Loading...
CC - Planning Recommendation to City Council Page 1 HEARING DATE: 11/19/2019 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Brian McClure, Comprehensive Associate Planner 208-884-5533 PROJECT NO. SUBJECT: H-2019-0101 Comprehensive Plan (CPAT, CPAM) LOCATION: Citywide Planning Area I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Meridian Planning Division submitted an application for a Comprehensive Plan Text (CPAT) and Map (CPAM) Amendment that proposes to replace the current version of the Comprehensive Plan (the Plan). Items addressed with the subject application include the following: 1) new text and format of the Plan, 2) new policies for the Plan, and 3) new/updated Future Land Use Map (Map). While the current version of the Plan was consulted and some of the existing text was used to develop the subject Plan, this Plan has several original policies and other unique elements and is thus considered a new Plan. II. OVERVIEW Project Summary Background During the spring of 2018, the Meridian City Council approved the scope of work for this project. Shortly after, Logan Simpson, consultants on the project, supported by two sub-consultants, Leland Consulting Group and Kittleson & Associates, who performed additional market and transportation analysis, began working on the project. Work by the consultants was overseen by a 22 person Steering Committee (SC) made up of a diverse range of residents, stakeholders, and agency partners most of which are Meridian residents. On June 5, 2018 the first SC meeting was held. After numerous public involvement meetings, more than a dozen SC meetings, and a month-long informal draft Plan public review, the new Comprehensive Plan was submitted in September of 2019 for formal review and approval. STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Page 2 This Plan is the collective recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee and represents a broader community vision informed by public involvement throughout Plan development. The Plan is anchored by the consultant’s expertise and analysis, and by local knowledge and experience. The City Attorney’s Office, Community Development Department, Clerk’s Office, Fire Department, Information Services, Police Department, Parks and Recreation Department, and Public Works Department have all actively provided resources to the development and review of this Plan. Further, agency partners from the Ada County Highway District (ACHD), the West Ada School District, Idaho Power and other service providers were actively involved in Plan development. Purpose The City’s Comprehensive Plan is a visionary document that contains text, goals, objectives, and action items that encourage and promote a well-designed and sustainable community. Since the 2002 Plan was adopted Meridian has almost tripled in size and population with changing (aging) demographics and an array of new and planned commercial services and employment areas. The purpose of the subject project was to develop a new vision for the community that guides growth and development consistent with its values. Comprehensive Planning generally involves many interests; everything addressed is important to someone. Many elements appear innocuous to most but may have immense importance for others. Planning staff have heard from many stakeholders and there have been a lot of great ideas. While these ideas (and concerns) are important, the Comprehensive Plan is not the right document to address all ideas about how the community should grow and change. The Plan includes high level policy statements and a Future Land Use Map (FLUM) that guides growth and development; it does not create standards or establish code and is not the vehicle to annex or develop properties. For those that may still have questions or concerns about what the Plan is and does, and said here for the public’s benefit, no part of the subject application includes: • annexation or rezone of any property; • establishment of development improvement standards such as how much open space and amenities a residential development shall provide or how a commercial building shall look; • proposed future land use designation changes that conflicts with any existing approved use(s); and, • any new, proposed roads planned to be constructed or prioritized with public funding. Plan Development The Plan was developed in four phases. In phase one, an audit of the existing Comprehensive Plan and associated documents performed, a communications and stakeholder involvement plan developed, and a public outreach plan established to understand what the community cares about. This phase was branded #MyMeridianValues. In phase two, the values obtained from phase one were built upon to form vision statements and themes that would drive the policy statements of the Plan. Phase two culminated in a summary document dubbed #MyMeridianVision. Phase three, #MeridianontheMove, was a mostly technical phase where opportunities and choices were evaluated. Strategic growth management, areas of change and stability, market demands and analysis, transportation, zoning, utility and service provisions, and housing were all evaluated to develop policy statements and potential changes to the Future Land Use Map. Phase four included taking everything from the first three phases and putting that into one, user-friendly document. The #MyMeridianPlan was then shared with the public, with refinements being made by the consultant team and City staff, with Steering Committee input and oversight. Page 3 A project website was established early on (www.meridiancompplan.com). The website was set up to be interactive where information was shared and comments could be made. The Bang the Table platform was used for the website, which allowed for consolidated location of news and materials, and for interactive tools. The most common of these were an idea wall where stakeholders could post and share ideas, interactive mapping for posting location specific comments, and integrated surveys with review materials. This was implemented with a focus of community outreach. Four focus groups, looking at Economic Development, Transportation, Housing and Community Design were established. These elements were identified early on as critical to the long-term success of our community. Community Design was also determined to be an important topic and added on by request. The Economic Development Focus Group included technical economic development and market analysis. Market research included an inventory of the types of land uses in the City’s current portfolio, analysis on the general location, and forecasting for the land area the City would likely need for general uses in the upcoming decades. This work concluded with recommendations for this Plan that are informed by data, interviews with economic development stakeholders across the region, and best practices. This effort was led by Leland with input from the Economic Development Focus Group. Corridor analysis was also part of the Plan development. This technical and market review was conducted to evaluate whether identified corridors have existing and planned land uses with the right mix and scale to support transit in the future. This analysis aimed to ensure that land uses provide enough potential ridership to support transit investments in planned areas where feasible, while also leveraging each unique corridor’s development context. The Transportation Focus Group reviewed the analysis prepared by Kittleson and Associates. The third focus group, Housing, evaluated topics that included the general location, density, priorities, and affordability of homes in Meridian near and long-term. This diverse group of stakeholders helped to develop many of the housing related policies found in the Plan and drove some of the future land use designation changes. The fourth focus group, Community Design, reviewed policy topics and made recommendations that included open space, pathways, design aesthetics, and general livability factors of the community. Four specific areas with opportunities for future change and redevelopment were identified early on. These areas include: the northwest (aka Fields); southwest; Southern Rim; and MagicBridge (Magic View-Woodbridge-Locust View Heights area). For these opportunity areas, concepts were developed to generate ideas and for stakeholders to review and comment on. In these areas special attention was made to engage with stakeholders. Opportunities for stakeholders to engage in-person as well as on- line occurred. Public Involvement Public involvement was the cornerstone of work in developing this new Plan. Work began with public outreach, and will conclude with a series of public hearings. Public involvement was performed using many methods including postcards, social media, online forums, workshops, town halls, and