HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ - Narrative DEVELOPMEHT
CLARK
WARDLE
Geoffrey M.Wardle
(208) 388-3321
gwardle@clarkwardle.com
Via Electronic Submission
July 9, 2024
City of Meridian
33 E. Broadway Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
RE: The District at Ten Mile Applications
CW File#: 24101.0
Dear Staff, Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council,
In support of our client's BVA Development, LLC and Ten Mile West Commercial, LLC (collectively
the "Applicant"), we provide the following analysis in support of the Applicant's application seeking, (1)
modification of all of the 118 Property DA/118 Property DA Modification and the Black Property DAs, with
the integration of the Additional Property to create a single consolidated development agreement for the
entirety of the Property; (2) a comprehensive plan future land use map amendment (if determined to be
required, but without the Applicant conceding that such is in fact necessary); (3) the rezoning of certain
portions of the Property; and (4) a preliminary plat application incorporating all of the presently unplatted
portions of the Property that are not subject to pending plat applications (collectively the "Application").
All prior narratives can be disregarded as this document incorporates all of the Applicant's supporting
analysis in furtherance of its Application.
To assist Staff and Decision makers in their review of this Submittal, we incorporate the following
Table of Contents:
Table of Contents
A. Summary of Applications.....................................................................................................................3
B. Background of Existing Approvals Necessitating this Application .....................................................4
C. Standards Applicable to the Application Elements.............................................................................6
T.Hethe Clark Geoffrey M.Wardle Joshua J.Leonard Preston B_Rutter 1 208.388,1000 251 E Front St.Suite 310
F 208.388.1001 PO Box 639
clarkwardle.com Boise ID 83701
Revised Application Narrative
Page:2
1. Standards for Modification of Development Agreement.................................................................6
2. Standards for Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment.....................................................................6
3. Standards for Rezone.........................................................................................................................7
4. Standards for Preliminary Plat...........................................................................................................8
D. Analysis of Modifications Sought in Application.................................................................................8
1. Analysis of Relevant Provisions of Comprehensive Plan and Ten Mile Plan ...................................8
(a) Meridian Comprehensive Plan Considerations.............................................................................8
(b) Ten Mile Plan Considerations........................................................................................................9
(c) Application Consideration and Implementation of Plans.......................................................... 12
2. Application—Development Agreement Amendment.................................................................... 19
3. Application -Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment ....................................................................20
(a) A Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment is Unnecessary..............................20
(b) The Existing Future Land Use Maps Support the Zoning Requests Made Hereafter ................22
(c) The Existing Zoning District Compatibility Matrix in the Ten Mile Plan Supports the
Application without Amending the Map..............................................................................................23
(d) Staff Requested Additional Analysis of Ten Mile Plan Elements...............................................25
(e) If Required, Future Land Use Map Amendments Should Retain the Ten Mile Plan Land Uses,
but Align their Boundaries with the Approved and Designed Infrastructure.....................................34
(f) Standards Applicable to Amendments of the Land Use Map ....................................................35
4. Application—Zoning Modification ....................................................................................................37
(a) Requested Amendments to Existing Zoning Districts.....................................................................37
(1) The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan...41
(2) The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district,
specifically the purpose statement; .....................................................................................................41
(3) The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and
welfare;..................................................................................................................................................41
(4) The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by
any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not limited to,
schooldistricts.......................................................................................................................................41
4. Application—Preliminary Plat.........................................................................................................42
E. Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................................43
Revised Application Narrative
Page:3
A. Summary of Applications
The subject site, spanning approximately 163 ± acres, is earmarked for The District at Ten Mile
development and is located at the northwest corner of the Ten Mile Road and Interstate 84 interchange.
The concept envisions a network of mixed-use districts interconnected by well-designed streetscapes,
pedestrian walks, pathways, and bike lanes. These districts, as outlined in the Design Standards, each with
its unique character, include a commercial/retail village along Ten Mile Road that will include uses such as
restaurant, service, grocery, entertainment, recreation, office, retail, hotel, and flex space; a residential
neighborhood in the northwest; a commercial/hospitality core that will include uses such as childcare,
office, and hotel; and medical along Interstate 84. This development is not proposed to be phased. Details
on the applications are outlined below:
Development Agreement Modification Application: The request is to integrate multiple existing
development agreements into a single development agreement with Design Standards governing the
entirety of the Property applying to Parcels S1215427850, 51215417409, S1215417217, S1215142250,
51215142300, 51215131401, and R6733720500 (Outer Banks Subdivision Lot 2 Block 2 only). This new
development agreement is necessary to reduce confusion and provide consistency. This request does not
include Parcel S1215244200 in which Development Agreement H-2021-0081 will still apply. Existing
Development Agreements include:
Development Agreement File/Case Name Ordinance Instrument
Name and Parcel Number Approval Recorded Number
The 10 at Meridian H-2021-0025 21-1948 9-7-2021 9-8-2021 2021-132704
(R6733720500)
Fedrizzi Ten Mile, LLC
112073618
(S1215417217)
AZ-11-001
Janicek Properties LLC Ten Mile 12-1520 2-7-12 7-25-12
112073616
(S1215131401/S1215142300) Annexation
SJJV, LLC (S1215417409) 112073617
Vanguard Village Subdivision H-2021-0081
(51215427850) Vanguard Village 22-1979 5-10-22 5-25-22 2022-049799
Subdivision
Included with the proposed Development Agreement are Design Standards with a conceptual
plan. The Design Standards identify three (3) areas:
• Area 1 accommodates a mix of multi-family residential uses such as townhomes and multi-family
with an anticipated density of 8-12 DU/AC.
• Area 2 accommodates predominately commercial uses, including but not limited to large
format/anchor and specialty retail, casual and fine dining, entertainment, recreation, hospitality,
childcare, and office.
• Area 3 accommodates medium to higher-density office, commercial/retail, recreation, medical,
and hospitality uses.
Revised Application Narrative
Page:4
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Application:The applicant requests to shift the future land
use designations applying to Parcels S1215427850, S1215417409, S1215417217, S1215142250,
S1215142300, S1215131401, and R6733720500 to align future land use designations with the proposed
development plan and zoning as was requested by City staff.
Future Land Use Approximate Existing Acreage Proposed Acreage
Med-High Density Residential 2.79 0
Mixed Use Residential 32.11 33.62
Mixed Use Commercial 21.61 41.37
High Density Employment 60.68 76.15
Mixed Employment 0 2.26
Rezone Application: The applicant requests to rezone portions of the development by shifting the
existing boundaries to align with the conceptual plan.The rezone acreages proposed include the following:
Zone Approximate Existing Acreage Acreage Change New Acreage
TN-C 25.94 7.48 from C-C 33.42
R-40 0.62 0.62 from R-40 to C-C 0
C-C 80.36 12.96 from R-40 and H-E 59.11
C-G 0 25.97 from WE and C-C 25.97
H-E 55.72 9.13 from C-C 34.82
M-E 8.82 1.37 from H-E to M-E 10.19
The proposed zone changes are supported by the existing and proposed future land use designations of
the TMISAP.
Preliminary Plat— District Ten Mile Application: Request for a preliminary plat applying to Parcels
S1215131401, R6733720500, S1215142300, S1215142250, S1215417217, and S1215417409 totaling
108.773 acres. The preliminary plat includes 38 lots and one (1) common lot. No variance is requested as
part of this application. The proposed development will meet the requirements of the zoning code as
determined by the zoning designation. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation is provided throughout the
subdivision, and bicycle circulation is provided along Villaggio Way. 30 acres of qualified open space (27%)
with 18% landscape coverage is provided.The subdivision may be accessed via four public roads: W. Cobalt
Drive,Villaggio Way,S. Umbria Hills Avenue, and W. Navigator Road. Internal access consists of private drive
aisles.
B. Background of Existing Approvals Necessitating this Application
The Applicant is the owner of certain real property, commonly referenced as the "118 Property,"
that is subject to the development agreement for Vanguard Village Subdivision (H-2021-0081) between
Meridian 118, LLC and the City of Meridian, recorded as Instrument No. 2022-049799, on May 25, 2022, in
Revised Application Narrative
Page:5
the Official Records of Ada County, Idaho ("118 Property DA"). The Applicant's affiliate sold approximately
40 acres of residentially zoned property that was subject to 118 Property DA.
The Applicant initiated a modification to the 118 Property DA in November of 2023, seeking certain
textual modifications to that agreement and certain design modifications desired thereunder ("118
Property DA Modification"). At the time of this submittal, the 118 Property DA Modification has yet to be
heard. We proceed in parallel with the 118 Property DA Modification due to the fact that the initial
development of the 118 Property will commence with the area that is being addressed therein. We intend
for the 118 Property DA Modification to be incorporated into the resulting development agreement
approved pursuant to this Application.
The Applicant is the contract purchaser of real property commonly referenced as the "Black
Property." The Black Property consists of four(4) separate parcels, and is subject to the following existing
development agreements("Black Property DAs"):
• Development Agreement — Fedrizzi Ten Mile, LLC (AZ 11-001) between Fedrizzi Ten Mile,
LLC, and the City, recorded as Instrument No. 112073618, on July 25, 2012, in the Official
Records of Ada County, Idaho;
• Development Agreement—SJJV, LLC (AZ 11-001) between SJJV, LLC and the City, recorded
as Instrument No. 112073617,on July 25,2012, in the Official Records of Ada County, Idaho;
and
• Development Agreement —Janicek Properties, LLC (AZ 11-001) between SJJV, LLC and the
City, recorded as Instrument No. 112073616,on July 25, 2012, in the Official Records of Ada
County, Idaho.
The "Additional Property" as defined below, is a portion of the Black Property, but is not presently
subject to a Development Agreement.
The 118 Property, the Black Property, and the Additional Property are collectively the "Property"
for purposes of the applications set forth herein. The totality of the Property is depicted as follows:
t t;
+ e t t
�t'"� • Kart m _,
r .I✓
'cruet: ;
,ern et•
: t••`;.`�� _ $..__mot tt
IC?—6 r � �. +' tt t•
t--•sa-ra � '
r
Revised Application Narrative
Page:6
The Applicant proposes developing the Property as a master planned mixed use development
commonly referenced as "The District at Ten Mile" ("Project"). In furtherance of an integrated design for
the Project, the Applicant has developed design standards Pursuant to the Ten Mile Interchange Specific
Area Plan (TMISAP) ("Ten Mile Plan"). The Architectural Standards Manual for the Project is referenced
hereafter as "The District at Ten Mile Design Standards" or"Project Design Standards."
C. Standards Applicable to the Application Elements
Pursuant to the Meridian City Code, the following standards have been adopted by ordinance
relating to each of the elements contained in the Application.
1. Standards for Modification of Development Agreement
The Applicant seeks to modify the Development Agreements by consolidating each of the four (4)
existing agreements plus the additional property into a single Development Agreement. This is treated as
an amendment thereto,the process for which is set forth in Meridian City Code 11-513-3F as follows:
1. The city and/or an applicant may request a development agreement or a
modification to a development agreement consistent with Idaho Code section
67- 6511A. The development agreement may be initiated by the city or
applicant as part of a request for annexation and/or rezone at any time prior to
the adoption of findings for such request.
