Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter by Don Roberts & Ryan Arnold Re: Staff Response/Report for South Meridian Study Area liIi,: (.,:1~) 'r\II' ~'; "f" t .., ""..' "i..1....../ APR 1 ~ 2007 List ofbulleted concerns is below: )-1 ~ . ""_ , "~11,;- Ufl\Ieri ,~~ <C,y. r~'_ ~ ' ~~~ '_Jty Clerk OfficIo; i:l Lack of appropriate transitions for density. A road or a canal is not an appropriate way to transition from High Density to Very Low Density. This penalizes the property owner with the Very Low Density designation in multiple ways. Not only by not allowing them to redevelop at a more reasonable density designation it also puts them in a impossible position of trying to sell 3 acre estate lots across the street for Town homes or in some cases apartment complexes. No one is going to want to spend $300k to $400k for a 3 acre estate lot sandwiched between townhomes or apartment complexes and a neutraceutical zone with agro- industrial uses (this is the exact situation on 23 acres we own just south of the NC, MH and M zones south of Amity road east of Black cat). The property adjacent to us on the north is M or MH and property bordering to south is N eutraceutical overly. It is a double penalty. (This property is 5340 S Blackcat) i:l One question we have is why the very low density would be appropriate at all. If Meridian is proposing to encompass this property into their comp plan seems like sticking with Low Density and letting the market drive the need for larger lots. The only reason that I can think of is that City of Meridian cannot service much of this area, which does not seem to be the case since the staff states they can service the entire area if they want to. If this is the case what is the benefit for a property owner to be included in City of Meridian Comprehensive plan. The reason to be included in a city is so they can provide services that are needed to develop or increase property values. i:l Staff points out that property owners will be harmed by the very low density residential in their report. This is in reference to Property at the corner of Linder and Amity road. I just find it interesting that staff points out that it would be unfair to the land owner to impose Very Low Density in this case. Seems like this designation is something that should be the property owners choice. The area should be serviceable and if they property owner chooses to develop at 3 acre large lots then fine. Let the market decide. Not impose that on all this acreage when many property owners will be harmed as far as property values by having their property designated. I can see the idea oflarger lots etc but why not just require a R-2. With.5 to I acre lots. This would seem to accomplish a open feel and look better down the road since they will most likely be maintained properly. i:l Concern that 3 acre minimum will end up looking trashy and not open and will in no way preserve a rural/agricultural feel since 3 acres is in no way large enough to farm. And unless City of Meridian changed its code I understand that livestock aren't allowed in city limits. Not that 3 acres is big enough to support large animals anyway. i:l The Staff report points out the Market Study done. While the findings make sense. It seems from a traffic and long term planning that trying to maintain a agricultural feel by requiring 3 acre lot minimums will create a market where someone that could be living in a Townhouse in one ofthe High Density areas would have to move to Kuna or Canyon county to move up to a Home on a average .25 acre lot. Since the majority of the ground 51.4% is being recommended to be changed to very low density designation. CJ Another concern is for traffic. For example looking at the ten mile interchange. The west side of ten mile to the south is being shown as very low residential. Seems like a poor use of the investment in a interchange to not maximize that investment for the benefit of the state and the City of Meridian. I am sure that most people won't find living next to a interchange off a major interstate to be ideal in the future. Also the very low density designation will push affordable growth to kuna and east canyon county which does nothing to address traffic concerns. It will however create a lot of traffic thru the very low density areas o One point the staff makes is that much of the Very Low Residential area has been developed into cluster subdivisions under Ada County regulations and is unlikely to redevelop quickly or at all. In actuality if you look at the map, the overall amount of acres in this 5634 acre area that is in cluster lots is very small- it would be interesting to get an exact calculation. The only reason land owners did these cluster subs in the first place was that was all that Ada County would allow "until services were to the property". Many ofthese landowners have been waiting years for Meridian to extend services so they could finally get the value out oftheir property by developing the open space. Now the fact they developed a cluster