HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-12-17 Randy Clarno Pinnacle Land DevelopmentPLanNNAC�Eevelopment
December 12 2019
City of Meridian (city clerk eridiancit 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 1S0 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.
1629 tost N000cle Peak Rood HI 10 o Scoi I sdole, Arizona B -V 5 o Office: (480)1101-0800
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 (choodPmeri(liancity.org)
1629 cost Pinnocle Peak Hood X1.110 (w Scottsdale, Arizona 85255 w Office: (480)401-0800