participation at community events. So much work went into public involvement that a Vision document was created as a midpoint check-in, just to verify with the public that the Plan was heading in the right direction. There are almost 300 pages summarizing themes, polls, surveys, ideas, and comments from thousands of participants, in Appendix E of the Plan. Stakeholder interviews began the public involvement process. The project consultants interviewed and discussed with community partners what the City was doing well, what the City needed to work on, and what their individual vision for the community was. The consultants talked with engaged residents, neighborhood representatives, agency partners, business leaders, the faith community, healthcare partners, and members of the development community. This early feedback helped to Page 4 inform initial public outreach at events across the City. Planning Staff and Steering Committee volunteers attended dozens of public events all over the City to meet residents and stakeholders where they were. Saturday markets, Concerts on Broadway, Meridian Business Day, CableOne/Sparklight Movie Night and other events played host to engagement efforts for this Plan. Traditional town halls were also held at several points during the project, and workshops occurred throughout areas of the City. Social media also took on a new outlet for public engagement, not only for simple notification of events, but to also engage with and understand stakeholder sentiment. Facebook, Nextdoor, and Instagram all played host to surveys and polls and general comments. The City’s first-ever telephone town hall also occurred, connecting with stakeholders not otherwise plugged-in online or able to attend other public events and activities. Hundreds of postcards were sent, notifying property owners of potential Map changes and asking for their input. Key also to development of the Plan was context and decision making based in reality and subject matter expertise. While not every idea and comment can be incorporated into such a broad planning document, especially when there is push and pull in conflicting ideas and requests and over 115,000 residents with different ideas, every effort was made to hear and act on feedback. Staff is not aware of any opposition to the proposed text, and believes that the proposed Plan provides a more relevant and improved vision plan for the City. Staff is aware of some additional Map amendment requests that are not currently reflected in the application (several of these areas are overviewed in the analysis below.) However, by and large, and for a project of this scope and scale, Staff believes the proposed Map provides a wide cross-section of land uses that will meet the City’s needs for a sustainable community moving into the future. Community Metrics The Steering Committee-recommended Plan contains approximately 500 policies and a proposed Future Land Use Map depicting an Area of City Impact (AOCI) that is 38,352 acres (59.93 sq. miles). This area includes large portions of right-of-way, such as I-84 and the railroad, which do not have future land use designations. The total coverage of all areas with future land use designations is 37,903 acres. With existing Meridian city limits totaling 22,286 acres, the remaining area not annexed and within the AOCI is 16,066 acres (41.9% of the AOCI). In 2002 when the last Comprehensive Plan was adopted, Meridian city limits were only 8,862 acres (approximately 1/3 the size it is today). In the last 17 years Meridian has consumed 35.0% of the proposed AOCI land area. Similarly, the population has also increased from 44,943 in 2002 to 114,680 in 2019. Despite all the growth, development and change, and an extremely diverse range of scales in both residential and commercial project types, the City has generally maintained the same overall density. In 2002, the overall persons per acre was 5.07, with a low in 2006 of 3.97, a high in 2019 of 5.47, and an average of 4.60 persons per acre in the last 17 years. These numbers considers an adjustment for the large south Meridian annexation in 2015, which remains largely underdeveloped. Themes The community’s vision of the Comprehensive Plan is comprised of five themes and states that, “Meridian is a premier, evolving, livable, vibrant, and connected community.” Each of these five themes has an associated vision statement:  Premier: A vibrant, diverse, clean, safe, and secure community in which to live, work, and thrive;  Evolving: A community thoughtfully adapting to changes;  Livable: A community of family-friendly, healthy, and engaging places; Page 5  Vibrant: A community strengthened by historic character and vibrant activity centers; and  Connected: A community of safe and efficient transportation. With dramatic changes to the community since the last Plan was developed, 17 years ago, and even since the last major update 8 years ago, this renewed vision is not just a collection of pithy words. It is the stories that the Comprehensive Plan team heard over and over again at every phase of public involvement about what the community should look like in the future. In-conjunction with the text and policies of the Plan, and the Future Land Use Map, the proposed document is relevant to the Meridian community today, and for their vision of the future. III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Caleb Hood, Planning Division Manager, 33 E Broadway Ave, Meridian, Idaho 83542. B. Owner: Not applicable. C. Representative: Not applicable. IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date City Council Posting Date Public Service Announcement 9/24/2019 10/29/2019 Newspaper Notification 9/27/2019 10/28/2019 Nextdoor Posting 9/24/2019 10/29/2019 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Comprehensive Plan (text and policies): Staff has briefly updated relevant text and exhibits (as applicable) at the end of each of the following sections, with summary recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission. See sections titled Planning & Zoning Action and formatted in purple with a wavy-underline. The greatest case that can be made for this new Plan is the community-vetted vision that is not said just once, but articulated from beginning to end and making up the very framework of the Plan. The vision and vision statements are described in the Executive Summary, in the Introduction, continued at the beginning of every chapter, and then reinforced in the text and policies themselves. Aside from a Steering Committee revision to one statement, with an aim to be more inclusive, the same vision and vision statements included in the published Vision document produced mid-project are the same as those in the proposed Plan. The language in the text and policies is progressive and visionary, describing a desire to do and be better, and not just simply a list of wants or even needs. There is nothing necessarily wrong with the adopted Plan vision. However, the adopted Plan has not received the input or support of the community today, and some of the themes reiterated to staff and the Steering Committee over and over again are not adequately addressed in the adopted Plan. Page 6 In addition to reflecting the community vision, and that process, it is also important that the Plan meet State requirements. State Statute 67-6508 outlines the planning duties required of a Comprehensive Plan. It says, It shall be the duty of the planning or planning and zoning commission to conduct a comprehensive planning process designed to prepare, implement, and review and update a comprehensive plan, hereafter referred to as the plan. The plan shall include all land within the jurisdiction of the governing board. The plan shall consider previous and existing conditions, trends, compatibility of land uses, desirable goals and objectives, or desirable future situations for each planning component. The plan with maps, charts, and reports shall be based on the following components as they may apply to land use regulations and actions unless the plan specifies reasons why a particular component is unneeded. The proposed Plan addresses all of the State-required duties and processes; either in the proposed text, in the Existing Conditions Report (ECR), or in both documents. The 2017 version of the ECR is adopted by reference in the Comprehensive Plan (CP) with text and policies directing regular updates. The 17 State-required components to be included in a comprehensive plan are addressed individually below: Comprehensive Plan Required Elements/Components: Element Document Chapter/Section Reference Summary Property Rights CP CP: Appendix C, Regulatory Takings Checklist. Also, Chapter 3, Growth and Population, Property Rights. Regulatory worksheet on takings, and also general text and policies to be respectful throughout. Population CP