2. A development agreement may be modified by the city or an affected party of
the development agreement. Decision on the development agreement
modification is made by the city council in accord with this chapter. When
approved, said development agreement shall be signed by the property
owner(s) and returned to the city within six (6) months of the city council
granting the modification.
3. A modification to the development agreement may be initiated prior to
signature of the agreement by all parties and/or may be requested to extend
the time allowed for the agreement to be signed and returned to the city if filed
prior to the end of the six (6) month approval period.
2. Standards for Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
The Applicant believes that no amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map is
required, however, at the direction of Staff, the Applicant has requested an amendment and modification
to Meridian's Comprehensive Plan Future Land use map it such is, in fact, required as a prerequisite to the
requested amendment of the Development Agreements and the amendment of the zoning.
The requested modifications to the various zoning districts within the Property are in accordance
with and consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and the Ten Mile Area Plan. They do not require a
Future Land Use Map modification due to (a) the text of both the Comprehensive Plan, (b) the text of the
Ten Mile Area Plan, and (c)the consistency of the resigned zoning design late with the underlying plows.
Revised Application Narrative
Page:7
The standards for amending the future land use map set forth in the Comprehensive Plan are set
forth in Meridian City Code 11-5B-7D:
Upon recommendation from the commission, the Council shall make a full
investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to
grant an amendment to the comprehensive plan, the council shall make the
following findings:
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the other elements of the
comprehensive plan.
2. The proposed amendment provides an improved guide to the future growth
and development of the city.
3. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the goals, objectives,
and policies of the comprehensive plan.
4. The proposed amendment is consistent with this Unified Development Code.
5. The amendment will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding
land uses.
6. The proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service
capabilities.
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.
8. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City of Meridian.
3. Standards for Rezone
The Applicant is requesting amendment to the zoning districts applicable to the Property. The
requirements for amending zoning districts are set forth in Meridian City Code 11-513-3E
E. Required findings. Upon recommendation from the commission, the Council
shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the
application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the Council shall make
the following findings:
1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan;
2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed
district, specifically the purpose statement;
Revised Application Narrative
Page:8
3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,
safety, and welfare;
4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery
of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the
City, including, but not limited to, school districts; and
5. The annexation (as applicable) is in the best interest of the City.
4. Standards for Preliminary Plat
The Applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat for the Property in Meridian City Code
Section 11-613-6
In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat,or short
plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings:
A. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with
this Unified Development Code;
B. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to
accommodate the proposed development;
C. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with
the city's capital improvement program;
D. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed
development;
E. The development will not be detrimental to the public health,safety,or general
welfare; and
F. The development preserves significant natural, scenic, or historic features.
D. Analysis of Modifications Sought in Application
We now turn to the Application, addressing first the relevant planning documents and then turning
to the substance of the individual elements of the Application.
1. Analysis of Relevant Provisions of Comprehensive Plan and Ten Mile Plan
In initiating this application, we have taken care to review and evaluate both the City of Meridian's
Comprehensive Plan and the "Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan, A Strategy to Enhance Meridian's
Prosperity, City of Meridian, Idaho" ("Ten Mile Plan"). We will address each of those here in detail.
(a) Meridian Comprehensive Plan Considerations
Meridian's Comprehensive Plan incorporates the Ten Mile Plan and further sets forth certain
additional goals and considerations that are further advanced by the Application. The Ten Mile Plan was
Revised Application Narrative
Page:9
expressly incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan and is considered an "addendum". Comprehensive
Plan, p. 1-12 and 3-21. However,the Ten Mile Plan governs the consideration of the mixed use designations
it contains. Comprehensive Plan, p. 3-21.
Development of the area around the Ten Mile interchange has long been a goal of the City.
Comprehensive Plan, p. 1-7. This area is intended to have a mix of uses have,jobs, shopping and residential
areas in close proximity to each other to minimize impacts on infrastructure; and because developed to
provide diverse economic opportunities. Comprehensive Plan, p. 1-11, and p. 2-12.
The Comprehensive Plan establishes as a goal, establishing diverse, destination type activities;
within designated centers; contemplating mixed use areas; with significant design consideration; and
expressly identifying Ten Mile as an activity center where growth is intended. Goal 2.09.03,Goal,2.09.03A,
and Goal 2.09.0313,Comprehensive Plan p. 2-15. This promotes Meridian's goal to pursue light industry and
professional services, retaining high quality businesses, and developing a talented workforce, capitalizing
on the City's central location promoting growth at one of its key entries and corridors, all as contemplated
by Goal 2.08.02, Goal 2.08.02A, and Goal 2.08.0213, Comprehensive Plan, p. 2-14.
The Comprehensive Plan contemplates exactly what the Applicant proposes implementation of a
special area plan, located along a primary transportation corridor, with express design standards,
incorporating a mix of land uses. Goal 3.03.00, Goal 3.03.01, and Goal 3.03.01A, Comprehensive Plan p. 3-
5. This is the very prioritization and encouragement of growth and development that is consistent with the
City's vision. Goal 3.03.02, Comprehensive Plan p. 3-5.
To further that,the Application and the requested approvals herein,we are propose higher density
housing in "proximity to employment centers" consistent with Goal 2.01.01H, Comprehensive Plan p. 2-4,
"near employment, large shopping centers, public open spaces and parks, and along major transportation
corridors" consistent with Goal 2.02.01E, Comprehensive Plan p. 2-45.
The Applicant proposes for connectivity and enhanced pedestrian access within residential areas
and large commercial mixed-use developments consistent with Goal 2.02.01 and Goal 2.02.01D,
Comprehensive Plan p. 2-5, Goal 3.07.02A, Comprehensive Plan, p. 3-25. This Applicant proposes the
previously identified for parks and pathways along the easement corridors within the Property consistent
with Goal 4.02.011), Comprehensive Plan, p. 4-5, and Goal 4.04.00, Goal 4.04.01, Goal 4.04.01A; and Goal
4.04.0113, Comprehensive Plan, p. 4.6. Moreover, the development plan supports and furthers the design
and extension of complete streets with significant pedestrian facilities as contemplated by Goal 6.01.01 and
Goal 6.01.01J, Comprehensive Plan, p. 6-7.
The Application's commitment to these goals and furtherance of them is demonstrated by the
requested incorporation of the Project Design Standards,which are express design standards contemplated
by the Ten Mile Plan, implemented through the Development Agreement encumbering the Property, as
contemplated by Goal 2.09.03A, Comprehensive Plan, p. 2-15.
(b) Ten Mile Plan Considerations
The Comprehensive Plan incorporates the Ten Mile Plan as set forth above. The Ten Mile Plan
established laudatory goals for the Ten Mile area when adopted in 2007. However, planning documents
Revised Application Narrative
Page: 10
are not self-effectuating. They require the adoption of ordinances implementing their goals by codifying
objective standards. The Ten Mile Plan itself recognized this, noting that:
To implement this plan, a set of guidelines that address the design goals of
the plan and a series of zoning code amendments will be developed to
facilitate and enhance the speed with which development applications can
be processed. The development of sound design guidelines and zoning to
implement the plan will not happen overnight.
Knowing the private sector may want to act more quickly to move the plan
forward, the City encourages developers and key land owners to take the
initiative and begin the implementation program, bringing forward detailed
design guidelines and zoning, and infrastructure financing proposals based
on the concepts presented in this plan. The City stands ready to support
your efforts and will be moving forward rapidly to implement the
recommendations in this plan.
Ten Mile Plan,June 2007, p. 1-3 (emphasis added).
The Ten Mile Plan laid out the additional efforts that would need to be undertaken to implement it
in the future, noting that:
To address these challenges and work within the framework of the existing
zoning code,the City should undertake one or more of several actions:
• Minimum density and intensity standards should be incorporated
into the existing zoning districts,
• New land use districts should be developed for the Lifestyle and
Mixed Commercial land uses;
• A mechanism should be developed to transfer development uses
to other sites so that the desired mix of uses can be achieved;
• Incentives for planning cooperatively among adjoining owners
should be created;or a minimum site area for development review
and annexation should be established.
Alternatively, the City could look beyond the existing development
regulations to new development provisions.The Study Area for this plan(or
some sub-set area) could be defined as its own Development District, with
a series of new zoning categories to address the use types and mixed-use
districts contemplated in the plan.These regulations could be linked to the
design guidelines and should be written expressly to promote and guide
the types of mixed-use development that the community wishes.
Revised Application Narrative
Page: 11
Ten Mile Plan, pp. 2-2 to 2-3 (emphasis added).
Unfortunately,the guidance proffered by the authors of the Ten Mile Plan did not come to pass and
was not implemented in the manner that had been contemplated in 2007. Why?
We note and agree with the history and analysis of the Ten Mile Plan provided by the owner of Ten Mile
Crossing (H-2020-0114) in it is submittal regarding its similar request to consolidate multiple development
agreements, amend the zoning, establish its own design standards and undertake a preliminary plat
application for the properties immediately to the east of Ten Mile from this Property.
While the TMISAP has laudable goals, it was conceived at a point in time
and in a public process that didn't recognize the Treasure Valley's
population and income demographics, or other market realities. As an
example, the Treasure Valley does not command the rents that would
support some of the loftier goals of the TMISAP, such as FAR ratios of 1.00-
1.25 minimum.These realities have since been acknowledged by staff and
elected officials, alike, as each new project was brought forward. And yet,
each new application continues to be measured against the TMISAP as the
governing document; hence, a constant entitlement tug-of-war of words
between the Comprehensive Plan text and the modified FLUM.
Much has changed since the TMISAP was conceived, including the Great
Recession and the COVID Cessation. For example, drive-throughs have
become as much a necessity to the survival of local businesses as a
convenience — perhaps more so going forward. These need to be well
designed and executed but should not be viewed as a blight or an
impediment to social progress or engineering.
In addition, the TMISAP emphasis on pedestrian-friendly, pedestrian-scale
development needs to be put into context. First, the original concept of a
TMI lifestyle center went away when The Village at Meridian was
constructed. Second, the idea that Ten Mile and Franklin Roads, major
arterials providing regional access to the Ten Mile interchange, will be
pedestrian-scale corridors is simply unrealistic.
Will businesses rely on pedestrian traffic from Franklin or Ten Mile for their
support?Absolutely not.
The success of . . . businesses will depend in part on internal employment
and housing, but in larger measure by a regional draw.
Are there physical features we can include in the development to make
pedestrian mobility more functional and enjoyable? Yes-absolutely!
Revised Application Narrative
Page: 12
A robust, integrated pathway, sidewalk and amenity plan-unique to the
Treasure Valley-will be the model for future, large-scale commercial
development.
Mike Wardle,Application Narrative, H-2020-0114, pp. 3-4, February 16, 2021 (emphasis added).
