents have petitioned to retain a rural/estate designation--but the one
the City has is being eliminated and LDR is going to include density bonuses and R-8 dimensional
standards. That does not seem to be a "stakeholder-driven" decision.
From the very beginning residents were promised there would be no step-ups in zoning. Where is
that language? Instead, based on the proposed expanded Low Density to include R-8 dimensional
standards AND density bonuses, the new comp plan will in essence have built in step-ups when we
were promised the City would not allow them. Thus it appears that the City only wants Medium
Density developments. This we do not understand.
Our residents, along with so many other residents of Meridian, feel we have not been heard. We
hope that with more discussion we can agree upon appropriate transitions from our county rural
properties to the city’s medium density and multi-use plans surrounding our subdivisions.
It was stated in the draft Comprehensive Plan that future land use in Meridian was going to be
stakeholder-driven, giving greater sensitivity to our rural neighborhoods, open spaces and our unique
agricultural heritage. We believe that intent will be diluted by adding language about density
bonuses, higher dimensional standards for the Low Density Designation, the possibility of collector
roads for transitional space and the vague language of “linear open space.”
On behalf of my group and our fellow Southwest Meridian neighbors, I respectfully request that these
proposed revisions be more stringently defined to better ensure sensitive and appropriate transitions,
premier neighborhoods and to ensure that the inevitable growth ahead protects and complements
our wonderful way of life.
Thank you,
Julie Langlois
Stetson Estates
Chris Johnson
From: Joe Borton
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 10:37 AM
To: Chris Johnson
Subject: Fwd: Testimony regarding policy changes to comp plan
Sincerely,
Joe Borton I Councilman
City of Meridian
33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642
Built for Business, Designed for Living
All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law,
in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by
law.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Julie Langlois <julie@langloisdds.com>
Date: December 16, 2019 at 8:41:08 AM MST
To: Joe Borton <jborton@meridiancity.org>
Subject: Testimony regarding policy changes to comp plan
Dear Council Member Borton,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the final policy changes being
considered for the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
Of course we are disappointed that the City Council will be removing the Rural/Estate
Designation and that the Low Density designation will so nearly resemble Medium
Density, thanks to R-8 dimensional standards and density bonuses. It is discouraging
that the City has added density bonuses-- in order to encourage what? More homes per
acre? Is that what the residents of Meridian are asking for?
We believe that the plan to transition our properties with 1 -acre lots could be a fair
compromise --but we are concerned that the wording of the new policy will actually
discourage the 1 -acre lots and encourage collectors or narrow linear parks, leading to
even worse transitions. The new policy states:
"Provide a minimum one -acre lot when proposing residential development
adjacent to existing rural estate residential properties that are 5 -acres and
where transitional buffers such as roadways and linear open space do not
exist."
When Caleb spoke about this he used the term, 'existing" roadways but the text just
says roadways. Because ACHD is planning a collector road running North to South we
would not want the developers to circumvent the 1 -acre policy by putting the collector
road on our eastern border; we would consider that 0 transition. One of the homes in
Stetson Estates sits less than 10 feet from that eastern border.
We also assume that developers will utilize the least costly design the City allows to
avoid putting in those 1 -acre parcels. It will be cheaper for them to put in a "transitional
buffer" and we are back to defining what is an appropriate transition between existing
rural properties and medium density housing or Multi -Use Residential. This is why we
are asking for a sub plan for South/West Meridian with a specialized FLUM. This would
protect our community identity and give specific direction to developers. Unfortunately,
with so much Medium Density currently planned in South/West Meridian we are
becoming just another crowded area of Meridian with cookie cutter neighborhoods with
minimal open space and amenities, no distinctive identity and the loss of something
that we can never get back.
At the November 26th meeting there was a concern as to whether we understood the
difference between zoning and annexation. I have not seen the letters you have
received, but I would imagine that some of our residents were concerned after seeing
the proposed maps of our area with the medium density designations for our
subdivision, collector roads bisecting our subdivision, multi -use paths planned diagonally
across some properties, the multi -use designation on our western border, and an email
received by one of our residents asking them to sign, have notarized and send back an
easement agreement running through their property.
There is something that we do find difficult to understand though. If the City Future
Land Use Map designates an area Low Density why is the City allowing such an
expansive definition for this designation? Hundreds of residents have petitioned to
retain a rural/estate designation --but the one the City has is being eliminated and LDR
is going to include density bonuses and R-8 dimensional standards. That does not seem
to be a "stakeholder -driven" decision.
From the very beginning residents were promised there would be no step-ups in
zoning. Where is that language? Instead, based on the proposed expanded Low Density
to include R-8 dimensional standards AND density bonuses, the new comp plan will in
essence have built in step-ups when we were promised the City would not allow them.
Thus it appears that the City only wants Medium Density developments. This we do not
understand.
Our residents, along with so many other residents of Meridian, feel we have not been
heard. We hope that with more discussion we can agree upon appropriate transitions
from our county rural properties to the city's medium density and multi -use plans
surrounding our subdivisions.
It was stated in the draft Comprehensive Plan that future land use in Meridian was
going to be stakeholder -driven, giving greater sensitivity to our rural neighborhoods,
open spaces and our unique agricultural heritage. We believe that intent will be diluted
by adding language about density bonuses, higher dimensional standards for the Low
ra
Density Designation, the possibility of collector roads for transitional space and the
vague language of "linear open space."
On behalf of my group and our fellow Southwest Meridian neighbors, I respectfully
request that these proposed revisions be more stringently defined to better ensure
sensitive and appropriate transitions, premier neighborhoods and to ensure that the
inevitable growth ahead protects and complements our wonderful way of life.
Thank you,
Julie Langlois
Stetson Estates