and ECR CP: Chapter 3, Growth and Population, Property Rights. ECR: Chapter 2, Population and Demographic Characteristics. Generally throughout both documents: CP forward thinking and ECR existing today (2017). School Facilities CP and ECR CP: Chapter 2, Education, Health, and Community Services; FLUM, Existing and Future Facilities. ECR: Chapter 4, Education. Generally throughout both documents: CP forward thinking and ECR existing today (2017). Economic Development CP and ECR CP: Chapter 2, Economic Excellence. ECR: Chapter 2, Economic Development Generally throughout both documents: CP forward thinking and ECR existing today (2017). Land Use CP and ECR CP: Chapter 3, Future Land Use, and Future Land Use Map. ECR: Chapter 3 How is the Land in Meridian Developed? Generally throughout both documents: CP forward thinking and ECR existing today (2017). Natural resources CP and ECR CP: Chapter 4, Stewardship. ECR: Chapter 3, Preservation and Restoration of Natural Resources, and Livability and Quality of Life. Generally throughout both documents: CP forward thinking and ECR existing today (2017) or past work. Hazardous Areas CP and ECR CP: Chapter 4 in multiple sections. ECR: Chapter 5, Hazardous Areas. There are a few proactive elements in CP, but mostly addressed in ECR (the City does not expect more). Page 7 Element Document Chapter/Section Reference Summary Public Services CP and ECR CP: Addressed heavily throughout, but more notably in Chapter 3 Evolving Community. ECR: Addressed throughout, but more notably in Chapter 4, Public Services. Generally throughout both documents: CP forward thinking and ECR existing today (2017) or past work. Transportation CP and ECR CP: Addressed throughout, but more notably in Chapter 6, Connected Community. ECR: Addressed most notably in Chapter 3, Transportation Generally throughout both documents: CP forward thinking and ECR existing today (2017) or past work. Recreation CP and ECR CP: Addressed heavily throughout, but more notably in Chapter 4 Livable Community, Parks and Pathways. ECR: Addressed heavily throughout but most notable in Chapter 4, Recreation, Parks and Pathways. Generally throughout both documents: CP forward thinking and ECR existing today (2017) or past work. Special Areas or Sites CP and ECR CP: Primarily addressed in Chapter 5, Historic Preservation. ECR: Most notably addressed in Chapter 5, What are the Physical and Cultural Features of Meridian. There is a Historic Preservation section in the Comp Plan and several policies throughout, but addressed mostly in the ECR. Housing CP and ECR CP: Addressed heavily throughout, but most notable in Chapter 2, Premier Community, Housing, and Chapter 3, Evolving Community, Future Land Use Map. Generally throughout both documents: CP forward thinking and ECR existing today (2017) or past work. Community Design CP and ECR CP: Addressed throughout, but most notably in Chapter 5, Vibrant Community, Character, Design, and Identity. ECR: Addressed in Chapter 3, Community Design. Generally throughout both documents: CP forward thinking and ECR existing today (2017). Agriculture CP and ECR CP: Chapter 4, policy to support appropriate agricultural operations as a source for local food. ECR: Chapter 5, What are the Physical and Cultural Features of Meridian? The City is planning for urban services and is transparent on this. The City would like to support local food. ECR has analysis on agricultural land consumption. Implementation CP CP: Chapter 2 through 6 contain policies (goals, objectives, and action items) and together represent Implementation. Implementation is a critical component of the Comp Plan. Some elements of the ECR address policies in the Comp Plan, such as demographics and tracking of data, but there is no implementation assigned in the ECR. Page 8 Element Document Chapter/Section Reference Summary National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors CP and ECR CP: Chapter 4 policy to work with Idaho Power to ensure one does not traverse Meridian. ECR: Chapter 5, National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors, provides some text regarding history on this topic. The City does not have and does not want a National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor through the City. Public Airport Facilities ECR Chapter 3, Mobility Management, Public Airport Facilities There are several airports near Meridian, including Boise, Nampa and Caldwell and we do not intend to build another. Notes: a CP reference means the topic is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan, and an ECR reference means the topic is addressed in the Existing Conditions Report. 1. Proposed Policies Summary There are several new and substantially revised policies proposed in the subject Plan. Again, these policies reflect the communities’ priorities and vision for the future. This section will not address all proposed policies, see the Plan itself for those, but rather Staff wants to highlight a few of the more significant policy changes. The amount of change and growth the City has experienced over the past 15 years, and which is anticipated to continue, was a huge topic. There are many new policies that try to address how the City should grow more strategically. Traffic and school over-crowding concerns were the most prevalent concerns heard with regard to the rate of growth and development approval. Collaborative growth management and improved communication with other agencies and service providers is better highlighted in the new Plan. Identifying areas where growth and development is encouraged, and where it should not occur yet, is another new policy in the Plan. To help define these areas, the Service Impact Tool, which was developed concurrently with the Plan, will be used. This tool helps to identify parcels that have services, utilities and amenities in close proximity. Defining priority growth areas will required coordination and collaboration. Neighborhood identity was important to many and therefore there are policies included in the Plan that address community design, architectural design, the importance of creating places that people want to congregate, and potentially establishing neighborhood districts or associations that define sense of place are in the new Plan. Related, open space and amenities like parks and pathways are important. There are policies in the new Plan that call for the City to address its current development standards for open space and amenities in new subdivisions as well as prioritizing community-connecting pathways. Similar to neighborhood identity, many in the community want to preserve the historic and cultural heritage of Meridian. There are policies addressing the agricultural heritage of the community and being good stewards of natural resources. In the current Plan, a “step” up or down in residential density is allowed without amending the Future Land Use Map. Many have complained about this policy; it is removed from the current Plan. Related, the new Plan explicitly defines the residential density range for each designation. Post adoption of the Plan, it is anticipated that several of the ideas and concerns raised about growth and development in Meridian will be further addressed through other mechanisms Page 9 such as amending City Code, including tactics in the Strategic Plan and executing more detailed land use planning efforts. Staff intends to discuss with the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Mayor and Council what policies are the highest priorities and then implement them as quickly as possible. Planning & Zoning Action: The Planning & Zoning Commission did not make any explicit changes to the proposed policies of the Plan, but one of the general requests/recommendations for City Council was to potentially explore transitions required between estate sized lots and regular City sized lots. For more details, see Section VI. 2. Proposed Text and Policy Revisions to Steering Committee Recommendation: Staff wish to respect the text of the Plan as proposed by the Steering Committee. However, there are a few areas where Staff believes changes are appropriate. These changes to the submitted proposal/application are detailed in this section in underline (green) and strike- through (red) from what was submitted (Staff analysis in italics). (From Executive Summary) Since 2011, when the last Comprehensive Plan was adopted, the City of Meridian has changed significantly. While much of this change has been positive, the City faces must plan for the challenges in accommodating additional growth. This Plan sets forth the framework necessary for orderly growth and development reflecting the communities values today, while anticipating the needs, wants, and desires of later generations. Without guided growth and development, overcrowding, congestion, safety, community