The Ten Mile Plan is important; its goals are laudable; its goals relating to land uses and design have
been thoroughly reviewed and incorporated into this Application as appropriate. Consideration has been
given as set forth herein to the future land uses designated in the maps adopted with the Ten Mile Plan.
Market conditions and actual implementation of the underlying zoning, as well as the deficiencies
that have come to be identified in the Ten Mile Plan, need to be recognized as the Property has been
previously annexed and zoned. Now that it is time to proceed with the actual development of the Property
as an integrated project and with an integrated site plan, reflecting the actual location of the infrastructure,
the need to implement modifications to the Development Agreement is evident. Our goal is to
appropriately consider the intent of the Ten Mile Plan while complying with the actual requirements of the
zoning code and ultimately facilitating the actual development of the Property.
(c) Application Consideration and Implementation of Plans
We are respectful of the Ten Mile Plan and the efforts that went into its creation, as well as the
Comprehensive Plan. However, we respectfully provide the following analysis of the Application and its
interplay with both the Comprehensive Plan and the Ten Mile Plan.
(1) The Comprehensive Plan and Ten Mile Plan are Plans, not Development
Ordinances.
It is disconcerting when statements are made that the Ten Mile Area Plan is a "zoning overlay," or
is an "overlay zone," or is "codified" in this area of Meridian. It is none of those. When jurisdictions
inappropriately attempt to elevate their comprehensive plans "to the status of a zoning ordinance."' We
seek to politely remind them of the law, we act to address staff's concerns in a manner that does not
adversely affect the constitutional rights of that applicant, and we work to avoid a dispute which will be
unnecessary and costly for the jurisdiction.
That said,the unfortunate trend in Idaho for municipalities to spend time adopting plans that their
staffs then fail to codify through the implementation of objective standards codified in ordinance as
required by the Local Land Use Planning Act, must come to an end. A comprehensive plan is "a guide to
local government agencies charged with making zoning decisions," it is "not a legally controlling zoning
law."' But rather it is an aspirational document, allowing a city to plan for anticipated future uses of land
and set goals for future development.3 In Bone v. Lewiston, the Idaho Supreme Court prohibited the city of
1 Bone v.City of Lewiston, 107 Idaho 844,849(1984).
z Evans v.Teton Cty., 139 Idaho 71, 76.
3 Bone, 107 Idaho at 850.
Revised Application Narrative
Page: 13
Lewiston from "elevat[ing] the comprehensive plan...to the status of a zoning ordinance."4 In other words,
if a jurisdiction's zoning ordinance and its comprehensive plan dictate different outcomes, then uses and
improvements authorized by the zoning ordinance cannot be barred by the application of the
comprehensive plan.
In interpreting the language of "in accordance with" or "not in conflict with," Idaho's courts have
repeatedly held that a city errs when it elevates its comprehensive plan to the status of a zoning ordinance.
In Urrutia v. Blaine County, 134 Idaho 353 (1999), the Supreme Court reviewed Blaine County's denial of a
subdivision plat application that met all of the use and dimensional standards of the Blaine County Code,
complying with the underlying zoning ordinance, because Blaine County found that the application did not
comply with the comprehensive plan. Id. at 357. Recognizing that the Blaine County code stated that
subdivision applications shall "conform to the Comprehensive Plan," the Court held that requirement
merely requires the applications to"generally comport[]with the overall goals of the comprehensive plan."
Id., at 358. Ultimately,the Court held that:
It is to be expected that the land to be subdivided may not agree with all
provisions in the comprehensive plan,but a more specific analysis, resulting
in denial of a subdivision application based solely on non-compliance with
the comprehensive plan elevates the plan to the level of legally controlling
zoning law. Such a result affords the Board's unbounded discretion in
examining a subdivision application and allows the Board to effectively re-
zone land based on the general language in the comprehensive plan. As
indicated above,the comprehensive plan is intended merely as a guideline
whose primary use is in guiding zoning decisions. Those zoning decisions
have already been made in this instance and land subdivided into twenty-
acre lots and used for single family residences is specifically permitted in
this agricultural area.
Id., at 358-59 (emphasis added). Why did the Idaho Supreme Court rule this way? It did so because of
a large body of case law which states that comprehensive plans do not
themselves operate as legally controlling zoning law, but rather serve to
guide and advise the various governing bodies responsible for making
zoning decisions. See Theobald v. Board of County Commissioners, Summit
County, 644 P.2d 942, 949 (Colo.1982); Barrie v. Kitsap County, 613 P.2d
1148, 1152 (Wash.1980); Holmgren v. City of Lincoln, 199 Neb. 178, 256
N.W.2d 686, 690 (1977); 82 Am.Jur.2d, Zoning and Planning, § 69; 3
Anderson, American Law of Zoning 609.
Bone, 107 Idaho at 850.
The lesson to be learned from these cases is that the comprehensive plan is to "guide and advise"
decision makers in making land use decisions, it is not in and of itself the actual ordinance or policies that
4 Id. at 849.
Revised Application Narrative
Page: 14
are being enforced. A comprehensive plan may identify standards which the jurisdiction desires to
implement. However, if the jurisdiction fails to adopt an ordinance implementing those standards,then the
jurisdiction may not invoke "compliance with" a plan as a means to circumvent its failure to enact
appropriate standards in accordance with Idaho law.
(2) The Goals of the Comprehensive Plan and Ten Mile Plan must be Expressly
Codified to be Effective.
Unfortunately, many jurisdictions in Idaho have failed to acknowledge that for planning to
effectively guide land use decisions,they must then take the next step of actually adopting ordinances that
implement those planning decisions. When these jurisdictions do not codify the standards,they desire from
their comprehensive plan,they squander the resources put into the planning exercise,they fail to give their
planning staffs appropriate guidance, they confuse the public about the commitment they are making to
the planning exercise, and they create unnecessary disputes with applicants frequently causing acrimony
and litigation.
The Idaho Legislature has been absolutely clear that for any standard to be enforceable, it has to be
enacted via an ordinance and it has to be objective. The Idaho Legislature has required that land use
decisions must be based upon standards adopted by ordinance. Idaho Code Section 67-6518 provides that:
Each governing board may adopt standards for such things as: building
design; blocks, lots, and tracts of land; yards, courts, greenbelts, planting
strips, parks,and other open spaces;trees;signs; parking spaces; roadways,
streets, lanes, bicycleways, pedestrian walkways, rights-of-way, grades,
alignments, and intersections; lighting; easements for public utilities;
access to streams, lakes, and viewpoints; water systems; sewer systems;
storm drainage systems; street numbers and names; house numbers;
schools, hospitals, and other public and private development.
Standards may be provided as part of zoning, subdivision, planned unit
development, or separate ordinance adopted, amended, or repealed in
accordance with the notice and hearing procedures provided in section 67-
6509, Idaho Code.
Whenever the ordinances made under this chapter impose higher
standards than are required by any other statute or local ordinance, the
provisions of ordinances made pursuant to this chapter shall govern.
(Emphasis added.) The requirements of Idaho Code Section 67-6518 date from the original adoption of the
Local Land Use Planning Act by the Idaho Legislature. More importantly,this section of the Idaho Code and
its requirements have never been amended in the dates from the original adoption.
Moreover, Idaho Code Section 67-6535(1) requires that
(1) The approval or denial of any application required or authorized
pursuant to this chapter shall be based upon standards and criteria which
shall be set forth in the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, or other
Revised Application Narrative
Page: 15
appropriate ordinance or regulation of the city or county. Such approval
standards and criteria shall be set forth in express terms in land use
ordinances in order that permit applicants, interested residents and
decision makers alike may know the express standards that must be met in
order to obtain a requested permit or approval. Whenever the nature of
any decision standard or criterion allows,the decision shall identify aspects
of compliance or noncompliance with relevant approval standards and
criteria in the written decision.
Some in Idaho have attempted to argue and, in fact, may believe that the foregoing language does
allow a comprehensive plan to impose development standards. Such an argument or belief, is belied not
only by the plain language of the statute but also by the Idaho Supreme Court's rejection of such. While the
comprehensive plan will guide initial zoning decisions and is a tool for evaluating subsequent applications,
its policies and standards are not self-enabling.
As set forth in Idaho Code Section 67-6535(1), the requirement "approval standards and criteria
shall be set forth in express terms in land use ordinances" relates to the content of a jurisdiction's land use
ordinance. The "express" approval standards and criteria identified in Idaho Code Section 67-6535(1) are
those set forth in the municipality's land use ordinances to "permit applicants, interested residents and
decision makers"to know"the express standards that must be met in order to obtain a requested permit."
The policies and standards of a comprehensive plan, if intended to be applied to development applications,
must be reduced to "express standards" through implementation by ordinance.
The requirements that an application "comply with" or be "consistent with" or "adhere to" the
elements of a comprehensive plan, does not elevate such a plan to an enforceable zoning ordinance if its
elements have not been objectively incorporated into the jurisdiction's code by ordinance. As found by the
Idaho Supreme Court, a requirement, even one incorporated in a zoning or subdivision ordinance, that
applications shall "conform to the Comprehensive Plan" merely requires the applications to "generally
comport[] with the overall goals of the comprehensive plan." Urrutia, 134 Idaho at 358.
(3) The Ten Mile Plan Recognizes the need for Express Enforceable Standards.
The Ten Mile Plan announced that the subsequent zoning decisions and amendments to Meridian's
ordinances would be the means by which the goals of the plan would be implemented, not the Ten Mile
Plan in and of itself, Notifying that:
Achieving results from the plan requires an entirely new way of doing
business forthe private and public sectors.The plan will not happen simply
through the filing of development applications on behalf of the private
sector or amendments to the comprehensive plan and adoption of new
codes by the City.
Ten Mile Plan, p. 2-2 (emphasis added).
Additionally,the Ten Mile Plan recognized that
Revised Application Narrative
Page: 16
The City's existing development regulations provide elements of some,
but not all,of these tools.As with most communities,the focus of the City's
regulations is on zoning, separation of uses, and what is not desired.
Implementation of the plan will require a shift in focus to the pattern and
form of development and building detail.
The City's Zoning District regulations provide the basic development tool
for implementation of the Specific Area Plan. The code currently has
fourteen zoning districts with associated standards and allowed uses for
each district.The
Ten Mile Plan, p. 2-2 (emphasis added).
To accomplish this, the Ten Mile Plan's "Action Plan", not only identified adopting "the Ten Mile
Specific Area Plan as an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan" as the number one priority that the
City should have, but also identified amending the City's zoning ordinance to be the number two priority
through "Adoptfingl revisions to the City's zoning Ordinance", and then next establishing design standards
either through the City itself or by encouraging the "development community to work together to prepare
a set of design guidelines that will accomplish the intent of this plan." Ten Mile Plan, p. 6-2 (emphasis
added).
(4) Meridian has Implemented some, but not all of the Ten Mile Plan Goals
and Desired Policies.
