HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report and RecommendationsRECFrvED
o~c,i~
STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: December 3, 2009
TO: Planning & 'Coning Commission
FROM: Bill Parsons, Associate City Planner
208-884-5533
SUBJECT: RZ-09-004 -Cabella Creek Subdivision
CITY Of Cf%f~ quN
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
E IDIAN^---
1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The applicant, Coleman Homes, LLC, has applied to rezone 5.41 acres of land in the Cabella Creek
Subdivision from the R-4 (medium-low density residential) zoning district to the R-8 (medium
density residential) zoning district.
2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the proposed rezone based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law in Exhibit D of the staff report. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard this
item on December 3, 2009. At the public hearing the Commission voted to recommend denial of
the subiect RZ request.
a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing:
i. In favor: Becky McKay and Thomas Coleman
ii. In opposition: Matt Binford
iii. Commenting: Rose Crandall and Aneke Binford testified during the hearing in
opposition of the rezone.
iv. Written testimony: Mike Vail (opposition), Rose Crandall (opposition); a petition
was submitted during the public hearing signed by 11 property owners in
opposition of the rezone.
v. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons
vi. Other staff commenting on application: None
b. Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission:
i. The Commission agreed rezoning the property to allow smaller homes maY set a
bad precedent and preferred the property remain R-4.
c. Key Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation:
i. None
d. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council:
i. The Council should determine if rezoning the property for the sole purpose of
deviating from the living space requirements of the UDC is appropriate grounds
for changing the zoning.
3. PROPOSED MOTION (to be considered after the public hearing)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number RZ-09-004
as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 22, 2009 for the following
reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial of the rezone.)
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number RZ-09-
004 as presented in staff report for the hearing date of December 22, 2009 with the following
modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.)
Cabella Creek RZ PAGE 1
Continuance
I move to continue File Number RZ-09-004 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date
here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.)
4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
a. Site Address/Location: North side of E. Victory Road, west of S. Mesa Way and east of S. Bailey
Way in the SE '/ of Section 19, Township 3 North, Range 1 East.
b. Owner/Applicant:
Coleman Homes, LLC
1859 S. Topaz Way, Suite 200
Meridian, Idaho 83642
c. Representative: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 938-0980
d. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant's narrative for this information.
5. PROCESS FACTS
A. The subject application is for a rezone. A public hearing is required before the Planning & Zoning
Commission and City Council on this matter, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11,
Chapter 5.
B. Newspaper notifications published on: November 2 and 16, 2009 (Commission); December 7 and
14, 2009 (City Council)
C. Notices mailed to subject property owners on: October 29, 2009 (Commission); December 3,
2009 (City Council)
D. Applicant posted notice on site(s) on: November 9, 2009 (Commission); December 11, 2009
(City Council)
6. LAND USE
A. Existing Land Use(s) and Zoning: The site is currently platted developable land within the City;
zoned R-4.
B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: This property is currently
surrounded by residentially zoned land in Cabella Creek Subdivision and rural residential
property.
1. North: Single-family lots within Cabella Creek Subdivision and Salmon Rapids Subdivision,
zoned R-4
2. East: Single-family lots within Cabella Creek Subdivision and 5-acre single-family lots
within Kachina Estates Subdivision, zoned R-4 and RUT (Ada County)
3. South: Single-family lots within Cabella Creek Subdivision and Tuscany Village Subdivision,
zoned R-4 and R-8
4. West: Single-family lots within Cabella Creek Subdivision and 5-acre single-family lots
within Kachina Estates Subdivision, zoned R-4 and RUT (Ada County)
C. History of Previous Actions:
• Three of the five subject parcels were part of an annexation request in 2005 (MeGee
Annexation, AZ-OS-048). That application was denied by the City Council, primarily because
the request for annexation did not have a concurrent development application (plat), there
was concern about transitional densities and the proposed zoning.
