CC - Staff Memo 2.6
Community Development Department 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite 102, Meridian, ID 83642
Phone 208-884-5533 Fax 208-888-6854 www.meridiancity.org
February 1, 2018
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Tammy De Weerd and City Council
CC: Cameron Arial and C.Jay Coles
FROM: Caleb Hood, Planning Division Manager
RE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Regarding Rim Text
On October 24, 2017 the Meridian City Council heard a City Staff-initiated Comprehensive Plan
Text Amendment request that included a number of administrative changes, an update to the City
of Meridian Existing Conditions Report (ECR), and some proposed text related to the North and
South Rims (Rim text). During the October hearing, there were no questions on the
administrative changes and limited conversation on the Existing Conditions Report which
Council appeared to generally be in favor of. There was however, more discussion on the
proposed Rim text and Council ultimately asked staff to engage in some additional public
outreach, evaluate the impact of the proposed policies on utility plans (particularly sewer) and
then to come back on February 6th for further discussion of the proposed changes.
The genesis for the proposed Rim text was direction for staff to work with the Southern Rim
Coalition (Coalition) based on public comments from public hearings. The Coalition had
expressed concerns that recent development was not sensitive to unique South Meridian
conditions, and that the public perceived expectations for density requirements and development
standards as not being met. After subsequent requests to meet with Council persons and the
Mayor’s Office, staff was asked to work with the newly formed Coalition. Some of the requests
made by the Coalition require significant Future Land Use Map changes or an overhaul to code
and did not align with other staff efforts and resources. One of the original requests to City
Council, to treat the South Rim like the North Rim, appeared to be straight-forward and would
allow Council to consider some additional context and considerations when reviewing proposed
projects. There was also precedence for this language (North Rim) which had been used with
discretion, and fit into other work that staff was already doing on administrative changes to the
Comprehensive Plan.
2
To comply with Council request on October 24th, to perform additional public outreach, Planning
and Public Works Staff held a workgroup meeting on December 6th which included three
representatives from the Building Contractor Association of Southwestern Idaho (BCA), three
representatives from the Coalition and three City Staff members. Staff hoped that through this
meeting some revisions to the proposed text might be supported by both the BCA and Coalition,
and those changes would then be taken forward to a larger public involvement meeting. Both
sides were able to share some of the context for their concerns, but there was very little interest
in common revisions to the text. There was one change that no one seemed to be opposed to, a
clarification that the proposed text regarding ½ to 1 acres lots does not apply to properties
already annexed, zoned and otherwise entitled (see attached revised Rim text; new addition
highlighted in yellow.)
Subsequently, on January 3rd staff held a public involvement meeting at Meridian City Hall to
discuss the amendment with a bigger audience. Letters were sent in advance of the meeting to
every property owner of two acres in size or more, and to every HOA with property within the
North and South Rim areas. A meeting description and invitation was also broadcast on
NextDoor. Thirty-one people signed in with approximately 36 people in attendance, not
including staff or elected officials. There were a variety of people in attendance including
development interests, large land owners, and residents in both the north and south. The largest
group in attendance, by raise of hands, was South Rim residents living outside of City limits.
After an introduction and overview by Planning and Public Works Staff of the proposed
amendments, staff took specific questions and helped to explain the general process and specific
changes in an open house format.
Comment sheets were provided to attendees and staff requested at several points during the
discussion that participants either fill them out at the meeting, or take them home and return
them by January 10th. Six comments were provided to the City since the meeting with three in
general support and three in general opposition to the proposed Rim text changes (no comments
relevant to the ECR or other administrative text changes.) Respondents were either largely
asking the City to consider the effort misguided, or to request that Council approve the text as
proposed. These comments have been saved in Searchable Documents. Staff reached out to the
BCA and Coalition after conclusion of the comment period, to see if there was interest in
discussing additional revisions or comments from the meeting, but only one reply was received,
with moderate interest.
From Planning Staff’s perspective, the text as proposed is much like the Comprehensive Plan
itself – generalized and limited in application. Policies are high level and the text generally
avoids definitive and in all case type language. The proposed policies for example are under the
umbrella of a quantifier that a view must first be had to be applicable, and then an array of
suggestions are listed such that virtually any type of product/density could be considered within
the Rim areas in limitless configuration types. This after the idea that for most development
applications received, more often than not some policies within the Plan are not met. There are a
variety of reasons for this, but the most straight-forward and a core idea behind the Plan being
that it is a broad visionary document and some text and policy will or should often not apply. It is
entirely up to the discretion of City Council on how strictly the Plan is followed.