subdivision is being used against them by not allowing them to develop at any reasonable density. We for example have two such subdivisions with prelim plat approval but have been waiting to develop hoping that Meridian will get services to the area in the next 5-7 years so we can get better value out of the ground. We have made a decision to hold off on one of these approvals and considered the other because we would rather work the properties into a more complete long term plan that will flow with the city of Meridian. At this point we are not sure what to do since the property we thought would become Medium density has been recommended to become very low density. And the other property is has been recommended to go from Low density to very low density. o In summary, I could understand the Very Low Residential designation, if Meridian were located say where Fruitland is. The fact is that Meridian is not on an island - it is part of a metro area of population over 400,000 that is now the third largest city in the Northwest. It appears that there is no hesitation on Kuna or Nampa's part to aggressively grow their cities and population base via a low to medium residential density. Imposing very low residential on 51 % of south Meridian study area will simply result in Meridian getting bypassed for growth and traffic flowing through it from east Nampa and Kuna as all the population base commutes into Meridian and Boise. I do agree that we need more Medium High and High Density to provide more options for people, but forcing 51 % of this area in to 3 acre lots is not going to help provide affordable housing. At the $60,000 or so per acre that land is now going for out in this area, a developer will be into a 3 acre lot for nearly $200,000 just land cost, before infrastructure, interest or sales cost. This puts these type oflots at a price of $350,000 or more. As noted earlier, I don't think there is a market of 1600 people that can or want to maintain a 3 acre lot. Even if this strategy were successful in creating beautiful $1 million plus homes on well maintained 3 acre lots, it would simply drive the cost of all the other lots (even MH and M density) so high by association that it would not be affordable anyway (a good example is the 1.8 acre lots in Eagle- they have driven prices up by causing lack of supply of high density lots and now the smaller lots are even unaffordable for most people in Ada County). Ifthe staff is intent on some type of Very Low Residential option is would make more sense to allow 1 acre lots with say 30% open space that could be managed by the HOA. Then the open space may be large enough to be farmed or even mowed by a commercial company - options that are not realistic on 3 acre parcels. With 1 acre lots there is still a decent chance that those size lots could qualify for individual septic and wells ifthe soil was good. One of us recently moved from south Meridian to Teton County, Idaho. A large part of Teton County was rezoned Ag 2.5 several years ago and the 2.5 acre lots have been nothing but a problem since - parcels are now full of weeds and too small to farm. This is in a county with only 8,000 residents. It would be a tragedy for south Meridian to make the same mistake. Teton County is currently trying to rezone much of its very rural area to encourage true cluster subdivisions with some open space and one acre lots that people can truly manage. Sincerely, Don Roberts and Ryan Arnold Page 1 of3 Machelle Hill From: Matthew Ellsworth Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 8:14 AM To: Machelle Hill Cc: Sharon Smith Subject: FW: South Meridian Hearing Attachments: Concerns with Staff Response.doc '"i): ";.-:.,, ""'" "Ir:'! "J....)/;' T" ,.,,-', ,-, ~" , t' j.'~ ~ il-1 I 'V '~'1 I } .1" \,",,_l :",' ,}.':,"; .., .,,:.l.I, ~, APR 1 2 2007 -,::it)' Of Meri.d.ia::.J. ::::~I;y Clerk Office Machelle, Here are some more comments on the South Meridian CPA. I also received a letter this week, which I'll fax over this morning. Thanks, Please let me know if it doesn't come through. Matt Ellsworth Associate City Planner Meridian Planning Department 660 E. Watertower, Suite 202 Meridian, ID 83642 208.884.5533 From: Don Roberts [mailto:droberts@terra.mgmt.com] Sent: Thursday, April OS, 2007 2:08 PM To: 'Ryan Arnold'; Matthew Ellsworth Subject: RE: South Meridian Hearing Matt, I am Don Roberts. Ryan and I own two large parcels in the study area so we have been following this study of the area by Meridian closely. We own (5340 5 Blackcat (23 Acres) and 6152 W Victory (38 Acres)). We where very excited and encourage up to this point by what meridian was proposing. While we are still excited and encouraged by Meridian being proactive we do have some concerns with the substantial changes that staff is recommending. We have listed out some bullet points on an attached word document. Please view this as concerns we have about the staff recommendations and some feedback from two concernedlinterested landowners in this area. We are hoping to possibly discuss some of the concerns with staff and maybe there are some things we haven't considered that would help us understand the staff recommendations. Please let us know a good time to possible call you today. Or possibly we can visit at the hearing tonight. Although I know that could be difficult. Thank you, Don Roberts and Ryan Arnold From: Ryan Arnold [mailto:rarnold@prohr.