identity, and an overall deterioration of the current quality of life and living may result. A year-long planning process resulted in a Comprehensive Plan document that continues to elevate Meridian as a major population and employment center within the Treasure Valley and one of the most desirable places to live in the nation. This updated Comprehensive Plan (select revisions):  Is inspired by a grass-roots, and citizen-based and collaborative process  Defines approaches to areas of growth and change  Supports a diversity of housing types and for all income groups (From Chapter 1) Implementation of the Plan will take hard work and dedication from the entire community. Many of these actions have already started based on community input. After adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, one of the first steps will be to prioritize the action items listed in the Plan. City Departments and other stakeholders will be part of the process to determine which action items are immediate, intermediate, or long-term priorities. This consolidated list of the action items will be referred to as the Implementation Plan of the Comprehensive Plan and it will establish both an action item lead and support, including all City departments or civic organizations that need to be involved in completing each action. After staff consensus on priorities, the draft policies will be shared with the Mayor and City Council for approval and allocation of any resources needed to execute the highest priorities. The intent of the Implementation Plan is to provide transparency to the community and ensure timely execution of the Comprehensive Plan’s action items through assigned responsibilities and priorities. Page 10 (From Chapter 2) 2.6.1E Focus on developing industries that tend to exceed the living wage, such as technology, healthcare and other similar industries. (From Chapter 4) 4.1.1D Evaluate impact fees for public open space to ensure development is paying the full allowable appropriate fee. 4.7.1B 4.5.2.F Support construction projects that demonstrate an innovative and effective approach to stormwater management and Low Impact Development. This policy does not relate to the goal of reducing energy conservation; move under goal that relates to protecting surface water quality. 4.11.3.D Locate new fire stations in areas that meet response time needs today and into the future. Planning & Zoning Action: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation was to include staff proposed revisions and they did not make any additional changes in this area. B. Future Land Use Map (FLUM): 1. Citywide Overview The proposed Plan includes significant changes to the adopted Future Land Use Map. Many of these changes are “cleanup”, to reflect recent entitlement and existing developments, such as parks and schools, or are being made to be more consistent with previous approvals. There are also some areas with significant changes (by land use area). Large areas of Low Density Residential (LDR) were changed to Medium Density Residential (MDR) for example, because a subdivision was approved with a step, and MDR is literally what exists now. Other changes were made to treat two similar uses the same, such as churches, which may have had identical zoning and were adjacent to each-other, but had different future land uses. While the Map depicts future land uses, in Meridian today more of the Map is existing than future, as few areas are expected to see wholesale redevelopment within the lifespan of this Plan. Note: The tables below reflect the Steering Committee recommended version of this Plan, and not recommendations or alternatives by Staff (see Additional Recommendations section below). Table of Future Land Use Change Types: Change Type Acres 1. AOCI Removal 1,155 2. Cleanup Changes 509 3. Consolidation of Designation Types 55 4. General Change (staff initiated and by property owner request) 5,758 5. NC Overlay removed (but no change to Mixed Use designation) 384 6. No Change 31,196 Total Future Land Use Area 39,058 Page 11 The Table of Land Use Coverage Comparison below breaks down the adopted/current land use designations by area and compares it with proposed land use categories. It is important to understand however that these are not necessarily apples to apples comparisons. There are some significant changes looking only at area, but the context is important. Some land uses change significantly, but the backstory not shared for example, is that some change was due to a prior approval for a “float” or “step”. Many of these are already built and existing. Another example is the “Rural / Estate Residential” designation being removed, but the correlation not shown in the table is that a significant area of this was removed from the City entirely, and not changed to a more intensive designation. Another example is cause and effect. There is more “Med-High Density Residential” now, largely due to proposed designations in the Fields area. To support a desire for more centralized community commercial opportunities in the Fields area, analysis determined that more rooftops were required to support it. The backstory on every FLUM change cannot realistically be described in this report. However, analysis went into each and every one of the proposed changes and collectively they are presented with thought, reason, and analysis. Large areas, or sub-areas, of the City were also reviewed as part of corridor and market analysis. If an area or parcel was not specifically reviewed due to opportunity, need, or request however, it was still considered as part of aggregated totals and support for the larger vision. It is reasonable to expect that some land uses will be questioned in the future, but caution should be taken as to whether or not a location is the highest and/or best use; the designation and aggregated total is still important to the larger whole, and while some areas may not be the highest or best, there may be other reasons for the designation. Table of Land Use Coverage Comparison: Designation Adopted Proposed Low Density Residential 9,926 8,014 Medium Density Residential 15,165 16,889 Med-High Density Residential 670 902 High Density Residential 573 662 Commercial 1,548 1,610 Office 343 314 General Industrial 1,047 1,336 Civic 1,503 1,638 Old Town 336 336 Mixed Use -Neighborhood 1,014 1,007 Mixed Use - Community 1,475 1,954 Mixed Use - Non Residential 499 369 Mixed Use - Regional 1,553 1,566 Mixed Use - Interchange 270 294 Low Density Employment * 97 97 High Density Employment * 75 77 Mixed Employment * 520 518 Mixed Use - Residential * 68 68 Mixed Use - Commercial * 194 251 Page 12 Designation Adopted Proposed Rural/Estate Residential 1,967 - Park * 34 - Lifestyle Center * 73 - Pipeline Easement * 9 - Civic Ten Mile * 91 - Total 39,051 37,903 * Denotes a Ten Mile Interchange Designation 2. Specific Area Highlights: There are a number of geographically centered changes of note, which are discussed in the following text: i. Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Changes: The proposed FLUM includes some consolidation of future land use designations in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (Specific Plan). These designations are not being removed from the text of the Specific Plan, but they are being zeroed out on the Map and removed from the legend. By leaving the designations in the text of the Specific Plan, references in Development Agreements will not be upset and they could potentially be used in the future should more work be done. The Civic designation, the Green Space/Park Land, and the Pipeline Easement designations have all been removed from the legend of the FLUM. The Civic land use designation was duplicative with the city-wide Civic designation, and has been merged. The Park designation was duplicative with how the Civic designation is used city-wide, and some areas were also inconsistent with other planning documents, most notably the Master Pathways Plan. Another issue is the use of the parks designation on private land, without any specific Plan for public-private partnership or purchase. One area was reduced in size, but because it represents the last greenfield opportunity for a rail corridor transit oriented development (TOD), it was left on the map with a smaller Civic designation and associated TOD future facility icon. The Pipeline designation was inconsistent in that the pipeline easement is not shown elsewhere in the City, and generally something that the Williams Northwest Pipeline Co. prefers not be shown with great accuracy. In addition to consolidation, the Lifestyle Center land use designation is absent from the new Map as well. A large portion of the Lifestyle Center area had been previously changed to Commercial in 2012, through an approved Comprehensive Plan Map amendment. A request by the property owner for the