Additionally,the City initiated an amendment to its zoning code with Ordinance 08-1372 in 2008 to
implement new zoning districts, new use definitions, modified use requirements, and dimensional
standards derived from the Ten Mile Plan. As noted by then Planning Director, Anna Canning, Ordinance
08-1372 was intended in part to add:
Two new districts and those are the ME and the HE. The MEHE. And they
are mixed employment and high density employment. So, you will see the
mixed employment--and these are directly related to the Ten Mile specific
area plan. The mixed employment corresponds with the land use
designation of that name and would allow a mix of light office, light
industrial, any employment center are basically -- they typically were
envisioned as not - not the tallest buildings in the Ten Mile specific area
plan, so we picked the height limits similar to the C-G zoning currently.
Meridian City Council Minutes, May 27, 2008, p.45.
Although Ordinance 08-1372 was not effective until July of 2008 after additional revisions were
made to elements of that amendment that related to elements not directly arising from the Ten Mile Plan,
the extensive discussion on May 27, 2008 by staff and the city council evidenced the fact that the
implementation of the Ten Mile Plan was a driving consideration of the 2008 ordinance amendments.
At its core, Ordinance 08-1372 was the extent of the City Council's implementation of the Ten Mile
Plan through the adoption of ordinances establishing standards as both contemplated by and required in
Revised Application Narrative
Page: 17
Idaho Code 67-6518 and 67-6535. The City Council acted to create two new commercial zoning districts,to
establish new use definitions relating to those districts, to modify the then existing use requirements
consistent with the new districts and definitions, and then to identify that landscape buffers and building
sizes were "Subject to design guidelines in Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan."'
Since the adoption of the Ten Mile Plan and Ordinance 08-1372 in 2007 and 2008, the following
have occurred:
• US Population has grown from 303M to 341M
• Meridian's population has doubled from 64K to more than 130K
• Boise State won three Fiesta Bowls, in 2007, 2010, and 2014
• Ada County Median Home price fell from $239K in Summer 2007 to $133K in Winter 2011
and then increased to $546K today
• The Great Recession in 2008 and COVID19 Recession in 2020
What has not occurred since 2007 and 2008? The following have not occurred:
• There has been no other ordinance expressly establishing Ten Mile Area specific design
standards;
• There has been no other ordinance expressly establishing Ten Mile Area specific
dimensional standards;
• There has been no other ordinance expressly establishing "build to lines"
• There has been no other ordinance expressly imposing setback limitations "to hold the
corners"; and
• There has been no other ordinance expressly requiring vertically integrated residential
mixed use.
A hope or an aspiration set forth in a comprehensive plan developed under Idaho law relating to height,
design, density, intensity, transitions, setbacks, parking, or any of the other relevant standards adopted in
S Express language from Ordinance 08-1372 referencing the Ten Mile Plan in regards to Footnote 4 of Table 11-213-3
was subsequently amended with today's generic reference in Footnote 4 of Table 11-26-3 to"adopted specific area
plans", reflecting the City's adoption of other specific plans. However, based upon the plain language of Idaho Code
Section 67-6518,such a reference in and of itself is insufficient to establish an express and enforceable design or
development standard.
Revised Application Narrative
Page: 18
Idaho Code 67-6518 will not be binding or enforceable on a property owner, unless and until it is
incorporated into a zoning ordinance pursuant to the notice and hearing provisions of Idaho Code 67-6509.
We provide the foregoing as it clearly supports the conclusions that:
• The City Council recognized that for the Ten Mile Plan to be effective that it required
implementation by adoption of actual ordinances establishing the standards it advocated;
• Thus Ordinance 08-1372 was enacted to further the plan;
• The City Council modified certain other zoning districts and the standards associated with
them at that time, but largely left intact the zoning structure it had adopted prior to
approving the Ten Mile Plan in 2007;
• The City Council's subsequent amendments to its zoning code have not materially modified
the 2008 Ten Mile Plan amendments and have not subsequently amended the Ten Mile
Plan, ostensibly evidencing comfort with both the zoning code and the Ten Mile Plan itself,
and
• The City Council, in approving the 118 Property DA Modification as well as approving the
Black Property DAs, was generally comfortable with the zoning districts established upon
the properties and their consistency with both the zoning code and the Ten Mile Plan.
And we reiterate, that this Application does not materially seek to modify the land uses and the
prior decisions relating to the 118 Property or the Black Property, rather,this Application:
• Integrates four existing development agreements into a single development agreement;
• Promote zoning designations identified as the "Best Choice"or as a"Possible Choice" in the
Zoning District Compatibility Matrix established in the Ten Mile Plan;
• Retains and adheres to the existing land use designations on the Future Land Use Map,
while conforming them to the actual infrastructure plans and the pre-existing zoning;
• Rezones a limited portion of the property currently designated C-C to be T-NC to more
appropriately transition to the residential uses to the north and the west, and as the "Best
Choice" within both the Mixed-Use Residential and Mixed Use Commercial land use
designations in the Ten Mile Plan;
• Reconfigures the existing C-C zoned property within the Black Property to reflect the
ultimate infrastructure plans and requirements developed subsequent to the initial
planning exercise in the Ten Mile Plan, while not materially increasing the acreage of C-C
zoned property;
• Preserves and promotes the importance of the High Density Employment land use and the
intent associated with it, while retaining the existing C-C, H-E, M-E zones and adds the C-G
Revised Application Narrative
Page: 19
zone, all of which are permitted within and consistent with that High Density Employment
land use; and
• Proposes "a set of design guidelines that will accomplish the intent of the Ten Mile Plan.
Finally,we remind Staff of the fact that in this instance,with very little exception,the existing zoning
of both the 118 Property and the Black Property permit the uses and the development that the Applicant
proposes. As the Idaho Supreme Court noted in Urrutia v. Blaine County, 134 Idaho 353 (1999), where the
underlying zoning has been established in accordance with a valid comprehensive plan,then
the comprehensive plan is intended merely as a guideline whose primary
use is in guiding zoning decisions. Those zoning decisions have already
been made in this instance . . .
Id., at 358-59(emphasis added). The Applicant's requests are focused on conforming the underlying zoning
to the approved infrastructure and the realities of the market.
This Application seeks to be very surgical and precise to ensure that the overall goals of the Ten Mile
Plan are adhered to, with there being no net change or immaterial change to the overall goals relating to
densities and uses, while making the necessary modifications to the underlying planning designations,
zoning districts,and development commitments to permit its current development. That said,the Ten Mile
Plan and Meridian's Comprehensive Plan are not zoning ordinances and should not be utilized as such.
For the reasons set forth below, the Application is in accordance with and in furtherance of the
Comprehensive Plan and the Ten Mile Plan.
2. Application—Development Agreement Amendment
As noted above, the purpose of this Application is to integrate multiple existing development
agreements into a single development agreement governing the entirety of the Property. In this instance,
there should be no question as to the propriety for an amendment to the existing development agreements.
Development agreements are not sacrosanct,they can,should, and will be amended from time to time, and
as set forth herein, were contemplated to be so amended in this instance.
Previously, the Property was held in separate ownership and was subject to multiple development
agreements. Consistent with the provisions of Meridian City Code 11-513-3F we seek a new Development
Agreement consolidating and replacing the prior individual agreements. We turn to the specific elements
of this Application which are incorporated into the Development Agreement. A draft of the proposed
Development Agreement is attached for your reference.
It is important to note, that each of the Development Agreement — Fedrizzi Ten Mile, LLC (AZ 11-
001) recorded as Instrument No. 112073618;the Development Agreement—SJJV, LLC(AZ 11-001) recorded
as Instrument No. 112073617; and the Development Agreement — Janicek Properties, LLC (AZ 11-001)
recorded as Instrument No. 112073616, not only contemplated but required future amendments to include
development site plans. Each of these were intended to be amended to evidence implementation of the
specified infrastructure improvements and alignments as elements of the site plans that were to be
incorporated through such amendments.
Revised Application Narrative
Page:20
There should be no question as to the sufficiency and propriety for the requested amendment to
the development agreements under either Idaho 67-6511A or Meridian City Code and integration into a
single agreement. Integrating multiple development agreements into a single development plan with
comprehensive Project Design Standards, reflects the ultimate goal and implementation of the Ten Mile
Plan and the intention of the City Council when approving the annexation of those parcels. The
Development Agreement will integrate all of the Property in a single agreement and will facilitate the
implementation of the requested comprehensive plan map amendment, zoning modification, and
preliminary plat together with the Project Design Standards.
3. Application -Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
Throughout the development of the Application, we have been sensitive to both the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan as well as the Ten Mile Plan, the work that the various agencies put into it, and the
individuals who worked on its development and approval in June 2007. We have reviewed, analyzed, and
contemplated the content of the Ten Mile Plan,as well as the City's subsequent zoning decisions,that relate
to the Application we have presented herein. We address the request to modify the Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use Map below.
(a) A Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment is
Unnecessary.
We note that the Applicant has previously initiated a request to modify the Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use Map at the behest of Staff,this submittal is intended to supplement and support that prior
request.
Staff previously indicated that the desired zoning amendment to rezone the portion of the Property
south of Villaggio/Vanguard and north of Navigator from the WE zone to the C-C zone necessitated a future
land use map amendment. We disagree, however, we proceed with this request not because we believe
Staff is correct, but rather out of the Applicant's recognition of procedural economy. The Future Land Use
Map found in the Comprehensive Plan does not require modification or amendment to implement the
requested zoning and development agreement modifications set forth herein. Moreover,we note that the
Comprehensive Plan itself acknowledges that map amendments are not necessary in this instance.
We take seriously the recognition by the Ten Mile Plan, that with respect to future land use maps,
that the goal of the plan was to identify a mix of appropriate uses not to establish unchanging barriers or
lines to implementation, specifically:
Next,we are respectful of those allocations of uses, but are also cognizant of the guidance afforded
by the Ten Mile Plan regarding its land use map and its planning district identification:
No more lines! Unfortunately, a map cannot be reasonably presented
without lines defining the boundaries between various land use
designations. While the Land Use Map still uses lines to identify specific
areas for employment, industrial, mixed-use residential and commercial,
and high, medium and low-density residential uses, the goal of the plan is
to promote more organic and holistic development patterns, to mix uses
more than to obey lines on a map. The idea behind this Land Use Map is
Revised Application Narrative
Page:21
not to separate uses by area, but to promote the best use of each area in
concert with the others.
The Land Use Map provides the geographic context for the development of
the Ten Mile Interchange Area over the next 30 years.While proposed land
uses are mapped to specific locations, the land use recommendations
presented in the Land Use Map are still relatively broad, and the exact
shape of many of the land use areas is necessarily somewhat conceptual.
The Land Use Map recommends the general locations for specific types of
land uses and illustrates how these uses are related to each other
geographically.While the fine-grained intermixing of land uses is not shown
at this scale and level of generality, the map is not intended to emphasize
the segregation or separation of uses, but suggest the areas in which
certain types of development are most likely to flourish, given the location
of other development and transit options. Most areas will typically be
comprised of a variety of different land uses in relatively close proximity
to each other.
The Land Use Map is not intended for application on a parcel-by-parcel
basis; nor should it be interpreted as similar to a zoning district map.