3
This is also how the North Rim has developed, which for the South Rim stakeholders in support
of this amendment, is the ideal that they wish emulated. The text as written today describes that
within ¼ mile of the north rim, that all residential properties should be ½ to 1 acres. Most of the
properties within ¼ mile of the Rim are not of this configuration though – many being
substantially smaller. Instead the properties immediately above and adjacent the Rim are
generally of that nature, but with densities quickly increasing as you move south. Some of the
push and pushback of the proposed Rim text conveyed to staff seems to be about expectations
and how the text may be perceived and used by others, rather than how it is intended and has
been used in the past.
Regardless of whether the proposed rim text is ultimately in the City’s best interest, it is not
written or intended to apply in cases where it does not make logical sense. The Comp Plan is a
guide written at 50,000-feet, and only to be applied in consideration of relevant factors, including
actual site conditions. Furthermore, and unlike years past where Map amendments were allowed
to occur just twice a year at set times, State law now allows for the Future Land Use Map to be
amended at any time. Several changes are applied for yearly, and generally City Council has
been agreeable and found them to be in the best interest of the City.
City Council has options in dealing with this proposed amendment. Council may approve the
amendment as originally proposed, including the administrative changes, the updated ECR, and
the proposed Rim text. Alternatively, Council may choose to approve portions of the
amendment, or to reject all of it. Staff recommends, at a minimum, approving the
administrative changes and new ECR so that these documents may be finished, published,
and used leading into work on the new Plan.
Lastly, City Council may also wish to consider some of these or related changes for additional
work as part of the new Comprehensive Plan effort that is about to kick-off. This topic is
described as an optional task in the Request for Proposals (RFP) released on February 19, 2018.
The Comprehensive Plan RFP is geared toward setting the City up to select a consultant which
will assist the City in developing this new Plan, and is focused on public outreach and technical
analysis. The element of caution here is that if Council wishes to defer the concerns raised by the
Coalition, land is being rapidly entitled and developed in this area and opportunities for changes
to be implemented are already very limited; the new Comprehensive Plan effort is anticipated to
take approximately 18 months.
Attachment
4
Chapter 3, Page 21.
For the proposed changes to the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan below; underline
represents new text, while strike-through is removal of existing text.
Within Residential areas the following policies shall apply:
• In residential areas, other residential densities will be considered without requiring a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. However, the density can only be changed one “step”
(i.e., from low to medium, not low to high, etc.). This provision does not apply to 1) the
area bounded by Can-Ada, Chinden, McDermott, and Ustick Roads or 2) within the Ten
Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan, or 3) within the North and South Rims as depicted in
Appendix E where no “step up” is allowed.
• Residential lots, streets and open spaces within the North Rim and South Rim areas (See
Appendix E) should be oriented and designed to maximize view sheds.
• For North and South Rim area properties (see Appendix E) designated Low Density
Residential, not already annexed and zoned in the City, uses north of Chinden Boulevard
and within ¼ mile or less from the rim should have lot sizes should rangeing from one-
half to one acre, ensuring compatibility with SpurWing Country Club to the east. Use of
transitional lot sizes and clustering of smaller lots adjacent to the non-residential and rim
property are encouraged.
5
Underline and strikethrough list of changes to GOA.
Additions or revisions to the “Support 1” and “Support 2” columns are not official changes as
they are not included within the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and are for internal use only.
I.D. Goals / Objectives / Action Items Priority Responsible
Lead Support 1 Support 2
Additional
Comments
provided by
Departments.
3.01.03 Preserve view sheds of the Treasure Valley along the North
Rim, South Rim, and at other notable vistas. On-going Community
Development City Council
New objective
statement
paired with
the following
three action
items, and
new text in
Chapter 3,
page 21
3.01.03A
New residential subdivisions should make strategic use of
large lots, terraced grades, community trails and open space,
and siting and orientation of new building pads to optimize
public view sheds. The topography and view sheds of
adjacent properties should be considered when terracing.
On-going Community
Development City Council
New action
item paired
with new
objective
3.01.03, and
with new text
in Chapter 3,
page 21
3.01.03B
Residential building lots on properties within designated view
shed areas should integrate regular breaks between
dwellings, such as pocket parks, trails and trail access points,
or incorporate large side yard setbacks, especially in estate,
and low density neighborhoods.
On-going Community
Development City Council
New action
item paired
with new
objective
3.01.03, and
with new text
in Chapter 3,
page 21
3.01.03C
Residential building lots should make use of open vision
fencing types, such as wrought iron and split-rail, especially
when closed vision fencing would otherwise obscure view
sheds from public spaces.
On-going Community
Development City Council
New action
item paired
with new
objective
3.01.03, and
with new text
in Chapter 3,
page 21
6
Appendix E, Page E-1