• This property was annexed and zoned (AZ-06-014) R-4 in 2006. (Note: A development
Cabella Creek RZ PAGE 2
agreement was required with the annexation and recorded as instrument # 107119576.) A
preliminary plat (PP-06-012) consisting of 47 single-family residential lots and I 1 common
lots on 18.84 acres was approved concurrently. The final plat (FP-06-044) was also approved
in 2006.
D. Utilities:
1. Public Works:
a. Location of sewer: Service to this site is installed and approved.
b. Location of water: Service to this site is installed and approved.
c. Issues or concerns: Existing utilities may need to be removed or relocated at the
developer's expense to accommodate any required changes to the site layout and
design.
E. Physical Features:
1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: The Ten Mile bisects the property and is developed as part of the
City Pathway network.
2. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards that exist on this property.
3. Flood Plain: This properties lies within a floodplain AE zone.
F. Access: All roadway improvements have been completed per the approved plat.
7. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES ANll GOALS
The current land use designation for this property is Low Density Residential. These areas are
anticipated to contain up to three dwellings per acre (see Page 99 of the Comprehensive Plan.) The
approved plat was found to be consistent with the low density land use designation of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to
the subject property (staff analysis in italics below policy):
Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 1 -Protect existing residential properties from
incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels.
The applicant is proposing to rezone a portion (20 buildable lots) of the subject property to an R-
8 (Medium-density residential) zoning district. This zoning designation is more suited for
property designated with medium density residential land use designation. This designation
allows smaller lots and densities between 3 and 8 dwelling units per acre. Because the site is to
remain consistent with the approved plat (# of lots and density), staff believes an R-8 zone is not
appropriate given the current land use designation and adjoining low density residential land
uses.
With the exception of the Tuscany Village Subdivision, this area of the City is mostly developed
with larger single family detached homes zoned R-4. In addition, the remaining 5 acre parcels in
the Kachina Estates Subdivision that border the northwest, west and east boundaries are also
designated low density residential and will more than likely develop with either an R-2 or R-4
zone. Therefore, Staff is of the opinion that the R-4 zoning is consistent with the governing
development agreement (DA), the underlying approvals and the Comprehensive Plan
designation.
• Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 10 - Support a variety of residential categories (low-,
medium-, and high-density single family, multi-family, townhouses, duplexes, apartments,
Cabclla Crcck RZ PAGE 3
condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing
opportunities.
The recorded DA restricts the site to single family detached homes which limits the housing mix.
However the applicant is proposing seven different models of homes _for the development with 3
different variations of the fa~~ades.for a total of 21 elevation styles. Staff believes the varying style
in homes provides a sufficient mix of homes that supports the housing goals.
8. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
a. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the residential districts is to provide for a range of
housing opportunities consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Connection to the City of
Meridian water and sewer systems is a requirement for all residential districts. Residential districts
are distinguished by the allowable density of dwelling units per acre and corresponding housing
types that can be accommodated within the density range.
b. Schedule of Uses: Unified Development Code (UDC) 1 I-2A-2 lists single-family detached homes,
duplexes, single-family attached homes and townhomes as permitted uses in the R-8 zoning
district. Currently the recorded development agreement for this site restricts the use of the
property to single family detached homes and accessory uses of the R-4 zone.
General Standards: All of the proposed lots subject to the rezone comply with the standard lot size
and street frontage requirements of both the R-4 and R-8 zones established in the UDC. Minimum
lot sizes in the R-8 zoning district are 4, 000 and S, 000 square, feet depending on the type of
residential homes. The minimum lot size for the R-4 zoning district is 8, 000 square feet. The
average lot size in Cabella Creek is 10, 341 square feet. The primary difference between the two
districts is the minimum living space (excluding garage) requirement of 1,400 square feet in the R-
4zone. There is no such standard for the R-8 zoning district.