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 20079:55 AM To: 'Matthew Ellsworth' Cc: 'Don Roberts' Subject: RE: South Meridian Hearing Matt, 4/12/2007 Page 2 of3 Thank you for your prompt response and attention to my concerns. I hope today to prepare some written comments and concerns to e~mail to you regarding the staff recommended changes. If there is time prior to the meeting I may want to discuss them with you after you've had a chance to review them if possible. Thank you, Ryan Arnold From: Matthew Ellsworth [mailto:ellsworm@meridiancity.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 8:45 AM To: Ryan Arnold Cc: Don Roberts Subject: RE: South Meridian Hearing Mr. Arnold, Thank you for the suggestion. I will send another e-mail to folks on the list on Friday to provide a brief update about the hearing and (more importantly) underscore the fact that some significant changes are on the table. Staff is recommending that the P&Z Commission continue the application until April 1 9 to allow the public enough time to review the changes, have any questions they have answered by staff, and prepare comments for consideration at the next meeting. As a side note, by no means does the Planning Department intend to "slip these changes by" people. We felt that, since the Preferred Alternative was the result of such an extensive public involvement process, releasing the staff report along with the revised map to outline our reasons for considering the changes was appropriate. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns that you would like to discuss please feel free to contact me. Thanks again for the suggestion, and I hope to see you Thursday. Matt Ellsworth Associate City Planner Meridian Planning Department 660 E. Watertower, Suite 202 Meridian, 10 83642 208.884.5533 From: Ryan Arnold [mailto:rarnold@prohr.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 03,200710:02 AM To: Matthew Ellsworth Cc: 'Don Roberts' Subject: RE: South Meridian Hearing Matt, Thank you for the update. I do have some concern after reviewing your e-mail and the recommended staff changes that most people are not going to realize that very substantial and significant changes from the final draft map issued in January are now being proposed. I know that my assumption was that the Final Draft map issued in January was what would be recommended to the board at the meeting this week. With that in mind, I just glanced at this e-mail and nearly ignored it assuming it was just a notice for that meeting. Having now delved deeply into researching the information on the website I realize that this is a pretty drastic differentiation from the Final Draft map. I have several concerns about the staff recommended changes that I will detail in some later written comments that I will send to you as well as at the public hearing. My primary concern today is that I think you need to send another e-mail out to the distribution list strongly encouraging them to review the staff recommended changes on the website and there are substantial differences between them and the Final Draft map issued in January. Hopefully by doing that more people will actually review the materials and come to the hearing or make written comment. 4/12/2007 Page 3 of3 Thank you, Ryan Arnold From: Matthew Ellsworth [mailto:ellsworm@meridiancity.org] Sent: Monday, April 02,20073:43 PM To: Matthew Ellsworth Subject: South Meridian Hearing Hello, This is a reminder that the first Planning & Zoning hearing for the South Meridian Comprehensive Plan Amendment is scheduled for this Thursday, April 5, at 7:00 pm. The meeting will be held at Meridian City Hall, located at 33 E. Idaho, in Downtown Meridian. At the hearing, Planning Department staff will recommend certain changes to the Preferred Alternative based on (1) public comments received throughout the planning process, and (2) a transportation study that Ada County Highway District is currently drafting. All changes that staff will recommend are available on the project website. The Staff Report and related text amendment narrative, which provide further explanation of and justification for the proposed changes, are also posted online: http://www. meridianc~org/p'lan!1iD.&Lzoning/south meridian study/index.~~. I encourage you to review the information on the website and to attend the Planning & Zoning hearing on the 5th to provide your input. In the meantime, please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for your continued interest in this plan and process! Sincerely, Matt Ellsworth Associate City Planner Meridian Planning Department 660 E. Watertower, Suite 202 Meridian, 10 83642 208.884.5533 4/12/2007