Ten Mile Plan, p. 3-15 (emphasis added).
Moreover, the subsequently adopted Comprehensive Plan addresses that same concept noting in
the provision designated as "General Guidance"that:
Future Land Use designations are not parcel specific. An adjacent,
abutting designation,when appropriate and approved as part of a public
hearing with a land development application, may be used.A designation
may not be used however, across planned or existing collector or arterial
roadways, must not be used on a parcel not directly abutting the
designation, and may not apply to more than 50% of the land being
developed. All other changes to designations must be approved through a
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment. Sample zoning listed in the future
land use designation descriptions does not preclude the use of other zoning
districts provided the proposed project is consistent with the description of
the land use designation.
Meridian Comprehensive Plan p.3-11(emphasis added). As is set forth in detail below, no map amendment
should be required based upon the General Guidance since the Applicant (a) is proposing zones consistent
with "adjacent, abutting designations"; (b)which are sought to be approved as part of a public hearing with
a development application; (c) are not extended across existing collectors or arterial roadways, but rather
Revised Application Narrative
Page:22
merely seek to align with the actual collectors that are now designed and being constructed; and (d) the
proposed extensions of uses do in fact comprise less than 50%of the land being developed.
(b) The Existing Future Land Use Maps Support the Zoning Requests Made
Hereafter
First,we highlight the future land use designations that were actually assigned to the Property prior
to its annexation and zoning. The Ten Mile Plan Land Use Map initially identified and designated the
Property as follows based upon the anticipated locations for the various roadways:
MUR
MUC
MUC
PARK
~ o HDE
HDE
Ten Mile Plan, p. 3-16. Of note, the actual location of the Villaggio/Vanguard right of way was dedicated
significantly farther to the north than what was originally contemplated within the Ten Mile Plan.
Regardless, the Ten Mile Plan identified various future land uses on the Property, including Mixed Use
Residential (MUR), Mixed Use Commercial (MUC), High-Density Employment(HDE),and Mixed Employment
(ME).
As set forth in the Future Land Use Map adopted in conjunction with Meridian's Comprehensive
Plan, similar designations were incorporated therein as follows, although they still were not aligned with
the actual dedicated rights of way:
Revised Application Narrative
Page:23
RRIf- .; _
s �
Fit
q�xx�c�i�ca
it � i it • i
i Density
Employment
The takeaway from this is that ultimately, the land uses of Mixed Use Residential (MUR), Mixed Use
Commercial (MUC), High-Density Employment (HIDE), and Mixed Employment (ME), set forth the desired
mix of uses within the Property, but they do not and were not intended to be the actual zoning districts for
those related uses. Insisting upon such belies the warning that these maps do not require strict devotion to
their boundaries ("No more lines"Ten Mile Plan, p. 3-15) and that the underlying uses should be extended
to conform to the actual approved infrastructure plan ("adjacent, abutting designation . . . may be used . . .
[but] may not be used however, across planned or existing collector" Comprehensive Plan p. 3-11).
W The Existing Zoning District Compatibility Matrix in the Ten Mile Plan
Supports the Application without Amending the Map
Additionally, as we have analyzed the Ten Mile Plan and the Comprehensive Plan, it is important to
note the guidance that the City of Meridian has provided in implementing these land use designations when
it is time to actually zone properties. Land use designations are not zoning classifications.'
' The lack of precision in various definitions and terminology among the City's various planning documents and policies
is problematic. The Ten Mile Plan utilizes the terminology "Mixed Use Residential," which is variously referenced as
"MUR" or"MUR-Res"; meanwhile,the Comprehensive Plan utilizes "Mixed Use Regional (MU-R)". The Ten Mile Plan
also utilizes the term, "Mixed Use Commercial", which is variously referenced as "MUC" or "MU-Com"; meanwhile,
the Comprehensive plan utilizes the term "Mixed Use Community (MU-C)". Unfortunately, none of these terms are
synonymous and merely create confusion,which could have been avoided due to the timing and sequencing between
the Ten Mile Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. It also would be better explained if the Ten Mile Plan had been
implemented into the UDC as this would have forced a conversation about how these designations overlap; however,
that has not occurred and so these inconsistencies remain a challenge. The note on p.3-21 of the Comprehensive Plan
is insufficient in this regard as it does not explain how MU-C is to be applied in the areas subject to the Ten Mile
Plan. Additionally, there is consistent confusion between the High Density Employment (HDE) land use designation
and the High Density Employment(H-E)zone. The High Density Employment land use designation authorizes various
zones, which include and are not limited to the WE zone. The land use designation and the zoning designation are
clearly not identical in what they contemplate. Imprecise utilization of such terms,which have different purposes and
different definitions,creates unnecessary confusion and conflict between Staff and property owners.
Revised Application Narrative
Page:24
With respect to the Mixed Use Residential (MUR/MU-RES) land use designation, the City has
provided the following guidance establishing that appropriate zones within that land use designation
include R-15, R-40, C-C,TN-R, and TN-C:
Page I MUMMIXED USE RESIDENTIAL (MU-RES)
TEN MILE SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATIONS
M1.
nap Color ❑ Ioning K-15 1 R-401 C-C I TN-R ITN-C
Sample Use(s) ❑ Vertically integrated residential,live-work,office,retail,recreation,parks,multi-family,and townhouses
This is derived from the zones identified in the Zoning District Compatibility Matrix for the Mixed
Use Residential land use designation in the Ten Mile Plan:
Residential Commercial Industrial Tradihional
Exist rig CityZo-r@ Di=.trick �-2 ?d r g R-15 R-40 N C-C G L-0 -H C�-- `4-:' TN-t
MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL
De-,sih E-12 D,1.A- ti
Ten Mile Plan, p. 2-5.
With respect to the Mixed-Use Commercial (MUC/MU-COM) land use designation the City has
provided the following guidance establishing that appropriate zones within that land use designation
include C-C, C-G,TN-C, and C-N:
Page I MUC.1
MIXED USE COMMERCIAL (MU-COM)
TEN MILE SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATIONS
I I I i
nap Color ❑ Zoning C-C I C-G ITN-C I C-N
Sample Use(s) ❑ Commercial,vertically integrated residential,live-work,employment entertainment,office,multi-family,and
townhouses
This is derived from the zones identified in the Zoning District Compatibility Matrix for the Mixed-
Use Commercial land use designation in the Ten Mile Plan:
Residenlial I Commercial Industrial Tradihional
E Ar)gCitY2oning Di<iricts t-2 t4 R-B R-15 R-43 I _N C-C _. L-O -H TAR
MDfE�RCIAL
De,)situ,.&12 DLYAC
Revised Application Narrative
Page:25
With respect to the High-Density Employment(HDE) land use designation the City has provided the
following guidance establishing that appropriate zones within that land use designation include C-C, C-G,
TN-C, and H-E:
Page I HDE.1
HIGH DENSITY EMPLOYMENT (HDE)
TEN MILE SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATIONS
I•
nap Color ■ Zoning C-C I C-G ITN-C I H-E
Sample use(s) ❑ Office,research,conference centers,accessory restaurants,ancillary convenience retail,and daycare
This guidance is clearly derived from the Zoning District Compatibility Matrix for the High-Density
Employment land use designation in the Ten Mile Plan. In 2008, the HE zone was created as well, but as
noted above, HE and HDE are not coterminous, and the City contemplated a variety of commercial oriented
uses within the HDE
Residenlial Commercial Industrial Traditional
EmAr)g City=onira DiWict,, R-2 1 t4 1 F,8 I f115 I FIX �IJ I C-C I �G I L-O -H T'+
HIGH DENSITY EMPLOYMENT v' 4+
The fact that the Ten Mile Plan utilized a "Check Plus" to indicate that the C-G zone was the most
preferred zoning classification that the City had identified at that time, reaffirms its importance and its
compatibility.
(d) Staff Requested Additional Analysis of Ten Mile Plan Elements.
Staff has requested that the Applicant provide additional analysis of the requested modifications
under these Applications and their impact upon the Ten Mile Plan. We will address each of those in detail
below,after we provide some clarification regarding the Ten Mile Plan,as adopted and implemented by the
City of Meridian, and its impact upon our very narrow request to modify the Future Land Use map as set
forth above.
(1) The Application is in Accordance with the Intended Allocation of Uses
under the Ten Mile Plan.
After the initial submittal of this Application, Staff has made the following specific request of the
Applicant:
Include justification as to why the proposed change is more appropriate
than the existing designation understanding the balance of jobs/housing
within the amended area, as well as the overall balance in the Ten Mile
Area, is critical.The District was originally intended first as an employment
center with supportive residential, but the opposite is occurring. Consider
Revised Application Narrative
Page:26
offsets and mitigation opportunities.Traffic impacts, backed up by a traffic
analysis should be addressed.
The inquiry mischaracterizes the Applicant's proposal. The Application does not seek to
fundamentally change the balance of jobs/housing in the areas being amended based upon the existing
underlying and requested zoning. Rather, the Application conforms the land use designations in the Ten
Mile Plan and the Future Land Use Map to the actual zoning of the underlying properties that the City
previously undertook in conjunction with the 118 Property DA Modification as well as approving the Black
Property DAs. The Application also seeks to align the zoning along Ten Mile Road with the actual locations
of Cobalt and Voyager and ensuring that the primary residential properties to the north and west of the
Property are buffered from the commercial areas.
Moreover, as set forth based upon the proposed mix of uses, there is a significant but not
predominate amount of housing. The Application contemplates approximately 33.42 acres of residentially
developed property, zoned TN-C, which under both the MUR designation and TN-C zone contemplates a
density of 8-12 units per acre. We do not understand Staff's concern that the addition of 7.48 acres of TN-
C zoning within a property that has been designated as MU-RES on the Future Land Use Map is somehow
not "supportive residential".
As set forth in the table below, resulting TN-C zoned area is less than 20% of the total site, while
various employment intensive zones comprise the remaining 80%of the site:
ZONING DISTRICT ACRES
COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT—(C-C) 59.11
HIGH DENSITY EMPLOYMENT—(H-E) 34.82
TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL—(TN-C) 33.42
MIXED EMPLOYMENT—(M-E) 10.19
GENERAL RETAIL&SERVICE COMMERCIAL—(C-G) 25.97
The resulting TN-C does not materially impact or reduce the importance of the Property and Project as an
"employment center". As set forth in the following table of programmed uses, office is identified for more
than 750,000 square feet of uses within the Project; retail and service commercial are programed for
approximately 500,000 square feet of uses; and hospitality and recreational uses are contemplated to be in
excess of 400,000 square feet of uses:
Revised Application Narrative
Page:27
USES SQFT
GENERAL OFFICE 536,800
MEDICAL OFFICE 250,000
RETAIL 414,329
HOTEL 210,000
ENTERTAINMENT, RECREATION, FITNESS 134,770
RESTAURANT AND CAFE 63,206
GROCERY 53,500
SERVICES (BANK, DAYCARE,SALON, SPA, ETC.) 29,200
RESIDENTIAL 268-402 UNITS
It is clear from not only the proposed acreages of the various zones, as well as the program of proposed
uses,that the TN-C is in fact "supportive residential" and the Project remains an "employment center"with
the balance of employment and housing consistent with what is set forth in the Ten Mile Plan.
