Loading...
CC - Commission Recommendation to Council Page 1 HEARING DATE: November 12, 2019 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0027 Delano Subdivision LOCATION: 2800 & 14120 W. Jasmine Ln. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Comprehensive Plan map amendment to include 4.10 acres of land currently in Boise’s Area of City Impact and planning area in Meridian’s planning area with a Mixed Use – Regional Future Land Use Map designation; Annexation & zoning of 15.21 acres of land with R-15 (11.57 acres) and R-40 (3.64 acres) zoning districts; and, Preliminary plat consisting of 85 single-family residential building lots, 1 building lot for a 96-unit multi-family development and 12 common lots on 15.21 acres of land in the R-15 and R-40 zoning districts. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT 1. Project Summary 77STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Description Details Page Acreage 15.21 Future Land Use Designation MDR (in City of Meridian) & Mixed Use (in City of Boise) Existing Land Use 2 existing homes & accessory structures Proposed Land Use(s) Residential (SFR, attached & detached) Current Zoning RUT in Ada County Proposed Zoning R-15 & R-40 Lots (# and type; bldg/common) 85 SFR building/12 common/1 MFR building Phasing plan (# of phases) Yes; 2 phases Number of Residential Units (type of units) 181 SFR units (18 attached/67 detached SFR, 96 MFR apartments) Page 2 2. Community Metrics Density (gross & net) 7.35 (SFR, R-15) & 27 (MFR, R-40) gross; 11.8 (SFR, R-15) & 27 (MFR, R-40) net Open Space (acres, total [%] / buffer / qualified) See Analysis, Section V.3 Amenities Shade structure, (2) play structures, benches, pedestrian walkways Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) None Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: February 25, 2019; 92 attendees History (previous approvals) None Description Details Page Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) No  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) Yes (tentatively scheduled to be heard on May 22, 2019) This project is being heard by the ACHD Commission because of objections from neighbors pertaining to the extension of Dashwood Pl. and connectivity to Centrepoint Way Fire Service  Distance to Fire Station 1.3 miles from Fire Station #3 (can meet the response time requirements)  Fire Response Time 3 minutes under ideal conditions  Resource Reliability 82% from Fire Station #3 – does not meet the target goal of 85% or greater  Risk Identification 2 (residential); see comments in Section VIII.C  Accessibility Meets requirements; FD is concerned as there is no visitor parking in the development resulting in people parking in areas that may block access to residences. See additional comments in Section VIII.C.  Special/resource needs Doesn’t require an aerial device  Water Supply Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for 1 hour (may be less if building is sprinklered)  Other Resources NA Police Service  Distance to Police Station 5 miles  Police Response Time 4:30 minutes  Calls for Service 0  Accessibility PD has no issues with proposed access Page 3  Specialty/resourc e needs No additional resources are needed; MPD already services this area.  Crimes 0  Crashes 0 West Ada School District  Distance (elem, ms, hs) Discovery Elementary – 2.8 miles; Heritage Middle School – 3.1 miles; Rocky Mountain High School – 5.5 miles  Capacity of Schools Discovery Elementary 650; Heritage Middle School 1,000; Rocky Mountain High School 1,800  # of Students Enrolled Discovery Elementary 515; Heritage Middle School 1,254; Rocky Mountain High School 2,448  Anticipated school aged children generated by this development 68 Wastewater  Distance to Sewer Services 0-feet  Sewer Shed Five Mile Trunkshed  Estimated Project Sewer ERU’s 181  WRRF Declining Balance 13.66 MGD  Project Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan Yes  Impacts & Concerns The following proposed manholes have less than 3' of cover: A -3, A-4, A- 5, C-1 and D-5. Public Works has previously discussed with the applicant the possibility of using grinder pumps in these shallow areas, but the plans do not note the use of them. If the parcel to the north of the multi-family is to be served by Meridian, applicant must stub sewer at minimum slope in N. Centrepoint Way to the north boundary line. Water  Distance to Water Services 0-feet  Pressure Zone 3  Estimated Project Water ERU’s See application information  Water Quality None  Project Consistent with Water Master Plan Yes  Impacts & Concerns Public Works has met with SUEZ Water and agreed that water service to the north for the multi-family portion of the development will be provided Page 4 3. Project Area Maps according to how annexation proceeds. Meridian will provide water in Meridian, and SUEZ will provide water in Boise. Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Page 5 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Devco Development, LLC – 4824 E. Fairview Ave., Boise, ID 83706 B. Owner: Norm Cook – 14120 W. Jasmine Ln., Boise, ID 83713 Eddy Bollinger – 2800 E. Jasmine Ln., Meridian, ID 83646 C. Representative: Laren Bailey, Devco Development, LLC – 4824 E. Fairview Ave., Boise, ID 83706 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date City Council Posting Date Newspaper Notification 4/12/2019; 6/28/2019 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 4/9/2019; 6/25/2019 Public hearing notice sign posted on site 4/22/2019; 7/8/2019 Nextdoor posting 4/9/2019; 6/25/2019 V. STAFF ANALYSIS 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT The eastern 4.10 acres of the site located on the east side of N. Centrepoint Way is currently located within Boise’s Area of City Impact (AOCI) boundary and within their Comprehensive Zoning Map Planned Development Map Page 6 Plan with a Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation of General Mixed Use (see