9. ANALYSIS
a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation:
REZONE: In 2006, this property was platted, annexed and zoned R-4 as part of the Cabella Creek
project. When the property was platted, it was held under different ownership. The new owner
(Coleman Homes, LLC) is requesting approval to rezone a portion of the development (5.41 acres)
from R-4 to R-8. The proposed rezone area consists of lots 1 through 19, block 2 and lot 1, block 9.
All of the lots are located in the interior portion of the subdivision. In initial discussions with the
applicant, staff expressed concern over selective rezoning of a small number of lots; however the
applicant was unable to get consent from the other property owners in the development and chose not
to pursue a rezone for the entire subdivision.
UDC 11-2A-5 requires 1,400 square feet of minimum living area, excluding the garage, for single
family detached homes in the R-4 zone. The R-8 zone does not have a minimum living space
requirement. The applicant's stated purpose in applying for the rezone is to seek relief from the
minimum living space requirements of the R-4 zoning district. The applicant would like the ability to
construct homes with 1,270 square feet of living area on seven of the twenty lots proposed with the
rezone application. The remaining homes (thirteen lots) are intended to meet the living space
standards of the R-4 zoning district and maybe constructed without approval of the rezone. Attached
in Exhibit A are color elevations that represent the multiple style of homes and there associated
square footages (1,270 square feet - 2,055 square feet). Staff is of the opinion that rezoning property
for the sole purpose of deviating from the dimensional standards of the UDC is not appropriate
grounds for changing the zoning.
As mentioned earlier, the current land use designation for this property is low density residential. The
R-8 zoning district is more appropriate for property that is designated medium density residential.
Cabella Creek RZ PAGE 4
This particular land use designation allows for smaller lots and higher densities which is not
consistent with the current land use designation. During the previous plat approval, the site was found
to be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the R-4 zone was deemed
appropriate for the property. With the exception of the Tuscany Village Subdivision, the residential
subdivisions in the immediate vicinity are zoned R-4. In addition, the remaining 5 acre parcels in the
Kachina Estates Subdivision are also designated as low density residential and will more than likely
re-develop with either an R-2 or R-4 zone.
In addition, a development agreement (DA) was required as part of the annexation approval. The
agreement restricts the use of the property to single family detached homes and accessory uses of the
R-4 zoning district. Staff believes this DA provision conveys the intended purpose of this property to
remain zoned R-4 and prescribes a specific use to maintain compatibility with the surrounding
property.
The applicant is requesting a rezone and the City has the authority to require a new development
agreement for the affected property. Approval of the rezone and DA would require City staff to track
multiple DA's for the subject property to facilitate the location of the 1,270 square foot homes on
seven lots. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) is not required for a single family detached
residence, thus staff has concerns that more then seven lots could develop with a 1,270 square foot
home. In actuality, there is the potential that all seventeen lots could develop with the smaller homes.
For the reasons stated above, Staff feels the requested R-8 zoning district is not appropriate for the
subject property, is not in the best interests of the City and should remain zoned R-4 subject to the
governing development agreement (DA) and underlying approvals. Please see Exhibit D for detailed
analysis of the required facts and~indirrgs,for the rezone request.
10. EXHIBITS
A. Drawings
1. Vicinity Map
2. Approved Plat
3. Elevations
B. Conditions of Approval
1. Planning Department
2. Public Works Department
3. Fire Department
4. Police Department
5. Parks Department
6. Sanitary Service Company
7. Ada County Highway District
C. Legal Description and Exhibit Map
D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
Cabella Creek RZ PAGE 5
A. Drawings
1. Vicinity Map
Exhibit A - 1 -
4. Approved Plat
1
1
.~ '~
!!