-C-C
\ m
C-G Rit_ g
C-G �®
184 —
Revised Application Narrative
Page:28
Additionally, the existing land use designations have significant overlap in the zoning designations
that they are compatible with, and in fact, this area of the Ten Mile Plan that is at issue utilized mixed use
land use designations of Mixed Use Residential (MUR/MU-RES) and Mixed-Use Commercial (MUC/MU-
COM) that both identified TN-C and C-C as zones designations identified as the "Best Choice" or as a
"Possible Choice" respectively on the Zoning District compatibility Matrix.
The existing implementation of the TN-C zone and the C-C zone, the reconfiguration of each zone
as proposed in the Application,together with the realignment of the Mixed Use Residential (MUR/MU-RES)
and Mixed-Use Commercial (MUC/MU-COM) land use designations to conform with the underlying zoning
districts, does no violence to the Ten Mile Plan.
The Ten Mile Plan and the City have already previously made the determination that these land use
designations and their associated compatible zoning districts will have the mix of jobs and housing desired
here. If that were not the case then why would the Ten Mile Plan and the City have identified these zones
and their uses be compatible with and in accordance with the Land Use designation in terms of the mix of
jobs and housing?
We further note that with respect to these proposed revisions that none of the Black Property DAs
incorporated site plans and that all were required to present site plans consistent therewith for adoption
and implementation. This exercise has been driven by the development of a site plan that is consistent with
the underlying zoning districts, the Ten Mile Plan, and the infrastructure planning that has occurred since
the approval of the Black Property DAs.
As depicted on the existing Future Land Use Map there are three land use designations impacted
by this Application are the MU-Res,the MU-Com, and the High Density Employment depicted below,which
were established as general areas of compatibility:'
1 I 1
ae�tk�i
I I
li 1 I II'I
11 1 1 II 1 JJ
L
The Application proposes a reconfiguration of the land use areas that"is more appropriate than the existing
designation" because it reflects both the location of the planned and approved infrastructure as well as the
'The Ten Mile Plan specific notes that while"the Land Use Map still uses lines to identify specific areas . . . the goal
of the plan is to promote more organic and holistic development patterns,to mix uses. .. not to separate uses by
area,but to promote the best use of each area in concert with the others."Ten Mile Plan, p.3-15(emphasis
added).
Revised Application Narrative
Page:29
underlying zones compatible with each of the land use designations.The reconfiguration is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan and the "General Guidance" provisions therein.
As set forth in the Application, rather than reflect the aspirational areas that were established prior
to the identification and placement of the infrastructure serving the properties, we are proposing
designations that reflect the compatible zoning designations that have either already been established by
the prior development agreements, or we are proposing designations that conform with the minor
rezonings that have been proposed as well as the design of the actual roadways:
I I
+I 1 I
I
MU-RES TNT
MU-COM _
�
rr
ac o
FM'�E
HDE I �
.�.��..n�.�H H E ——
LAND USE MAP ZONING MAP
Both the Mixed Use Residential (MUR/MU-RES) land use and the Mixed-Use Commercial(MUC/MU-
COM) land use contemplate a residential density of 8-12 units to the acre. Ten Mile Plan, p. 2-5. Both the
Both the Mixed Use Residential (MUR/MU-RES) land use and the Mixed-Use Commercial (MUC/MU-COM)
land use contemplate TN-C as a "Best Choice" with a "Check Plus" on the Zoning District Compatibility
Matrix. Ten Mile Plan, p. 2-5. The Application merely seeks to take the band of Mixed Use Residential
(MUR/MU-RES)that was indiscriminately identified before,and then relocating it into a cohesive residential
neighborhood, centered on Umbria, north of Villaggio/Vanguard. The approximately 33 acres of Mixed Use
Residential (MUR/MU-RES), with an ultimate build out of 296 to 444 dwelling units, in no way is hostile to
"the balance of jobs/housing." There is no basis with respect to this Application for Staff's assertion that
the Property "was originally intended first as an employment center with supportive residential, but the
opposite is occurring."
If Staff believes that the Application potentially will result in too much residential development,
which adversely affects the intended balance between jobs and housing,then we believe that is not due to
the Application, but rather due to the fact that not only does the City's zoning code expressly allow
residential development in both the TN-C zone and the C-C zone, but that of the property located south of
Cobalt and north of Villaggio/Vanguard more than 50% of it is in fact designated Mixed Use Residential
(MUR/MU-RES),which the Applicant is merely trying to respect.
Revised Application Narrative
Page:30
(2) The Application need not Abandon the Ten Mile Plan, as it Supports the
Type of Commercial Development Proposed.
After the initial submittal of this Application, Staff has made the following additional request of the
Applicant:
Include analysis on how the proposed development is consistent with the
proposed FLUM designation(s). At the pre-app meeting, we discussed
that the Commercial FLUM designation might be more appropriate than
MU-COM for some of the development proposed (i.e. single-level big
box).The MU-COM calls for vertically integrated, no setback, hold the
corners, cohesive,traditional neighborhood design. Did you review the
Plan and feel the development proposed can fit within the MU-COM
designation?
Again, we believe that Staff misunderstands what the Applicant has proposed. The Applicant has
been attentive to Staff by guidance throughout this process. However, it appears that Staff is elevating the
Ten Mile Plan above the existing zoning ordinance as to specific design aspirations. To do so would be a
violation of Idaho law. As such, we disagree with Staff's characterization that the land use designation in
and of itself mandates something different from what is permitted by the underlying zoning, and in a
manner rejected by the Idaho Supreme Court in Urrutia, 134 Idaho at 358-59,while simultaneously ignoring
the plain language of the Ten Mile Plan.
First, in light of the intensity with which Staff has defended the implementation of the Ten Mile
Plan, it is inconsistent to simultaneously argue that the existing MU-Com land use designation should be
abandoned for a generic Commercial land use designation. It was our understanding that Staff wanted us
to work within the confines of the Ten Mile Plan.
We recognize that is what the property owner to the east of Ten Mile Road did just that, propose
the generic Commercial Land Use with respect to modifying most of land use designation of Lifestyle Center.
However, that land use designation never had any meaningful incorporation into the zoning code with
specific use and design standards being established, and the Black Property DAs did implement C-C zoning
throughout much of the MU-Com designated area without any articulated concern that C-C was somehow
inconsistent with it.
Second,the Applicant requested that the MU-Com designated area be aligned,for the convenience
of Staff and future development administration,with the C-C zoned area of the Project. We note that within
all three of the primary land use designations applicable to the Black Property, that each of the Mixed Use
Residential (MUR/MU-RES), Mixed-Use Commercial (MUC/MU-COM), and High-Density Employment (HDE)
land use designations are compatible with the C-C zone as proposed by the Applicant. This is addressed in
detail in The District at Ten Mile Land Use Application Analysis, pp. 16-17, where the applicant notes that
both the Ten Mile Plan and the City prepared cut sheets indicate these land use designations are compatible
with C-C zoning, which has already been applied over a significant portion of the MU-Com designated land
area.
Revised Application Narrative
Page:31
Third, the Ten Mile Plan specifically encourages property owners to develop their own
implementation plan for the aspirational design goals identified therein. The Ten Mile Plan recognized that
the City had a significant obligation to develop and establish the necessary development and design
standards to effectively implement it:
Implementation of the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area plan will require
that the City have a robust toolbox of zoning, development and design
standards to carry out the intended mix of uses, patterns of development,
and form that are proposed in the plan. Implementation of the plan will be
accomplished through the City's existing development codes, through
amendments to those codes, or by the development of new provisions,
such as new zoning districts, overlay districts, design guidelines and
development standards.
Ten Mile Plan, p. 2-2 (emphasis added). However, as part of the Ten Mile Plan's "Action Plan", it not only
identified adopting"the Ten Mile Specific Area Plan as an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan" as
the number one priority that the City should have, but then identified amending the City's zoning ordinance
to be the number two priority through "Adopt[ing] revisions to the City's zoning Ordinance", and then next
establishing design standards either through the City itself"Develop[ing] a set of design guidelines for the
Ten Mile Interchange Area; or Encourag[ingl the development community to work together to prepare a
set of design guidelines that will accomplish the intent of this plan." Ten Mile Plan, p. 6-2 (emphasis
added).
In fact,the Ten Mile Plan actually identified the likelihood of the City not moving quickly enough to
develop the necessary "robust toolbox of zoning, development and design standards" to implement it,
foretelling that:
Knowing the private sector may want to act more quickly to move the plan
forward,the City encourages developers and key land owners to take the
initiative and begin the implementation program, bringing forward
detailed design guidelines and zoning, and infrastructure financing
proposals based on the concepts presented in this plan. The City stands
ready to support your efforts and will be moving forward rapidly to
implement the recommendations in this plan.
Ten Mile Plan, p. 1-3 (emphasis added).
It should not be discounted that the Applicant has taken significant steps to develop detailed design
guidelines for the entirety of the Property, including the MU-Com area based upon the Ten Mile Plan. Not
every desired design element identified in the Ten Mile Plan can be implemented nor were they ever
intended to be applicable everywhere. If the City had in fact desired to impose the requirements that Staff
intimates, then as set forth in Urrutia, it would have adopted ordinances establishing mandatory "build-to-
lines", materially expanding the existing standards for vertically integrated residential development,as well
as traditional neighborhood design as defined and discussed throughout the Ten Mile Plan, and not merely
attempt to use its planning document to circumvent the actual ordinances that presently exist. If a
jurisdiction in Idaho desires to impose specific design standards, it may do so pursuant to Idaho Code 67-
Revised Application Narrative
Page:32
6518 if it does ordinance.The fact that the City has not acted to adopt ordinances materially implementing
those over the last seventeen years since the adoption of the Ten Mile Plan belies the insinuation that this
Application is in opposition to or inconsistent with the Ten Mile Plan.
We also note that when the City of Meridian looked for examples of what the Ten Mile area would
look like, it identified in its cut sheets to guide development, well recognized projects as the basis for an
example of the desired "Site Pattern." In fact, the Applicant recognizes these projects intimately, why?
Because the Applicant's team was responsible for their design,their development,and their operation. The
Applicant's team takes pride in the work they have done, has learned from those opportunities, and has
implemented that knowledge, here in this Application.
When the City of Meridian looked for examples of what the Ten Mile area High-Density Employment
(HDE) land use designation to use as an example of the desired "Site Pattern", its cut sheets identifies
Portico, a project developed by the Applicant's office and medical team in a prior partnership as well as
Scentsy Commons a project upon which the Applicant's medical team advised:
Ail
k-
ri
When the City of Meridian looked for examples of what the Ten Mile area Mixed Use Commercial
(MU-COM) land use designation to use as an example of the desired "Site Pattern", its cut sheets identifies
the Village, a project developed by the Applicant's retail team in a prior partnership, as well as the
Gateway in Salt Lake City,which the Applicant's office and medical team had been involved through its
prior development partnerships.