https://pds.cityofboise.org/media/151844/bb_chapter_3_06142018.pdf pgs. 3-11 thru 3-16 for more information on this designation) which encompasses the following: The Applicant proposes to amend the City of Meridian’s Comprehensive Plan to include this parcel in the City’s planning area with a FLUM designation of Mixed Use – Regional (MU-R) per Exhibit A in Section VII of this report. The MU-R designation provides for a mix of employment, retail, and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses together, including residential, and to avoid predominantly single use developments such as a regional retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses. Developments should be anchored by uses that have a regional draw with the appropriate supporting uses. For example, an employment center should have support retail uses; a retail center should have supporting residential uses as well as supportive neighborhood and community services. Page 7 Staff believes the requested MU-R designation is appropriate due to the adjacent MU-R designated land to the south in the City of Meridian and the General Mixed use designated property to the north and east in the City of Boise; and due to the parcel’s proximity to N. Eagle Rd./SH-55, a major transportation corridor and major arterial intersections (i.e. Ustick/Eagle and McMillan/Eagle). The proposed high density residential development will provide supporting residential uses for the commercial developments along the Eagle Road corridor. A few months ago, the Applicant submitted a request to the City of Boise to modify the boundary of their planning area to accomodate this project being included in Meridian’s planning area and FLUM but later withdrew the request the week the City Council was set to formally consider it. Therefore, the property is still in the Boise’s planning area and AOCI boundary. Staff would be more comfortable with this request if the Applicant had gained approval from the City of Boise to remove this area from their planning area prior to submittal of the subject application. Because the City can provide water and sewer service to this parcel, the land to the west and south is within Meridian’s planning area, and the greater portion of the development area for this project is currently within the City of Meridian’s planning area, it makes sense for the entire property to develop in the City of Meridian. Similarly, there have been other instances (i.e. Movado, Fast Eddy’s) where a development property is split between the City of Meridian and City of Boise where the balance of the property has been annexed into Meridian and developed. For efficient provision of City services, the parcel to the north (Parcel #R4582530100) should also be included in the map amendment. Inclusion of that property would allow City water and sewer services to eventually be extended to the south in N. Centrepoint Way from E. Wainwright Dr. where they currently dead-end (see map below), into a loop system (see Public Work’s condition #1.4 in Section VIII.B). Unimproved right-of-way (ROW) (400’+/-) within the City’s planning area exists from Wainwright to the north boundary of the parcel to the north. If the property to the north which lies in between the subject property and the existing ROW is not included in the City’s planning/service area, this connection will not be possible. See Public Works comments in Section VIII.B. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the map amendment contingent upon the property to the north also being included per Exhibit A in Section VII; otherwise Staff does not believe it’s in the City’s best interest to approve the proposed map amendment. Note: Denial of the map amendment will also necessitate denial of the Annexation and Zoning request for the (R-40) east parcel as it cannot be annexed without being included in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Page 8 2. ANNEXATION & ZONING The applicant requests annexation and zoning of the 11.57 acres west of N. Centrepoint Way with an R-15 zoning district; and the 5 acres east of N. Centrepoint Way with an R-40 zoning district consistent with the MDR and proposed MU-R FLUM designations. The eastern portion of the annexation area is considered a Category A annexation. Idaho State Statute 50-222.3(a) states, “Category A: Annexations wherein: (i) All private landowners have consented to annexation. Annexation where all landowners have consented may extend beyond the city area of impact provided that the land is contiguous to the city and that the comprehensive plan includes the area of annexation; . . .” The landowner has consented to this application and the Applicant is requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to include this land in the City of Meridian’s planning area in accord with this statute so the property can be annexed into the City of Meridian. Note: The parcel to the north (Parcel #R4582530100) recommended by Staff to be included in the amendment to the FLUM is not part of the annexation request. Annexation of that parcel would take place upon future redevelopment of that parcel at the property owner’s request. Comprehensive Plan (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation for the portion of this site west of N. Centrepoint Way is Medium Density Residential (MDR) in the City of Meridian; the portion of the site east of N. Centrepoint Way is currently located in the City of Boise’s Area of City Impact boundary and is designated General Mixed Use. As noted in the previous section, the Applicant proposes to Page 9 amend the FLUM to include the eastern parcel in the City of Meridian’s planning area with a MU-R FLUM designation. The MDR designation allows smaller lots for residential purposes within City limits. Uses may include single-family homes at gross densities of 3 to 8 units per acre. The MU-R designation allows high density multi-family developments as supporting uses for higher intense commercial uses such as those to the south and east of this site along a major transportation corridor (i.e. Eagle Rd./SH-55) and near arterial intersections (i.e. McMillan/Eagle Rds. & Ustick/Eagle Rds.). Land Use: The proposed land use for this site is single-family residential (SFR) and a future multi-family residential (MFR) development (i.e. apartments). A total of 85 (18 attached and 67 detached) SFR units at a gross density of 7.36 units per acre, and a net density of 11.8 units per acre are proposed; and 96 apartment units are planned to develop in the future at a gross and net density of 27 units per acre. The proposed density is consistent with that desired in the MDR and MU-R designations respectively. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed single-family dwellings (attached & detached) are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-15 zoning district; and the multi-family development is listed as a conditional use in the R-40 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. Multi-family developments are subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27; compliance with these standards will be evaluated in the future through the conditional use permit process. Concept Plan: The Applicant submitted a concept development plan for the property to the north (Parcel # R4582530100) at Staff’s request to demonstrate how the property could possibly redevelop with the extension of N. Centrepoint Way to the north as planned on the MSM (see Section VII.E). Transportation: The Master Street Map (MSM) depicts a planned north/south commercial collector street through this site from the south boundary to the north boundary eventually connecting to E. Wainwright Dr. for access via N. Eagle Rd./SH-55. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): Goals, Objectives, & Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property (staff analysis in italics):  “Provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes and multi-family arrangements) and choices between ownership and rental dwelling units for all income groups in a variety of locations suitable for residential development.” (3.07.03B) A mix of SFR attached and detached homes and MFR apartment units are proposed within this development which will provide ownership and rental options for various income groups in this area.  “Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers.” (3.07.02D) The proposed development will provide housing options in close proximity to the employment and shopping center uses along the Eagle Rd. corridor.  “Locate high-density development, where possible, near open space corridors or other permanent major open space and park facilities, Old Town, and near major access thoroughfares.” (3.07.02L) Page 10 The density proposed in the multi-family portion of the development falls within the high density category. The site is located within a mile of Kleiner Memorial Park, a 60-acre City Park, and is in close proximity to N. Eagle Rd./SH-55, a major access thoroughfare.  “Consider ACHD’s Master Street Map (MSM) in all land use decisions.” (3.03.04K) The MSM depicts a north/south collector street through this site; the proposed plan depicts a collector street in accord with the MSM.  “Require open space areas within all development.” (6.01.01A) Qualified open space in accord with the minimum standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3 is required.  “Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City.” (3.01.01F) The proposed development is contiguous to the City and urban services can be provided to this development.  “Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets.” (3.06.02D) One (1) access is proposed on the west side of N. Centrepoint Way, a collector street, to the SFR portion of the development; and one (1) access is proposed on the east side of N. Centrepoint Way for the MFR portion of the development.  “Coordinate with transportation agencies to ensure provision of services and transit development.” (6.02.02H) This site is not currently served by public transportation. However, ValleyConnect 2.0 proposes bus service on Eagle Rd. from the Boise Research Center to downtown Kuna with 20 minute frequencies in the peak hour. The Closest bus stop would be less than ½ mile from this site when that route is operational.  “Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system.” (3.03.03B) There are no pathway connections to this development from adjacent developments to the north and south other than sidewalks adjacent to public streets. Staff recommends the Applicant coordinate with the Developer of the property to the south (Brickyard Apartments) to incorporate pedestrian connections between the two developments on each side of N. Centrepoint Way. In reviewing development applications, the following items will be considered in all Mixed Use areas, per the Comprehensive Plan (pgs. 23-24): (Staff’s analysis in italics) • “Residential densities should be a minimum of six dwellings/acre.” The gross density of the proposed MFR development is 27 units per acre which falls within the range desired in mixed use designated areas. • “Where feasible, higher density and/or multi-family residential development will be encouraged, especially for projects with the potential to serve as employment destination centers and when the project is adjacent to US 20/26, SH-55, SH-16 or SH-69.” The proposed development incorporates a MFR component along with the SFR development and is in close proximity (i.e. 460’) to N. Eagle Rd./SH-55. The proposed development will provide housing options for nearby employment centers. • “A conceptual site plan for the entire mixed-use area should be included in the application.” A concept plan was included on the landscape plan for the future MFR development in conjunction with the SFR development currently proposed. Page 11 • “In developments where multiple commercial and/or office buildings are proposed (not residential), the buildings