remaining area, to remove it from their property and designate it Commercial, was supported by the Steering Committee and therefore leaves no remaining area with this designation. The text for this designation will remain in the Ten Mile Interchange should another opportunity arise for a change elsewhere, but typically anything that could be developed in a Lifestyle Center could also be done in a Commercial designation. An existing development agreement also references the designation in the Specific Area Plan. Staff is supportive of this change as the areas north and south have not realized the planned intensity to support such a center, the area remaining after other approved zoning is a fraction of the area contemplated in the Plan, and there is no planned Transit Oriented Development or regional transit system to support the area, as is contemplated in the Plan. A lifestyle center contemplated in the Page 13 Specific Plan is something like the Gateway in Salt Lake, or like the Village at Meridian built-out, but with integrated high density housing. All of the Ten Mile Interchange residential designations with names identical to the city- wide land use designations have also been removed from the legend of the Map. These designations still exist, but a note on the Map already refers to the Ten Mile Plan for direction rather than the Comprehensive Plan. Lastly, staff is proposing a change to the roadway network depicted in the Specific Plan. This revision functionally results in no change in a future road, but has been requested by neighbors who fear there is going to be a future road bisecting their properties. The road alignment is flexible, and construction of the road would only occur when neighbors decided to sell and development is approved. However, there is some fear of eminent domain or other aggressive government action. Staff would not normally support a change such as this due to cost and time of the effort, but when run concurrently to the larger application it is easier to facilitate. The image below depicts this change, but if approved several maps would need to be modified on page 3-18 and 3-22 of the Specific Area Plan. Planning & Zoning Action: The Planning and Zoning Commission did not recommend any additional changes in this area. Ten Mile Road Network Revision: ii. Rural / Estate Residential In 2012 the City evaluated land use designations for South Meridian. In direct response to stakeholder requests at the time, the City identified a new future land use designation to set aside lands for more actionable agriculture and/or open space preservation – Rural / Page 14 Estate Residential. This Rural / Estate Residential designation capped dwelling units at 1 unit per 5 acres, and was geographically located in the furthest south-west Area of City Impact. The Rural / Estate designation was intended to support clustered residential nodes to develop in key areas and with services, but adjoining lands “behind the homes” would be cut-off and without infrastructure capacity (sewer and water) to service. In this way some preservation of agricultural and open space lands could occur while still allowing for some low-density development within the City, much in the way Ada County has approved numerous non-farm subdivision within Meridian’s Area of City Impact. As is the case with long-range planning efforts, circumstances change, people change, and property owners change. With Meridian services still some ways off from the southwest, and with other agencies allowing for more density, some property owners now prefer to redevelop instead of remaining rural. Some of these parcels have annexed into other jurisdictions, undermining Meridian’s efforts to sustainably plan and preserve. Planning for urban services is an important element and requirement of State Code and cannot be overstated. Meridian spends a great deal of time and money planning for services. Infrastructure being built today must be sized appropriately or it becomes excessive and costlier to both install and maintain, if planned densities are not realized. Because a city, by definition, is urban and not rural, the Rural / Estate designation is being removed from the Plan. Areas with a Low Density designation may still develop in larger estate clusters, but the City will require service extensions (sewer and water) to and through all properties, and analysis will need to verify that service areas can be maintained sustainably. Planning & Zoning Action: The Planning and Zoning Commission did not disagree with the reasons for removing the Rural / Estate designation, but did recommend that Council either consider an ultra-low designation to better highlight existing estate sized lots in the County, and/or to look at improved transitions to these areas. Part of the recommendation also asked for the door to remain open on these changes in the future. For more details, see section VI below. 3. Additional Staff Recommendations: As stated above, Staff wish to respect the Steering Committee’s proposed Future Land Use Map. However, there are a few areas where alternative recommendations or requests are hereby proposed by City Staff. These changes to the submitted proposal/application are detailed in this section. Some of the Staff-recommended changes are the result of active neighborhood participation and requests, after the Public Draft and Steering Committee involvement. Other changes are being proposed largely because Staff believes circumstances warrant an alternative recommendation that is more feasible and in alignment with the overall vision and responsibilities of the Plan. In most of these cases, these areas are on a tipping point, where existing land uses are one thing considered, public sentiment varies, realistic expectations are diverse, long-term needs are expressed, and market forces are suggesting or requesting change. Staff has tried to keep all of that in mind; being respectful of what is on the ground today while also planning for the future, when proposing the following alternative FLUM designations. i. Magic Bridge Area (Magic View/Woodbridge/Locust View Heights) Page 15 The “Magic Bridge” area is generally the area east of Locust Grove Road, north of I-84, west of Eagle Road, and south of Franklin Road. This area is diverse in land use, age of structures and infrastructure. It suffers from extremely poor connectivity among City and County subdivisions. There are a number of proposed FLUM changes on the eastern portion in this area, which staff is generally supportive of, but there remains one area of specific concern that staff believes should also be addressed in the Plan. One of the neighborhoods in this area is the Locust View Heights neighborhood (which includes several smaller subdivisions). This older County subdivision has no vehicular outlet towards Eagle Road or connectivity to Woodbridge Subdivision to the north. The land uses consists of largely one-acre lots, each with their own well and septic systems. This neighborhood fronts both I-84 and Locust Grove Road, which has signalized access at Bentley Drive. Early on in the Plan development process Staff had hoped that the neighborhood, like some other older County subdivisions, would be interested in redevelopment long-term; maximizing their location and visibility, and potentially selling for higher values. While some stakeholders were interested in this and provided written comments, the majority of residents did not buy-in to this concept. This is a unique situation with a secluded estate- sized lot County subdivision in the heart of the community, with lots of nearby development on a major interstate (I-84) and bookended by local arterials (Locus Grove Rd. and Eagle Rd.). With this property being located in the City’s Area of City Impact, we must have a plan for providing urban-level services. An opportunity to address service issues, to improve connectivity, and to provide new opportunities to capitalize on synergies with healthcare related education and employment was explored with residents, consultants and other stakeholders. From a services standpoint, the important concern is how this subdivision will become part of the City someday. Individual well and septic systems in such a close geographic area is not sustainable long-term, or in anyone’s best interest. Maintaining these systems on only one acre and in such close geographic density is a long-term liability. Staff does feel it would be right, fair, or in the City’s best interest for existing residents and rate/tax payers to subsidize the cleanup and connection of these properties sometime in the future; a plan for services should be made. Residents in Locust Heights were mostly opposed to any future change to land use, services or their current way of life. While Staff can understand stakeholder concern, and the difficulty in contemplating change