Revised Application Narrative
Page:33
Similarly,when the City of Meridian looked for examples of what the Ten Mile area Mixed Use
Residential (MU-RES) land use designation to use as an example of the desired "Site Pattern," its cut
sheets identifies only one development from Ada County,which happens to be a mixed use project that
the Applicant's counsel represents.
r
The Applicant has assembled a team that has largely been responsible for the most significant
office, retail, and mixed use developments in Ada County in the last twenty years. The projects of the
Applicant's team are the projects in Ada County and elsewhere that the City of Meridian looks to as
examples of what it wants. From these experiences,the Applicant knows what types of development
work, what types do not work,what tenant mixes are healthy,what tenant mixes are bad,what office
users want, what retailers need, and what creates actual, walkable and useable neighborhoods.
Staff's invocation of"single level big box" is unfortunately reductive of the Applicant's work and is
disingenuous. "Single level big box" absolutely is an element of this Project,why? Because some uses
inherently require "single level big box", no matter how much people wish they did not exist will continue
and are necessary. "Single level big box" is at most 10 to 15%of the total Project and is necessary to
provide the types of community services as were contemplated here in this site.
The request from Staff puts the Applicant in an unnecessary and unfortunate dilemma:to either
work within the confines of the Ten Mile Plan and be accused of not adhering to the Ten Mile Plan or
request a modification that abandons the Ten Mile Plan and be accused of ignoring the City's prior
planning decisions. The Ten Mile Plan and Meridian's Zoning Code clearly permit"single level big box" in
the Ten Mile area and within Meridian's commercial zoning districts. The Ten Mile Plan clearly invites
applicants to develop large master planned projects like the Applicant does here. The Ten Mile Plan also
Revised Application Narrative
Page:34
invites property owners to develop the requisite design standards in the absence of the City's codification
of suggestions from the Ten Mile Plan.
Ultimately developer initiated "detailed design guidelines and zoning: are exactly how we ensure
that the "development proposed can fit within the MU-COM designation". We have been sensitive to and
incorporated the design elements from the Ten Mile Plan as appropriate. We acknowledge that it appears
that Staff has not spent time reviewing the development standards that we propose implementing as set
forth in the Application in a manner that is, in fact, enforceable and not merely aspirational. The request
from Staff ignores Idaho's jurisprudence, ignores the Applicant's long history of mixed use development of
the type desired under the Ten Mile Plan, mischaracterizes the role that "single level big box" plays in this
Project, and would force the Applicant into a longer and more contentious process rather than undertake a
good faith evaluation of the totality of the Application and the Applicant's efforts.
(e) If Required, Future Land Use Map Amendments Should Retain
the Ten Mile Plan Land Uses, but Align their Boundaries with the Approved and
Designed Infrastructure.
To address Staff's concerns noted above,we disagree that there needs to be an amendment to the
Future Land Use Map, however, if the decision-making bodies believe that it is needed, then we propose
certain adjustments to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to better align the land use planning
maps of both the Comprehensive Plan and the Ten Mile Plan to the actual zoning and development of the
Property.
These requests, are in accordance with and conform to both the Comprehensive Plan and the Ten
Mile Plan as they reflect a reorientation of these land use designations while retaining the overall area
allocable to each one. If the decisionmakers determine that an amendment to the proposed larger Future
Land Use Map is provided herewith, but for reference, the requested Future Land Use Map modifications
are depicted as follows:
��
IIII �
I \ \
MU-RES
MU-COM _
W.VILLAGGIO WAY
0
A
I � h
HDF
7NN'WI'7fIIIIIIIPIIFiFgmlNill^'11-1f-0wN= - W.NAVIGATOR WAY
INrER'TATE",
Revised Application Narrative
Page:35
That said, in light of the plain recognition that the High-Density Employment land use designation
is compatible with the zoning of property Community Business District (C-C) and General Retail & Service
Commercial (C-G), we do not believe that rezoning a portion of the High-Density Employment (HE) to
Community Business District (C-C) and General Retail & Service Commercial (C-G), in fact, requires the
modification of the Future Land Use Map since C-C and C-G is an acknowledged compatible zone within the
High-Density Employment Land Use Designation.
Moreover, as the Mixed-Use Commercial land use designation is compatible with the zoning of
property as Community Business District (C-C), or Traditional Neighborhood Commercial (TN-C) and Mixed
Use Residential land use designation is compatible with the zoning of property as Medium High-Density
Residential (R-15), Community Business District (C-C), or Traditional Neighborhood Commercial (TN-C), we
do not believe that rezoning a portion of the Community Business District(C-C)to Traditional Neighborhood
Commercial (TN-C), in fact requires the modification of the Future Land Use Map since those zones are all
acknowledged as compatible zones within either the Mixed-Use Commercial.
However, to address the concerns of Staff and to address ambiguities that exist between the Ten
Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP) and the Comprehensive Plan, we have initiated this request.
As we realign the boundaries of the various land use designations, we do so solely to ensure that there is
no material deviation from the underlying land use planning designations that have previously been made.
We cannot guarantee that there is not some net change in the area, but we do note that we have attempted
to be surgical in the following modifications.
(f) Standards Applicable to Amendments of the Land Use Map
The Applicant is requesting amendment and modification to the comprehensive plan future land
use map. As such, we acknowledge that to assist Staff, the Commission, and the City Council in evaluating
and approving this Application, this Application satisfies the requisite standards set forth in Meridian City
Code 11-513-7D as set forth below.
(1) The proposed amendment is consistent with the other elements of the
comprehensive plan.
The requested amendment to the future land use map is a realignment of the locations of the
existing land use designations, with an attempt to ensure that the general area of which and the
contemplated zoning are not materially modified. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map adopted
the Ten Mile Plan Land Use Map as its own. However, as discussed above, the Ten Mile Plan noted that
its "Land Use Map is not intended for application on a parcel-by-parcel basis; nor should it be interpreted
as similar to a zoning district map." Ten Mile Plan, p. 3-15. As such this request is the very type of
amendment that was contemplated. As we are not seeking to modify the actual future land use
designations and not materially relocate them,the requested amendment is inherently consistent with the
other elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
(2) The proposed amendment provides an improved guide to future growth
and development of the city.
The requested amendment is brought forward as part of an omnibus application that addresses
the development of this property which has been previously subject to various disparate Development
Agreements due to the disparate ownerships. With the unification of ownership and the development of
Revised Application Narrative
Page:36
a comprehensive development plan by the Applicant, the modification of the boundaries of the zoning
districts within the Property in a manner that is consistent with future land use map will facilitate the
expansion of utilities and infrastructure and with an integrated development plan for a large property
that is implementing the goals of the relevant plans. Additionally, see the detailed analysis set forth in
Section 3(c) and 3(d)(2) above. The proposed amendment to the land use map will simplify future land
use applications.
(3) The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the goals,
objectives,and policies of the comprehensive plan.
The requested amendment reflects merely a reconfiguration of the land use designations
previously identified in the Ten Mile Plan. As noted therein, "While proposed land uses are mapped to
specific locations, the land use recommendations presented in the Land Use Map are still relatively broad,
and the exact shape of many of the land use areas is necessarily somewhat conceptual." Ten Mile Plan, p.
3-1S. Additionally, see the detailed analysis set forth in Section 3(a)-(e) above, which demonstrate the
internal consistency of this request. This amendment is the implementation of the goals, objectives, and
policies set forth in the Ten Mile Plan.
(4) The proposed amendment is consistent with this Unified Development
Code.
As discussed above, even with the reallocation and realignment of the various land use
designations on this requested amendment to the future land use map, the underlying zoning districts
that are not being sought to be modified by this Application remain consistent with the land use maps
based upon the City's compatibility matrices.
(5) The amendment will be compatible with existing and planned
surrounding land uses.
The realignment of the various land use designations in this requested amendment will not
materially affect the surrounding land uses, whether existing or planned. Consistent with the Ten Mile
Plan and similar to this Application the property immediately to the east across Ten Mile underwent a
significant realignment of comprehensive plan land use designations and zoning as part of a consolidation
of multiple development agreements in Ten Mile Crossing (H-2020-0114). Additionally, the properties to
the north have been the subject of various land use applications which have implemented the contemplated
land use and zoning designations for this area as a mixed-use node with a variety of intensive commercial
and residential uses.
(6) The proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service
capabilities.
Care has been taken to ensure that the realignment of the various land use designations in this
requested amendment will not materially affect the underlying density or intensity of development that
was contemplated in the Ten Mile Plan. The existing and planned service capabilities have always been
predicated on the type and intensity of development that is proposed in this Application.
Revised Application Narrative
Page:37
(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.
In recognition of the original planning efforts under the Ten Mile Plan, this Application seeks to
align the ultimate development plan for the Property in a manner that provides adequate mitigation of
the various impacts. With the existing development approvals for residential properties north and west
of the Property, the realignment of these land use designations better buffers the less intensive
residential uses to the north from the more intensive commercial uses that have been long contemplated.
The proposed map amendment is merely a realignment of land use designations, not a material change,
as set forth in our detailed analysis in Section 3(a)-(c) above. Even with the realignment of certain land
use designations, in those areas which are adjacent to residential properties, the modifications are not
coupled with more intensive zoning requests.
(8) The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City of Meridian.
In evaluating what is "in the best interest" of a city, the Idaho Supreme Court has acknowledged
that there is a certain degree of discretion afforded to a decisionmaker when posed with such a standard.
North West Neighborhood Association v. Boise, 535 P.3d 583, 594. However, such a decision must be
articulated in terms of the existing codes and standards as required by the application of existing ordinances.
In this instance,the requested amendment is in furtherance of the implementation of the Ten Mile Plan and
is, in fact,the type of application contemplated therein.
Having adopted the Ten Mile Plan and having recognized therein the importance of permitting the
private sector"to act more quickly to move the plan forward,the City encourages developers and key land
owners to take the initiative and begin the implementation program, bringing forward detailed design
guidelines and zoning,and infrastructure financing proposals based on the concepts presented in this plan."
Ten Mile Plan, p. 1-3 (emphasis added). That is exactly what the Applicant seeks to do here. It is certainly
in the best interest of the City for its existing development plans to be implemented especially after
seventeen years.
4. Application—Zoning Modification
The Applicant is requesting amendment to the zoning applicable to the Property. The rezoning of
certain portions of the Property is hereby undertaken to conform the existing zoning to the revised
development plan to incorporate additional property into the Development Agreement and to address the
concerns raised by Staff regarding the applicability of certain land use designations to certain zoning district
designations.
