Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-12-17 William Mulder on behalf of Larry 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 cliooc Lebrn(t id anc it��.o and cityc l r ((al,i cri& icjt}''.or, 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 Larry 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: "3.07.01F Provide a minimum one -acre lot when proposing residential development adjacent to existing rural estate properties that are 5 -acres and where transitional buffers such as roadways and linear open space do not exist" [hereafter referred 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: 1. Unless and until 5 -acre "rural estate " desi—anations are intentionally incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan, other valid desiknations should not be subjugated to these 5 -acre estate 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 Language is ambiguous and unclear. Does this language require that a single 1- 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 against 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 re -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 QE 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, Willia J. M lder On beha arty D. Williams, Trustee Larry and Marianne Williams Family Foundation u/t/a dated February 12, 2008 101 S. Capitol Blvd., Suite 1801 Boise, ID 83702