100 00 D t00 200 ]JO
sews w art
Sheet index
,~1 r - .D~,D„Y N..;,...
y{Ci J - nrwv Mi My
- turK w° wt ire[ awf .x° rui YDIES
siei i - u.+nurt a oxa
sxm e - cnfirr.,xe wD Yrrv°.~Ls
Basis of t3eeirq
.. fiwoE.., Lax .T *e,nr... qe ex.,u
Ral«cnces
, s. rc«°au N nmR
~fi PSIS 5~:5-y~atlxFf~e010'+t6 PDAKKONIY.
l N01N 191~A!l~0~'JDt >~^°Mfi Efi !°N-~n°,x
µr u+n. ,rse 0.nxv x Lx~ar
~ 1Pl ~itr.~t. M-WY.
5 B~ a y,gKr W vx
C Dtle/.vAi~Un 9i E WJ., xq.Af! i A V.CRn YYrii
I~Fp u° W'~r NSI I Me],tlfi
fiend
0 rcmc w.a cw- w°xuLrNi
-- - - 1 n7" . . .xawe sir swv. ~
i 7- ~ a. e/e• . w sw n. ne~c
i/ Ni~vmr MOtKfU "M8 R.f 1)bf~
fL~1 e u~2 ~~~ r ,~
.9 cNOW1ED Va.i
( ~ ft04 I.Il~6FA
t 'Ye 1DN Yi.0ai hlfiilL W
1 9r61 Jet l0.MMRY
i NIDUOR Wi laC
4 -~ ~ ..- _`_ W1U:EMT LOT tH
' t ~ ____ W(JNC
q DVi-0f•MY WF
f Mb CWrpaK
[t ~ ~ _ - - _- - Y[eMr LYE
M--' --~ ~ i dJY~+M
• xyfl!'M~ N I 4 ~ i
~~'...- ~ xtxa
. t Y~
gravw,p~;yq ..~1- ,..a,.i 1 z oQ
sec wren ^`",~, "vY
..w: «...~~.~....
..d ...,w
Developer
ATM Development, LLC °"T°^ w°°Y
5au t v.,.w.R aa. sat. Tio ~ ~o°+r~w`,
2D0 °DS ]aD]
Plat Showing
CABELLA CREEK SUBDIVISLON
A portion of Lota 3, 4 and 5, and all of lot 6, Stock 1 of Kachina Estates 9uodlvlsbn
Situated in a portion oI the Southeast 114, Sxtion 19, Township 3 North,
Range 1 Eaah B M , GRy of Meddien, Ade County, Idaho
20f18
Exhibit A - 2 -
9~5t5 a BEARInG
CIWK feD1E --
-- ~.~ ~-
~ i ~! i
_.. u~3+ _ n.e!nt
v Tin_ ~ ~ r _ Lwa u. -.. L,iaL
]ey ~4 k
3. Elevations
~,.. .; ~; (E ~ J
- -
Exhibit A - 3 -
p
0
e
Exhibit A
COLLI~~
p
Exhibit A - 5 -
1,850 square feet
~~~~
~ ~ :~~,
~,, ~.
,u
~: r '~
=~
~e~sa
0
e
N~..a ~~ t~gP..;,
'~\
1,824 square feet
~~~
~~
Exhibit A - 7 -
»~ {,
.~
-;t;. ;
0
S
1,820 square feet
o ~~ : ~ .
Exhibit A - 8 -
A
1
Srrso~
Exhibit A - 9 -
EXHIBIT B: AGENCY & DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
On October 29, 2009, Planning Staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments
present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Public Works Department, Sanitary Service
Company and Meridian Police Department. Staff has included all comments and recommended actions in
the attached Exhibit B.
Planning Department
1.1 Applicant is to meet all terms of the approved annexation (AZ-06-014), development agreement
(Instrument #1 071 1 9576), preliminary plat (PP-06-012), and final plat (FP-06-044) applications
for this subdivision.
2. Public Works Department
2.1 Sanitary sewer and Domestic water service to this development has been installed and approved
by the City of Meridian Public Works Department.
