HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-12-24 Coleman Homes a Toll Brothers CompanyColeman Homes
AToll Brothers Company
December 16, 2019
City Council
City of Meridian
Attn: Mr. Caleb Hood
33 E. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 Ott
Meridian, ID 83642
0/9
VIA FIRST CLASS US MAIL and
7g :ti€
E-MAIL chood@meridiancity•org and citvclerk@meridiancity.org
Dear Mayor De Weerd, City Council Members, and Mr. Hood,
Colman Homes, A Toll Brothers Company, appreciates the City's continued efforts and hard work to
develop the new Comprehensive Plan, a guiding document for Meridian's future. We respect the public
outreach and engagement with community members during the process. The vision and leadership
demonstrated are why Meridian is considered one of the nation's top cities and a place we look forward
to doing business for years to come.
It has come to our attention that certain, disconcerting, language has been proposed for the City of
Meridian Comprehensive Plan by a few County residents that states:
3.07.01F: 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.
We respectfully request the Council decline to include this proposed policy in the Comprehensive Plan for
the following reasons:
1. Toll Brothers has made substantial investments in the City of Meridian based on the current
Comprehensive Plan. It was not reasonably foreseeable that such restrictive and ambiguous
language would be considered for adoption. The proposed policy potentially limits the ability for
smart, well ordered and, sustainable development and growth.
2. The language contradicts the City's proposed land uses adjacent to "rural estates", rendering the
zoning designations in the Comprehensive Plan meaningless when abutting these parcels. To
consider the impact of this language, Toll Brothers analyzed a parcel intended for development
and, when adding 1 -acre minimum lots to the areas bordering 5 -acre County parcels, the
proposed Comprehensive Plan density cannot be met while also complying with setback, inter
connectivity, open space, and other City requirements.
The proposed change raises many questions, such as will the City provide new zoning designations
for the developing properties to reach desired density? Will the City allow setback and street
frontage reductions so that a developer is able to meet the minimum density allowances within
A`roll Brothers Company
the Comprehensive Plan designation, without additional applications of a PUD/CUP? What
transition will be needed from the one -acre lots to higher density products? Will useable open
space be required?
3. The requirement for a one -acre minimum is too restrictive, sounding more like a zoning ordinance
and creating expectations that this policy must be applied in all circumstances even though a
comprehensive plan is intended to be only a guideline. At the same time, the proposed policy
includes some ambiguous language that creates uncertainty for decision makers, developers, and
city and county residents. For example, how close does a rural estate lot have to be to 5 acres to
trigger the one -acre transition requirement? What size of buffering roadway or linear open space
prevents it? Does a new internal roadway count as a sufficient buffer? This uncertainty inevitably
will lead to disagreement, making development more challenging for the City rather than allowing
for discretion by City officials as needed.
4. The proposed language will only add to the challenges a growing City faces by restricting growth
to appease a few non -City residents rather than doing what is best for City residents. By restricting
growth and delaying the inevitable future development of "rural estate residential properties,"
the City is burdening the existing and future residents with excessive costs for services and
maintenance of infrastructure, requiring them to shoulder a larger share of the cost.
5. The proposed language preferentially benefits non -City residents with "estate" sized lots.
Eventually these "estate lots" will request annexation into the City of Meridian, if their septic fails
or if they want to re -develop their property and need City services.
6. This language will impact and greatly reduce the amount of open space and amenities that a
developer can provide within its development. With fewer residents contributing towards HOA
the level of amenities and size of common areas requiring maintenance will substantially
decrease.
7. It is our understanding that this proposed language did not go before the Planning and Zoning
Commission, hindering its due process to have a thorough review and comment period.
We thank you all for the time and consideration that goes into a Comprehensive Plan amendment. For
the reasons listed above, we respectfully request you decline to include proposed policy 3.07.01F in the
City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan.
Respectfully,
/'Ryan Hammons
Senior Vice President
Land and Forward Planning