that may be several property owners down the line, there was limited recognition of long-term service issues, for the City’s responsibility to plan for said services, for their own liability and risk with failing services, or for increasingly stringent requirements for septic systems. Staff believes this neighborhood and the larger community is at risk if conditions slip and there is not an action plan to provide critical utilities. Staff is proposing a revised concept for this area which reflects the consultant recommendation to the Steering Committee. This recommendation would allow for the long-term redevelopment of this neighborhood, which would have to pay for remediation of existing well and septic systems, new services, and provide for greater local connectivity in the area. It would be imperative that with any redevelopment, that a collector type roadway convey traffic from the signal at Locust Grove and Central Drive out to Wells Street. In exchange, greater intensity of uses near the Interstate would be allowed, while transitioning to the less intensive adjacent uses. Parks and trails would Page 16 need to be considered after adoption, and the area might benefit from further master planning if a greater vision was desired along this corridor. Long-range redevelopment, which may be a distant future, is the only option staff can transparently support that addresses services and concerns for the long-term health, safety, and welfare of the public, at least without subsidies. With that said, if the stakeholders in this neighborhood are able to collectively work to address these concerns, then Planning staff could be supportive of revising the map in the future. This would be a missed economic development opportunity, but estate sized lots are also important, in demand, and could be valuable to the community if health, safety, and service concerns were resolved. Planning & Zoning Action: Instead of the Steering Committee recommendation, the Planning & Zoning Commission endorsed the Staff Recommendation concept. Magic Bridge Area Planning & Zoning Commission and Staff Recommendation: Page 17 Magic Bridge Area Adopted Plan (for reference): Page 18 Magic Bridge Area Steering Committee Recommendation (submitted with application): ii. Black Cat - Cherry - Railroad Area This area encompasses an area south of Cherry Lane, east of McDermott Road, west of Black Cat Road, and north of the railroad tracks. The current proposal is to change a substantial amount of lands planned for Low Density Residential to Industrial; to move the Mixed Use Neighborhood from the mid-mile on Cherry Lane to the south-east corner of McDermott and Cherry; and to change the Map to reflect the existing medium density subdivision and adjacent property from LDR to MDR. Staff is proposing a tweak to the future land use concept in this area (see Concept below). While staff is generally supportive of the Steering Committee (SC) recommendation in this area, and the reasons for them, some additional adjustments can help to better facilitate ideal transitions and allow for additional redevelopment opportunities. This area is difficult and contentious as the existing County subdivision on El Gato is strongly opposed to the Industrial future land use change, and have expressed a desire to remain Low Density Residential, long-term. Staff believes that the future extension of SH-16 highway and planned industrial uses to the west and south in Canyon County, will drastically shape the look and feel of this area long-term. Some of the industrial planned in Nampa along the rail is heavy industrial, and impacts of those facilities may extend much further than their property lines. Ultimately the recommendations below may reflect a change for this area, but it’s entirely possible that it may be decades from now. These properties are and will continue to be zoned in the County, they may still be bought and sold as single-family homes (and they are in demand), and the property owners have the final say on timing. There is a need to designate more lands in Meridian’s Area of City Impact for future industrial uses. A Page 19 change to the Map in this area reflects the opportunity to be something else in the future, if and when “higher and better” market forces suggest industrial/commercial opportunities. Sewer for most of this area is planned to come down the McDermott trunk line on the western edge of the area/County line. Similarly, it is expected that most commercial traffic servicing the area would come from McDermott Road and the future SH-16 / Franklin Interchange, just west of the County line. The staff recommendation includes some additional transitional offices along Black Cat into the Industrial area. This makes better use of existing topographic features while providing opportunities for ancillary employment and residential supportive land uses. In both the Staff and Steering Committee recommendations, the large mixed use area is reduced in overall size and moved to McDermott and Cherry, across from a future regional park. Consultant analysis supported a smaller commercial area and was requested by property owners. This would also locate any residential, possible medium to medium-high density in the mixed use area, closer to the park. There is a need to designate more lands in Meridian’s Area of City Impact for future industrial uses. Even today, industrial land is in short supply and the City often struggles with missed employment opportunities due to limited availability. Industrial land with rail access is even more limited. Ultimately, this Comprehensive Plan is tasked with Planning for the future needs of the City, and a well-balanced land use portfolio is important to the long-term health of the community and a balanced and diverse job market. Planning & Zoning Action: An alternative to the staff proposed recommendation was discussed and recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission. This concept, which was previously recommended to the Steering Committee by the project consulted and staff, reduced the overall Industrial area from what the Steering Committee recommended. The industrial lands planned in this concept was reduced down to below the Sky-view Ranchettes (along El Gato Ln), and effectively bound between what would be a Pine Ave extension to the west, and the Railroad tracks. This left some Low Density Residential in the area of Puma Ave, to buffer existing residential there, which has a roadway stub for additional residential to the west, and without any sort of landscape or land use transition. This alternative concept is shown in an exhibit below. Page 20 Black Cat – Cherry – Railroad Planning & Zoning Commission Recommendation: Black Cat – Cherry - Railroad Staff Recommendation: Page 21 Black Cat - Cherry – Railroad Adopted Plan (for reference): Nampa Future Land Use Map Exhibit (for reference): Page 22 Black Cat - Cherry – Railroad Steering Committee Recommendation (submitted with application): iii. Rustler Place Area The Rustler Place area is generally located between Amity Road and Victory Road, ¼ of a mile east of Ten Mile Road, and approximately ½ mile west of Linder Road. No changes in this area were contemplated by the Steering Committee as the petition for change came later in the process (post application submittal.) Staff is recommending additional changes to this area from the Steering Committee recommended Plan. Rustler Place is a private road on the south side of Victory with some existing and under construction estate-style homes on large acreage parcels. The swath of land on both sides of this road and extending all the way down to Amity Road is currently designated Medium Density Residential (MDR) on the Future Land Use Map and has been since the 2012 South Meridian project. Neighbors in this area were not involved in earlier efforts with the Comp Plan, but became engaged after some development interests arose on the northwest corner of Amity and Linder. A request was received from these neighbors to change the land use designation for this area from MDR to Rural / Estate Residential, after the Steering Committee recommendation had already been made. As mentioned earlier in this report, the Rural / Estate Residential designation is proposed to be removed; therefore, Staff is recommending a change in this area to Low Density Residential as shown in the exhibit below. The number and configuration of larger estates in this area, with more under construction, would be unlikely to intensify or redevelop as anything other than Low Density Residential. Page 23 Planning & Zoning Action: The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended the Staff Recommendation to City Council for approval, at a minimum, as shown below. See Section VI, for more related information. Rustler Place Area Planning & Zoning Commission and Staff