2.2 The preliminary plat shows a portion of Lots 26, 27, and 28 being encumbered by the AE
floodplain. The applicant shall revise the lots to ensure all buildable lots are out of the AE
floodplain. Or, file for a LOMAR with FEMA to remove the floodplain. Or, add a note on the
final plat referencing the floodplain map and those lots will have to file elevation certifications.
3. Fire Department
3.1 Building setbacks shall be per the International Building Code for one and two story construction.
4. Police Department
4.1 The Police Department has no concerns related to the application.
5. Parks Department
5.1 The Parks Department provided no coininents on the subject application.
6. Sanitary Service Company
6.1 SSC has no comments related to this application.
7. Ada County Highway District (No comments Received)
Exhibit B
C. Legal Description and Exhibit Map
~'1, i 208.860.3442
W+[i~i~.'f~~E D P. SURVEYING LL.C dlpeughLmsn-c°m
Prof ssional Land Surveyor I SOG E. Pr°hnska Cr.
s fiaglc, ID 83616
October Z0, 2009
Proposed R-8 Rer~~ne
Cabella t'rcek Subdi~isiun
A parcel of land located in the SE `/, of Section 19, T.3N., R.IE., B.M., Meridian,
Ada County, Idaho, consisting of Lots 2-19, Block 2, a portion of Lot 1, Block 2, and Lot
1, Block 4, of Cabella Creek Subdivision, as filed for record in Book 100 of Plats at Page
12999, records of Ada County, Idaho, and also portions of S. Mesa Way, E. Loggers Pass
Street, E. Oakbrook Court, E. Sagemoor St., and S. Bailey Way rights-of--way; said parcel
being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said
Section 19; from which the S '/, corner of said section bears South 89°42' 13" West,
2640.07 feet; thence along the south line of said section South 89°42' 13" West, 626.18
feet to a point; thence North 00°23' 17" West, 130.68 feet to the southeasterly comer of
Lot 3, Block 3 of said Cabella Creek Subdivision; thence along the southerly boundary of
said Lot 3, and the extension thereof, North 50°27' 19" West, 2(10.82 feet to a point on the
centerline of S. Bailey Way, the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING.
Thence continuing North 50°27' 19" Wesi, 897.14 feet to a point on the centerline
of S. Mesa Way;
"Thence along the centerline of S. Mesa Way North 39°2T 14" East, 94.62 feet to a
point on the centerline of E. Loggers Pass Street;
"Thence along the centerline of E. Loggers Pass Street:
Thence South 65°32'46" East, 46.34 feet to a point of curvature;
Thence 4l .64 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, said curve having a
radius of 100A0 feet, a delta angle of 23°51 '21 ", and a long chord bearing South
77°28'26" East, 4134 felt to a point of tangency;
Thence South 89°24'07" East, 531.23 feet to a point on a curve on the
centerline of S. Bailey Way;
Thence along the centerline of S. Bailey Way:
Thence 19.66 feet along the arc of anon-tangent curve to the left, said
curve having a radius of 300.00 feet, a delta angle of 03°45' l4", and a long chord
bearing South 14°10'59" East, 19.65 feet to a point of reverse curvature;
Exhibit C -Page 1
Thence 86.91 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, said curve having a
radius of 300.00 feet, a delta angle of 16°35'52", and a long chord bearing South
07°45'40" East, 86.60 feet to a point of tangency;
Thence South 00°32' 16" West, 48.23 feet to a point of cwvatwe;
Thence 96.55 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, said curve having a
radius of 300.00 feet, a delta angle of 18°26'28", and a long chord bearing South
08°40' S9" East, 96.14 feet to a point of reverse curvature;
Thence 91.71 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, said curve having a
radius of 300.00 feet., a delta angle of 17°30'56", and a long chord bearing South
09°08'44" East, 9135 feet to a point of tangency;
Thence South 00°23' 17" Fast, 192.00 feet to a point of curvatwe;
Thence 86.87 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, said curve having a
radius of 125.00 feet, a delta angle of 39°49'03", and a Long chord bearing South
19°3l' 14" West, 85.13 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Containing 5.41 acres, more or less.
l ~
REV(E -P,j~pROVAL.
