HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-02-13 Sally Reynolds
Charlene Way
From:Liz Strader
Sent:Tuesday, February 13, 2024 11:53 AM
To:Sally Reynolds; Luke Cavener; John Overton; Doug Taylor; Anne Little Roberts; Joe
Borton; Robert Simison; City Clerk
Subject:Re: Meridian City Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Thank you Sally (and Julie) for your feedback, I am cc'ing the City Clerk so he can add this to the record.
Have a great day,
Liz
Liz Strader | City Councilwoman
City of Meridian | City Council Office
33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: | 208-546-9501
City Council District Information Link
From: Sally Reynolds <sally_a_reynolds@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 11:40:04 AM
To: Liz Strader; Luke Cavener; John Overton; Doug Taylor; Anne Little Roberts; Joe Borton; Robert Simison
Subject: Meridian City Comprehensive Plan Amendment
External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments.
Good morning, Mayor Simison and Meridian City Council Members,
I will not be able to attend the City Council meeting this evening in person, but would like to submit my
comments via email in case I am unable to call in.
First, a huge acknowledgement to city staff for the diligent work that went into revising the Comprehensive
Plan. I believe it is clearer and outlines what the city would like to see in future development.
One sticking point for me was the elimination of the square footage suggestion in the Mixed-Use community
section. I went back and forth several times about it because on the one hand, I think it is important to give
guidance and have some parameters set up before land is annexed to the city. It sets proper expectations. On
the other hand, the square footage limitation did not carry any weight in the Orchard Park development as
open space was traded to increase and justify WinCo's over double the square footage limit. Since the open
space trade was not properly recorded, it did not become part of the DA and therefore, the developer was
able to circumvent the parameter.
1
Julie Langlois and I met with Brian McClure for a couple hours to go over our thoughts. At the end of the day, I
think it should be included. I realize that the actual square footage amount was chosen somewhat arbitrarily
and therefore lacks meaning, but I think the City could find generally accepted standards and choose a square
footage amount that is close to what the city would like to see in that type of development. Furthermore, if
the comprehensive plan is going to list types of businesses that could be included in that type of development
(see MU-C p.2), then some guidance should be given. For example, it lists hardware stores as an acceptable
use. Does that mean an Ace hardware store like in Eagle or a large Lowe's/Home Depot? Including one type of
language without a general definition of what the building sizes should be is a slippery slope, especially in the
absence of architectural control guidelines.
If, however, the city council votes to not include the square footage limitation, I believe height requirements
should be included and/or in the motion as a condition of approval when the land is annexed to the city - at a
very minimum. I do not agree with the current proposal to allow a higher story for every XXXamt of increased
setback from a neighboring property, especially if the transition is going from residential to business. When I
saw the graphic in the memo to the City Council showing a one-story home next to a three-story building,
even with the additional setback, it just looks like poor planning. In some cases, a large collector road between
the two properties (like the collector between the one-story homes in south Paramount and the Prelude
apartments, which are a staggered 2 and 3 story units) helps to soften the transition. But, at the end of the
day, more than a one-story difference that close in proximity is not cohesive or pleasing. As another example,
think of the 4-5 story apartment buildings on the west side of Records road contrasted with the 1-2 story
homes across the street on the East side. The road helps a little bit there, but it still looks disjointed. However,
Kleiner park serves as a buffer between those houses and the large multi-story commercial buildings of the
Village and then, it works.
These Mixed-Use areas are some of the last places Meridian has for commercial development. Therefore,
when the city annexes the property, the most important item is to zone it correctly from the beginning and
include items in the motion for annexation that specifically address what the applicant is proposing. For
example, if land is annexed in at a C-C- zoning level and residents have voiced concerns that another vehicle
washing facility is not needed on that corner because there are two there already, then the land could be
annexed in as C-C, but "Vehicle Washing Facility" would need to be expressly prohibited as a permitted use
(UDC Table 11-2B-2) in the DA - and then that DA should be honored.
Finally, I just want to stress that in the absence of architectural control guidelines, smart, responsible, and
cohesive planning really falls on the City Code, DAs, and what the City Council approves. Many of these Mixed-
Use areas already have surrounding developments. How an applicant plans to integrate their plan with the
existing developments should be one of the most important factors for approval. Some stronger language to
that effect would be a positive addition to the comprehensive plan.
I look forward to hearing the discussion this evening.
Thank you,
Sally Reynolds
2