(a) Requested Amendments to Existing Zoning Districts
In conjunction with this Application, we respectfully request certain amendments to the existing
zoning districts applicable to portions of the Property. We will identify each of these in detail below:
(1) Rezoning of a portion of the WE zone to C-C zone. Applicant respectfully
requests the rezoning of a portion of the High-Density Employment (HE)to Community Business District(C-
C). The legal description of the resulting modified Community Business District (C-C) zone is incorporated
herein. As discussed above, at the request and requirement of Staff, the proposed amendment of the
Future Land Use Map has been undertaken to facilitate the rezoning of this portion of the Property
Revised Application Narrative
Page:38
comprising approximately 12.34 acres. The resulting C-C zoned portion of the Property and the southern
boundary between the C-C and WE zoned parcels is as follows:
(om)
/ POINTOF
6EGINNINGNG i
I
GC
1
1
1
(WE)
ZONE
C-C p
7234 AC O
I _
I
1 �
Ig
16
O __
WE
(WE) GS
EXISTING CC ZONE PROPOSED CHANGE RESULTING CC ZONE
(2) Rezoning a portion of the C-C zone to the WE zone. Applicant respectfully
requests the rezoning of an existing portion of the Community Business District (C-C) zoned property to
High-Density Employment (H-E). The legal description of the new to High-Density Employment (H-E) zoned
property is incorporated herein. This rezone is requested to reflect the fact that the additional retail
contemplated above in the Community Business District (C-C) 12.34 acre expansion is essentially offset by
this 9.13 acre modification, and the important WE zoning designation is ensured to be preserved. The
resulting change in the WE zoned portion of the Property and the northern boundary between the WE and
the C-c zoned parcels is as follows:
POINT OF(n'�C)
P
!16 Rmes o>lFARI Nosarc/1a
1�1
EXISTING CC ZONE PROPOSED CHANGE RESULTING CC ZONE
(3) Rezoning of a portion of the WE and C-C zones to the C-G zone. Applicant
respectfully requests the rezoning of a portion of the High-Density Employment (H-E) and the Community
Business District (C-C)to General Retail and Service Commercial District (C-G). The legal description of the
resulting modified General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G)zone is incorporated herein. The C-G zoned
portion of the Property is entirely within the HIED land use, and is presently zoned C-C and H-E. As noted
above in Section 3(c), within the HED land use designation, the C-G zoning designation is a "Check Plus".
This rezone is requested to ensure that certain intense commercial uses, which provide both significant
employment opportunities, but serve the employees working in the vicinity, have the types of retail and
Revised Application Narrative
Page:39
service opportunities they require. The resulting C-G zoned portion of the Property, comprising formerly C-
C and WE zoned parcels is depicted as follows:
G,N I K9
IWE
i C-G
��f I
C G H-E
EXISTING C-C AND WE ZONE PROPOSED CHANGE RESULTING C-G ZONE
(4) Rezoning a portion of the C-C zone to TN-C zone. Applicant respectfully
requests the rezoning of a portion of the Community Business District (C-C) to Traditional Neighborhood
Commercial (TN-C) with the intention that this will permit the intensity of mixed-use residential
development contemplated in the relevant planning documents. The resulting TN-C zoned portion of the
Property and the boundary between the C-C and TN-C zoned parcels is as follows:
TN-C
off
Mc
C-G
EXISTING TN-C AND C-C PROPOSED CHANGE RESULTING TN-C AND C-C
(5) Rezoning the Additional Property from R-40 to the C-C zone. Subsequent
to the execution of the prior development agreements, Hotel-SLC acquired .62 acres north of its property
but south of Cobalt that had been subject to certain prior applications ("Additional Property"). We
respectfully request the rezoning of the Additional Property as Community Business District(C-C). The legal
description of the Community Business District(C-C) zone including the Additional Property is incorporated
herein.
Revised Application Narrative
Page:40
The Additional Property was not incorporated into the development agreements that Hotel-SLC had
executed, however, it is the desire of the parties that it be subject to the Development Agreement and that
it be zoned so as to be consistent with the other property south of Cobalt. The Additional Property is
presently designated Mixed Use Residential (MUR)on the Future Land Use Map,which, as discussed above,
supports a zone which would include R-15,R-40,C-C,TN-R,and TN-C. Upon the approval of the amendment
of the Future Land Use Map, if required as set forth above, the Additional Property would be designated as
Mixed-Use Commercial (MUC), which would support a zone of C-C, C-G, TN-C, and C-N. Moreover, this is
the very situation where the underlying land use should be viewed as what is adjoining the property and
aligning it with the existing collector Cobalt, as contemplated in General Guidance provision of the
Comprehensive Plan. Meridian Comprehensive Plan p. 3-11.
As such under either the existing Future Land Use Map or the proposed amendment thereto, a
zoning designation of the Additional Property as Community Business District (C-C) is in accordance with
either of the Future Land Use Map designations. The Additional Property is the extreme north eastern
corner of the Property immediately south of Cobalt at its intersection with Ten Mile Road and is depicted as
follows:
ZONE
C-C
0.02 is I
sl F. N1116 C-C
„ 15a14
POINT OF
(C-C-) BEGINNING
PROPOSED CHANGE RESULTING CC ZONE
(6) Additional Zoning Modifications. Finally, to align the resulting zoning
districts with the roadways and the various plat applications,several other small parcels are proposed to be
rezoned, again to conform the zoning districts to the proposed roadways and infrastructure. The total
acreage of these changes is less than 2 acres and are intended to better align the boundaries of the existing
M-E zoned parcel with the proposed C-G zoned parcel. Those parcels are depicted as follows:
(N-E)
�` INT1-7
OF
'rZEN7/
� BEGINNING
POINTOF (H-E)
BEGINNING (H-E)
(b) Relevant Standards for a Zoning Map Amendment. In evaluating each of these
requests and their impact upon the zoning map, the relevant standards are set forth in Meridian City Code
11-513-3E. We will address each of these standards as follows, with the exception of the considerations
regarding annexation, as the Property has previously been annexed.
Revised Application Narrative
Page:41
(1) The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan.
As discussed above, both the current Future Land Use Map and the proposed amendment
thereto, support the requested zoning map amendments. The requested zoning districts are all
consistent with and comport to the land use consistency matrix.
(2) The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the
proposed district,specifically the purpose statement;
The purpose statements are relevant in that they identify the purpose for these zones. In this
instance, with respect to the Community Business District (C-C), the Application seeks to reconfigure the
existing Community Business District (C-C) to conform to existing or planned infrastructure improvements
as well as to conform to the proposed preliminary plat. As for the expansion of the Traditional
Neighborhood Commercial (TN-C), such reflects a use consistent with the relevant planning documents and
one that encourages and permits residential density consistent with the underlying land use designation.
As further noted above, the implantation of the General Retail and Service Commercial District (C-G), is
necessary to address certain employment and service uses that otherwise would not be undertaken,
adversely affecting the desired mix of uses within the Project. As these parcels are presently undeveloped,
there is no issue or concern with creating nonconforming uses or structures as may exist when developed
parcels are rezoned. Moreover, the relevant purpose statements and the relevant provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan and the Ten Mile Plan are consistent with, and contemplate these uses.
(3) The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public
health, safety, and welfare;
In consideration of the impact on "public health, safety, and welfare," it is important to consider
not only the existing zoning of property, but also the existing planning for an area. As discussed above,
this site has been the subject of the master planning set forth in the Ten Mile Plan prior to 2007, which
contemplated a degree of intensity in the development of the larger area,which has guided various other
decisions made thereafter relating to the underlying public welfare and service. As further noted above,
we are seeking to realign and reconfigure the zoning districts, not to fundamentally change the underlying
zoning. In light of the initial evaluation of the zoning of the various parcels when the Property was
annexed and made subject to the original development agreements,the proposed map amendments will
not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
(4) The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the
delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within
the City including, but not limited to,school districts.
As set forth in the preceding paragraph, the proposed rezone and zoning map amendment is in
furtherance of and in accordance with the Ten Mile Plan. The realignment and reconfiguration of the zoning
districts will have no material impact upon the identified public services. There is no intensification of the
proposed and permitted uses beyond what was contemplated in the original adoption of the Ten Mile Plan
in 2007. The prior planning was implemented through the annexation and zoning of each of the parcels
Revised Application Narrative
Page:42
comprising the Property. There will be no adverse impact upon the delivery of services, by this Application,
as there will be no material change or increase in the underlying uses that have long been the basis for
assumptions relating to this Property.
4. Application—Preliminary Plat
The Applicant is also initiating a plat for the Property, recognizing that various preliminary plats for
various portions of the Property have previously been submitted. This preliminary plat is proffered to
incorporate the ultimate configuration of public streets,the location of utilities, and the current ownership
of the various parcels. The design team has worked to ensure compliance with the plat requirements set
forth in Meridian City Code Section 11-613-6. Due to the existing approved plats and the technical nature of
the review of plats, we will forego a discussion of the individual standards applicable to the consideration
of a plat and reserve those, if necessary, to address specific concerns articulated by Staff. The portion of
the Project that is subject to this preliminary plat consists of the Black Property and the Additional Property
and is outlined as follows:
Pw�
iL
IL
I
i1 : � .ui.c ay.c :e. � w.a x.•,mM'�""'w�� 3
I i I C
1
31
_ I
r � �w+wlP1T ICI:
_ If
a' 1
+i#
Revised Application Narrative
Page:43
The preliminary plat presented herewith has been undertaken to create additional buildable lots
and to clarify the location of private access drives, to ensure that individual elements can proceed, on
individual parcels, in a timely manner. It replaces prior preliminary plats and supplements the current plat
that is being processed relating to H-2021-0081 as modified.
Any applicant must balance the requirements of a municipality's land use regulations, with market
realities, as well as future development considerations which may not even be known. Moreover, due to
the present ownership of elements of the Property, its parcelization necessitates the implementation of lot
lines, which coincide with the present vesting of ownership. In the future, such parcels most likely will be
consolidated in the implementation of the development plan presented herein.
To afford the jurisdiction with the assurance that necessary public utilities and facilities will be
extended while permitting the property owner to take the first development steps necessary to address the
requirements of end users,there needs to be flexibility in the platting process,which unfortunately for what
is functionally a ministerial action under Idaho law, is technical and gets bogged down in administrative
processes which have nothing to do with its validity.
Potential users for various uses that the Applicants have identified will require timing of
parcelization that may not conform with a phasing or parcel plan set forth in a development agreement. As
such, it has become a reasonable practice to propose more lots in a plat that will likely be developed so that
parcels may be reconfigured in the future to meet the needs of users in a manner that is timely, and does
not unnecessarily involve the various governmental entities who must review and sign a plat, even before
it goes through the technical rival review of the County Surveyor and Engineer prior to its recording.
E. Conclusion
We believe this Application satisfies the requirements of the Meridian City Code and we look
forward to proceeding with this Application as expeditiously as possible. Please feel free to reach out to me
or to the Applicant with any questions.
This Application furthers the Ten Mile Plan by respecting its development patterns while actually
proposing cohesive and enforceable development standards across the entire nearly 163 ± acres that are
subject to this Application. In conclusion, yes, the Applicant did review the Plan and does feel the
development proposed is consistent with the MU-Com and HIDE designation.
Sincerely,
i
Geoffrey M. Wardle