BY~_ ~
OCT 21 2D09
MERIDtAN PUBLIC
WORKS DEPT. ~
Exhibit C -Page 2
OMO'3NOZ3a-20/06
ttieo-8C8 (9oZ) ^oe oaeo-8C8 (got) W«~i OHV01 'J.1N(10~ do1+ 'NdI0Ri3W ~.W.6 ~.31"a "N£'1
Z49C9 OHY01 'NMOIZd3W 6l NOE193S d0 4/l 3S 3Hl NI 031t/OOl ~ j0 ~
OOt '31S '15 ORiVS02f N 5ZOl
133HS
~SN0~1m~s' NOISINCJ8f1S )13~~1`J tfT139b~ Zoos ~oN road
9>N1~1~~M/9M~ 3NOZ3H 8-a 03SOdOad aaa s°/ia/so 31Y0"sMa
,OOZ=, l 3T/~5
~/11$$~~__ _ N N
a~dV9102fJ 15 5 ~ n
ay ~~?~
r~6
~i
a `` ° o.
N Q Y '~ Q hV W ~~
V ws~+ NOISlnlde ~ o
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S31t/153 VNIH -,';1 ~
{ ~ ~
- i ~ ' ~t N_ 00_23 1T. , ' ~
i ~, - - _ .. _ - _„,•..._.130.68' ~ Z
`_` i v> 3 , ~., i 92.00' ~~' ~ ~ > Z
_ _ r _ _ S~tZ?1~ i ~ O
_ - ~.. ~ ~ }-UI
i M ~~,__~;:~~ - ~ ~ Q5
U~
~-fD
I ~y ^ ~ ~
1 ~' j ! ~ V)
~ ~'
~ ~ W s
a
QZO ~ /WZ ~o ~~s3sg
'1, U(q m NNNNNto
O ~ -- ~ '%'' in ~~
N~ / Q(n ~ y
(Jt I ~ U W ~ ~t=.~n°i r
~~"rJr .. .~ ~ AYM Y1W~t1 5 D $ '~ '~ O1 "~p' ^ °p
Bd \ ~ ~~ ~ • W ~ P P ~N
~~~~~a. '~ ~ ~ ~
`r~S~o
~~~ ~i~ @ W~ ~NGSb~~ ~'
~ Q1~
`o4ais~rr"i'~i:iah>.i;YYt;IW~r'lui~ AYM YS~7 S ~ y~rj~~l 8 ~8j Q8 Q8 Q8 8
5 ... ~ ~ ,
~ oe • e ~~~~~~
Nolslnloans
S31`d1S3 VNIHOb'>i
m~
Exhibit C -Page 3
D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
1. Rezone 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:
The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive
plan;
The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject property to an R-8 zoning district. The
Commission finds that the proposed zoning map amendment does not comply with the
applicable provisions or the Future Land Use Map of the comprehensive plan. The R-8
zoning district is more appropriate for property that is designated mediu-n density
residential. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 7, of the Staff
Report.
The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed
district, specifically the purpose statement;
The applicant is proposing the rezone to deviate from dimensional standards of then-4
zoning district. Because no other aspects of the project (density, # ~f lots, lot sizes) are
changing from the previous approval, the Commission finds the site is more consistent
with the current zoning district. Therefore, the Commission finds the property complies
more with the established regulations of the R-4 zone. More particularly, the Commission
finds rezoning the property is not an appropriate method for ag fining approval to construct
smaller homes.
3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety,
and welfare;
The Commission finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely
on any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding.
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,
The Commission finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse
impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to
this site.
5. The annexation is in the best of interest of the City (UDC ll-5B-3.E).
This finding is not applicable as this application pertains to a rezone.
Exhibit D -Page 1