Recommendation: Page 24 Rustler Area Adopted Plan (for reference): iv. Overland and Eagle Area This area is generally east of Eagle Road, north of Overland Road, west of the Ridenbaugh Canal, and south of I-84. Not all areas in this section mile contemplate changes to the Future Land Use Map. The subject change largely applies to the Rolling Hill and Jewel subdivisions in unincorporated Ada County. Staff is supportive of the Steering Committee recommended changes in this area. However, given the rapid speed of development, commercial property speculation and acquisition, and high visibility and traffic in the area, there are some concerns with the proposed Mixed Use Regional land use designation absent additional planning work. Staff is concerned with County enclaves, transportation network expansion and access, service and utility expansion and connectivity, potential provision and identification of other services such as parks and pathways needed to support higher intensity uses, and with general redevelopment equity. There is a high degree of opportunity for fragmented services and development that could exacerbate transportation issues on Overland Road, which is planned for 7-lanes in ACHD’s Capital Improvement Plan, and for impacts to the busiest interchange in the State at Eagle Road/I-84. The area should be considered as a whole and access maintained to all properties, without one-off access onto Overland Road. The City should not be put into a position where access to Overland must be provided, simply because some property take longer to redevelop or goes first. Staff recommends that post adoption of the Plan, a more detailed look at this area be performed addressing service and transportation needs. Until this exercise is completed, additional annexations with development entitlements should be limited. A change to the Future Land Use Map to Mixed Use Regional will still provide the Page 25 overall framework for future development and confidence for real-estate investments, knowing that the City expects and plans for an area to redevelop. As part of that process, work should be explored with stakeholders to try and identify timing of redevelopment, so that clear and transparent expectations may be had for existing stakeholders. Staff will recommend that a specific area plan be one of the highest priority implementation projects for 2020. Planning & Zoning Action: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended the Steering Committee recommendation to City Council for approval. v. Fields Area This area is generally north of Ustick Road, East of Can-Ada Road, South of SH-20/26 (Chinden), and west of McDermott and the Future SH-16 extension. Staff is not proposing revisions to the Steering Committee Recommendation, but would like to stress that there is some additional work required in this area to meet the intended vision of the Plan. Transportation, parks, and pathways all need a closer review to ensure they meet and support a larger vision. Additionally, this area may benefit from next steps contemplated in some of the policies in the Plan. This area, much like South Meridian, will be disconnected with the rest of North Meridian and may benefit from additional design and architectural standards to ensure it retains a sense of place, and that its commercial center is an attractor and destination. This area was identified in the original scope of work as requiring some extra analysis and outreach. A workshop was held with stakeholders and the proposed Plan attempts to mesh some diverse opinions while providing an opportunity for a unique sense of Place. In additional to the future SH-16 extension, a significant consideration for the future land use designations in this area was the Intermountain Liquefied Natural Gas Plant. It is important that this critical infrastructure be considered with regard to separation of land uses, and quality of life impacts related to lights, noise, and other impacts. Planning & Zoning Action: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended the Steering Committee recommendation forward to City Council for approval. vi. Southern Rim Staff is not proposing revisions to the Steering Committee Recommendation, but wanted to call this area out due to analysis done as part of the Scope of Work. The Southern Rim is the defined largely by the ridge that runs north-west to south-east south of I-84. The ridge begins near the Ten Mile Interchange and ends near the Boise Ranch Golf Course. Early on in the process, it had been requested that some extra effort be put into the Future Land Use Map analysis in this area, largely to see if there were additional opportunities for large-lot estate densities. Through consultant review and Staff analysis it was found that most of this area with view opportunities have been previously developed in the County or entitled with the City, with limited large or specific opportunities identified for more Low Density Residential. There are some notable changes in this area, but most changes are either cleanup to reflect that which is built or entitled already, or to areas adjacent to the rim. A couple of notable changes are to the Simplot property on Amity and Meridian Road and some lands Page 26 around Mary McPherson Elementary School. Parcels in this area may benefit from next steps with policy work. There are a number of proposed policies, which if prioritized and acted on, could help to identify and establish a sense of place for the larger Rim area. Entryways and mixed-use areas especially underscore some of the opportunities. Policies related to sense of place and heritage could be explored as they relate to site design, open space, and architecture (see the Proposed Policies Summary above for more information.) Planning & Zoning Action: The Planning and Zoning Commission did not recommend any additional changes in this area. vii. Waste Water Resource Recovery Facility Area Staff is not proposing revisions to the Steering Committee Recommendation in this area, but wanted to call it out as being likely to change in the near future. As part of the project outreach and public involvement, the City received several requests for revisions to the future land use designations in the area around the Waste Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) located near Ten Mile and Ustick roads. The adopted designations in this area vary, but properties immediately adjacent to the WRRF facility are designated Mixed Use Non-Residential. The facility has been undergoing a massive upgrade and the full offsite impacts are not well understood today. The Public Works Department has verbally committed to doing a review of the installation after the upgrade is completed, to better understand where the noise, odor, or other offsite impacts are most severe. After this review is done, the City will re-examine the adopted land use designations and work with the adjacent property owners to determine if other designations may be appropriate, or if other mitigation measures are necessary. The Steering Committee, project consultants, and City staff agreed that this wait-and-see approach was most appropriate. It should be noted that some of the designation changes requested were for residential, because non-residential uses have not been viable in this location. The City’s Comprehensive Plan does not guarantee timing or paths of annexation. Many of the areas to the southwest, west, and northwest of the WRRF have not yet developed in the City, and many rooftops that could support non-residential uses in this vicinity do not yet exist. The City still has to plan for having a full suite of both diverse types and locations of uses, and orderly growth has not necessarily occurred in this area, to include the extension of utilities such as sewer, ironically. Future analysis will help determine the best and most appropriate mix of land uses in this area. Planning & Zoning Action: The Planning and Zoning Commission did not recommend any additional changes in this area. C. Area of City Impact While most of the adopted planning area or Area of City Impact (AOCI) remains the same, there are a number or proposed revisions, which are mostly minor and reflecting corrections to errors or previous changes agreed upon by the City and its neighbors. There is one significantly large change on the City’s southern planning boundary worth noting. To better plan for services and improve transparency, the City has removed all of those areas which the City of Kuna has previously annexed within Meridian’s AOCI. Additional lands nearby, already planned to be serviced by Kuna, or cost-prohibitive or impossible to now be serviced by Meridian are also being removed from Meridian’s AOCI. This boundary was established in coordination with Kuna leadership, the Mayor’s Office, and the appropriate city Page 27 staff members. Meridian Public Works and Planning staff has worked to identify new service areas that Meridian can still reasonably service and released the remaining areas to Kuna or Ada County for planning; these areas are reflected in the new Future Land Use Map. Consistent with Ada County Code, Title 9, after the new Comprehensive Plan is adopted the City will work with Ada County to adjust the Area of City Impact (as well as adopt the rest of the Plan). Planning & Zoning Action: The Planning and Zoning Commission did not recommend any additional changes to the AOCI. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan with the recommended revisions described in Section V of this report. NOTE: Staff will provide an updated Future Land Use Map that incorporates the changes explained and shown in Section V to the October 17th meeting. B. Commission: The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on October 17th, 2019, and moved to recommend approval of the subject CPAT and CPAM. 1. Key Issues of public testimony. Below is a brief summary of some of the testimony provided during the October 17th Commission meeting. Public testimony was robust. Please see the Commission meeting minutes or searchable documents/laserfische for complete transcripts. See also Appendix E of the draft Plan for additional public participation summaries and comments from the process. Key issues largely involve areas of both the adopted and proposed FLUM. i. Magic Bridge Area (Magic View/Woodbridge/Locust View Heights): Testimony varied with some support for change, but most stakeholders in the Locust Heights Subdivision want to retain the current Low Density Residential designation. ii. Black Cat – Cherry – Railroad Area: Neighborhood testified to retain the Low Density Residential, not Industrial. iii. Rustler Place Area & Rural / Estate Residential: Testimony for stronger preservation and transitions to estate-sized homes from planned urban densities. 2. Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation. The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended the following additional revisions and considerations to the Staff recommendation: i. Explore the creation or evaluation of an “Ultra-Low Residential” density future land use designation. ii. Provide an opportunity for staff to evaluate low density subdivisions in southwest Meridian that should be reflected on the future use map accordingly. iii. In the southwest Meridian area, explore transitions between land uses and potentially consider alternative land use scenarios; at a minimum incorporate the staff recommendation of Low Density Residential around Rustler Lane (Amity/Ten Mile/Victory). iv. In the Black Cat – Cherry – Railroad area, incorporate the staff alternative concept discussed during the public hearing that shifts the Industrial designation to the area between the alignment of Pine Ave and the railroad. Page 28 3. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council i. There were a handful of development related requests for changes to the Future Land Use Map that were either not supported by the Steering Committee, or were submitted late in the process of Plan development. The Commission was supportive of seeing some of these proposals/projects come back as part of development application proposals in the near future. While the process of developing a new Plan is comprehensive, and Staff believes the Plan will serve the community well for years to come, there may be a few areas that could warrant changes in the near future. If Council supports this direction, any future public hearing development applications discussed in hearing should reference the meeting minutes to avoid stigma of altering a new Plan. ii. Members of the public testified that the City should plan to preserve the agricultural heritage and maintain or enhance additional rural land uses. The Commission’s response was to recommend Council consider an “Ultra-Low” designation and/or to look at transitions in existing rural neighborhoods that will likely not significantly change (redevelop) over time. In response to Commission action and public testimony, staff proposes the following additions to the “Low Density Residential” designation (underline is new): “This designation allows for the development of single-family homes on large and estate lots at gross densities of three dwelling units or less per acre. These areas often transition between existing rural and urban properties. Developments need to respect agricultural heritage and resources, recognize view sheds and open spaces, and maintain or improve the overall atmosphere of the area. The use of open spaces, parks, trails, and other appropriate means should enhance the character of the area. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. Sample zoning include: R-2 and R-4.” Staff believes that this additional text addresses both the Commission’s and community’s desire to preserve existing, and plan for additional, estate lots, maintain and enhance rural neighborhood identities, all while planning to provide urban level amenities and services. iii. Several policies within the new Plan will require additional work by the public and/or City staff. Prioritization of these projects, identifying resource needs and level of effort will be important next steps post adoption of the Plan. C. City Council: Enter Summary of City Council Decision. Page 29 VII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS No additional comments have been received, prior to publishing of this Staff Report. Any subsequent comments may be found on the Laserfische/Searchble Documents website here: http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/fol/176760/Row1.aspx. VIII. FINDINGS A. Required Findings from the Unified Development Code 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the other elements of the comprehensive plan. The new Plan contains all seventeen (17) elements required by Idaho State Statute. The Commission finds the new Comprehensive Plan to clearly define the vision, need, or want for each of these elements, independently and together, provides the necessary guidance for development and review, or to initiate new work and projects by the City to better meet the community vision. 2. The proposed amendment provides an improved guide to future growth and development of the city. The Commission finds that the proposed Plan provides an improved and more relevant guide to future growth and development with the City. The Plan is also more accessible to more people, and with improved tools for research and analysis. 3. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission finds the proposed policies are consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, as the text and policies have been crafted in unison, and after the policies have been audited through an iterative process by the project consultants, agency partners, the Steering Committee, and by Staff. 4. The proposed amendment is consistent with this Unified Development Code. The Commission finds the proposed Plan provides the necessary guidance to effectively administer the requirements of the Unified Development Code (UDC), and to direct work to maintain and modify the UDC to remain consistent with the proposed vision. 5. The amendment will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. The Commission finds the proposed Plan will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. 6. The proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities. The Commission finds that the proposed Plan will not burden existing and planned service capabilities. Analysis of the proposed Plan has been considered with existing and planned services to ensure that utilities can be provided and maintained in a sustainable fashion. Efficient services are a recurring theme in the proposed text and policies, as is alignment with other plans and studies. 7. The proposed map amendment (as applicable) provides a logical juxtaposition of uses that allows sufficient area to mitigate any anticipated impact associated with the development of the area. Page 30 The proposed Plan, including a new Future Land Use Map (FLUM), is not associated with any particular development; no development is concurrently proposed. The FLUM provides for a variety of uses throughout the City’s planning area, allowing sufficient area for all anticipated uses. Development proposals in the future, will need to be consistent with the proposed Map and will be reviewed on a case by case basis. 8. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City of Meridian. The Commission finds the proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City because it is current, more relevant, has been vetted by professionals, relevant topical specialists and stakeholders and because it includes the necessary policies for achieving the vision.