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.