should be arranged to create some form of common, usable area, such as a plaza or green space.” This development does not include commercial/office buildings. • “The site plan should depict a transitional use and/or landscaped buffering between commercial and existing low- or medium-density residential development.” The proposed single-family attached and detached units will provide a transition in density and lot sizes between larger single-family residential lots to the north and the townhomes/multi-family lots to the south. This development does not include any commercial uses; however, the proposed multi-family development on the eastern portion of the site will provide a transition between the proposed single-family attached and detached units and future commercial/mixed uses along Eagle Rd. • “A mixed-use project should include at least three types of land uses [i.e. commercial (includes retail, restaurants, etc.), office, residential, civic (includes public open space, parks, entertainment venues, etc.), and industrial]. Exceptions may be granted for smaller sites on a case-by-case basis.” The proposed development plan only includes one land use type (i.e. residential); however, three different types of residential units are proposed (i.e. single-family detached, attached and multi-family apartment units). Within the overall mixed use designated area, which incorporates land on both sides of Eagle Rd./SH55 to the south to Fairview Ave., there are a mix of uses as desired consisting of commercial (retail, restaurants, etc.), office and residential uses. • “Community-serving facilities such as hospitals, churches, schools, parks, daycares, civic buildings, or public safety facilities are expected in larger mixed-use developments.” This is a relatively small portion of the overall mixed use designated area; none of these types of uses are proposed on this site nor have they been developed on the adjacent mixed use designated area to the south. • “Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools are expected; outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count.” The proposed plan does not incorporate public and/or quasi-public spaces and places; the common area proposed in the residential development is owned by the Homeowner’s Association and does not satisfy this requirement. These types of public spaces have been provided in the adjacent mixed use designated area to the south. • “All mixed-use projects should be directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by both vehicles and pedestrians.” The proposed development plan shows interconnectivity with the residential neighborhood to the north providing accessibility to the commercial development to the south via N. Centrepoint Way. • “Street sections consistent with the Ada County Highway District Master Street Map are required within the Unified Development Code.” The proposed development plan includes a north/south collector street (i.e. N. Centrepoint Way) consistent with the Master Street Map. • “Because of the existing small lots within Old Town, development is not subject to the Mixed-Use standards listed herein.” The proposed development is not within Old Town; therefore, this provision is not applicable. Page 12 In reviewing development applications, the following items will be considered in MU-R areas, per the Comprehensive Plan (pg. 30): • “Development should comply with the general guidelines for development in all Mixed-Use areas.” See analysis above. • “Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 10% of the development area at densities ranging from 6 to 40 units/acre.” The proposed residential uses comprise 100% of the site. Densities of the SFR and MFR developments are in accord with this guideline. • “Retail commercial uses should comprise a maximum of 50% of the development area.” No retail commercial uses are proposed with this development; however, the MU-R designated land to the south incorporates a large amount of retail commercial uses. • “There is neither a minimum nor a maximum imposed on non-retail commercial uses such as office, clean industry, or entertainment uses.” No commercial uses are proposed with this development. Zoning: Based on the analysis above, Staff is of the opinion the requested annexation with the R-15 and R-40 zoning districts and proposed development is generally consistent with the MDR and proposed MU-R FLUM designations and is appropriate for this site. The proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property to the north and south; the R-15 area is within the Area of City Impact Boundary (AOCI) and the R-40 area is outside of the AOCI boundary. A legal description for the annexation area is included in Section VII.A. The City may require a development agreement (DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application, staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions included in Section VIII. 3. PRELIMINARY PLAT Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are two (2) existing homes and accessory structures on this site. These structures are required to be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer for the phase in which they are located. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed plat and subsequent development is required to comply with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-7 for the R-15 and 11-2A-8 for the R-40 zoning districts (see below). The proposed plat complies with these standards. Page 13 Subdivision Design & Improvement Standards (UDC 11-6C-3): The proposed subdivision is required to be designed and improved per the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3 which include but are not limited to streets, driveways, common driveways, easements, and block face. The proposed plan complies with these standards. Phasing Plan: The subdivision is proposed to develop in 2 phases. The first phase will include the extension of N. Dashwood Pl. from the north through the site to N. Centrepoint Way. Access (UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4)/Streets: Jasmine Lane, a 50-foot wide private street, currently provides access to the lots in Jasmine Acres Subdivision, including the subject properties. The private street is depicted on the Jasmine Acres subdivision plat. Staff is unaware if a separate recorded easement exists for the private street. Where the easement crosses the subject property it should be relinquished; proof of relinquishment shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat. One access is proposed on either side of N. Centrepoint Way, a collector street; and from the extension of N. Dashwood Pl. at the north boundary of the site. A stub street (E. Jasmine St.) is proposed to the parcel to the west for access and future extension. Public streets are proposed Page 14 within the SFR portion of the development with 27-foot wide street sections; private drive aisles will be provided within the MFR portion of the development. Staff recommends N. Centrepoint Way is extended/constructed with the first phase of development from the southern to the northern boundary of the site so that if re- development of the property to the north occurs before the multi-family portion of this site, the connection to Wainwright Dr. can be made and services can be extended as soon as possible. Traffic: A Traffic Impact Study was not required by ACHD for the proposed development; however, the Applicant did include an informal traffic analysis in their application narrative based on ACHD’s Policy Manual that takes into consideration existing traffic volumes in relation to anticipated traffic volumes from the proposed development and the resulting impacts to Wainwright Dr. & Dashwood Pl. The analysis shows the total trips per day on Wainwright at 41% of total capacity; and on Dashwood at 44% of total capacity resulting in 56-59% under total capacity for these streets, which should not overburden existing roadways systems if these calculations are correct. See application narrative for more information. Many letters of testimony have been received from adjacent residential property owners to the north regarding the amount of traffic that will be generated from the proposed development and routed through their neighborhood. For this reason, it’s imperative that the Centrepoint Way connection to Wainwright occur as soon as possible; thus, the reason for Staff’s recommendation for the property to the north to be included in the amendment to the FLUM and for the construction of Centrepoint to the northern boundary of the annexation area to occur with the first phase of development. Common Driveways (UDC 11-6C-3) All common driveways are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. Three (3) common driveways are proposed that comply with UDC standards. Common driveways should be a maximum of 150’ in length or less, unless otherwise approved by the Fire Dept. An exhibit is required to be submitted with the final plat application that depicts the setbacks, fencing, building envelope and orientation of the lots and structures. Driveways for abutting properties that aren’t taking access from the common driveway(s) should be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line away from the common driveway. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited unless separated by a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped buffer. A perpetual ingress/egress easement for the common driveway(s) is required to be filed with the Ada County Recorder, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. A copy of the easement should be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat. Signage should be provided at the ends of the common driveways on Lot 12, Block 1; Lot 7, Block 2; and Lot 19, Block 2 for emergency wayfinding purposes as requested by the Fire Department. Transition: There are 6 single-story structures with 10 dwelling units/properties proposed along the west boundary of this site adjacent to the 8.2 acre rural residential property to the west, which is currently in Ada County and designated as MDR (3-8 units/acre) on the FLUM. There are 5.5 existing single-story residential properties to the north that abut this site that are 0.31-0.38 of an acre in size; 10 structures with 15 dwelling units/properties are proposed along the north boundary of the site. The Applicant submitted an exhibit (I) in the narrative of the Page 15 application that demonstrates the proposed structures and lots in relation to existing homes, shops, parking areas and yards. Because the homes proposed along the north and west boundaries will all be a single-story in height, Staff believes they will have a lesser impact on adjacent neighbors than 2-story homes would have; therefore, Staff is not recommending a greater transition in lot sizes is proposed. However, the Commission and City Council should consider any public testimony provided in determining if fewer lots/structures should be provided along these boundaries as a better transition to existing residential properties. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Parking for single-family dwellings is required based on the number of bedrooms per unit. For 1- bedroom units, a minimum of 2 spaces per unit are required with at least one of those spaces in an enclosed garage, other space may be enclosed or a minimum 10’ x 20’ parking pad. For 2-3 bedroom units, a minimum of 4 spaces per unit are required with at least 2 of those spaces in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10’ x 20’ parking pads. Because of the proposed reduced 27-foot wide street sections, parking is restricted to one side of the street only. Because of the narrow lots (i.e. 32’+) for detached homes and associated driveways, there is not adequate room for on-street parking in front of those lots for guest parking and in some areas parking is a ways away. Where attached homes are proposed, there is room for approximately one space per every 2 lots for on-street parking. On-street parking (56 spaces) is also available adjacent to common lots within 200’ from any home within the development (see Exhibit H in Section VII). Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): Pathways are required to be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8 with landscaping on either side of the pathway(s) in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 12C. Because interconnectivity is important and especially so in mixed use developments, Staff recommends the Applicant coordinate with the Developer of the property to the south (Brickyard Apartments) to incorporate pedestrian connections between the two developments on each side of N. Centrepoint Way. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Sidewalks are required to be constructed adjacent to public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. Minimum 5-foot wide detached sidewalks are required along all collector and arterial streets; and minimum 5-foot wide attached (or detached) sidewalks are required along local streets as proposed. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): Parkways are required to be constructed and landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3A- 17E. Eight-foot wide parkways are proposed along collector streets and along local street abutting common areas in accord with UDC standards. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): Street buffer landscaping is required to be provided within common lots in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Per UDC Tables 11-2A-7 and 11-2A-8, a 20-foot wide buffer is required adjacent to N. Centrepoint Way, a collector street. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): Based on the overall development area which consists of 15.21 acres of land, a minimum of 10% (1.52 acres) qualified open space is required to be provided within the development per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B. Page 16 A qualified open space exhibit was submitted as shown in Section VII.F that depicts 1.33 acres (or 11.5%) of open space for the SFR portion of the development consisting of a half-acre park with amenities, parkways, a micro-path lot, a collector street buffer and a local street buffer. Alternative Compliance is requested to count the local street/land use buffer along the southern boundary of the site toward the qualified open space requirements (see Section 4 below for more information). The qualified open space on the MFR portion of the site east side of Centrepoint Way includes area that does not qualify (i.e. the perimeter buffer along the east boundary) and is below the 10% required of the total land area (i.e. 5 acres). Because that portion of the site is not planned to develop at this time and is conceptual in nature and likely to change, Staff recommends a DA provision is added requiring a minimum 10% qualified open space is provided at the time of development that meets the standards in UDC 11-3G-3B. This requirement is in addition to that required in UDC 11-4-3-27C for MFR developments. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): A minimum of one (1) qualified site amenity is required to be provided for this development based on the size of the development (i.e. 15.21 acres). The Applicant proposes a shade structure, children’s play structure, children’s climbing dome, children’s climbing boulders, seating benches, micro-pathways and possibly a swing set as amenities, which exceed UDC standards. Existing Trees: There are many existing trees on this site the Applicant states are being removed by the residential property owner for firewood. Include mitigation information on the plan for any existing trees that are not removed by the property owner in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-10C.5. Waterways (UDC 11-3A-6): The Nourse Lateral runs along the northern boundary of this site and is piped. An easement should be depicted on the plat for the waterway. If the easement is 10 feet or greater, it should be located within a common lot that is a minimum 20-feet wide and outside of a fenced area unless modified by City Council as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6D. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A- 7. The existing fencing along the north and southwest boundaries of the site is proposed to remain. A 6-foot tall solid vinyl privacy fence is proposed along the west, south and east boundaries of the SFR portion of the site as well as along the north, east and south boundaries of the MFR portion of the site in accord with UDC standards. A 4-foot tall wrought iron fence is proposed around the perimeter of the children’s play area on Lot 1, Block 3. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is proposed. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. See Section VIII-B below for Public Works comments/conditions. Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-15): An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided for each lot within the development. Page 17 Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. Building Elevations (UDC 11-3A-19 | Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed single-family attached and detached units and multi-family apartment structures as shown in Section VII.F. Building materials for the single-family homes consist of a mix of siding (horizontal and vertical lap siding and board & batten) with stone veneer accents. The single-family attached and multi-family structures are required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual; single-family detached structures are exempt from this requirement. All SFR homes along the west and north perimeter boundaries of the development will be a single-story in height. Because the rear and/or side of 2-story structures on Lots 14-18 and 51, Block 2 that face N. Centrepoint Way will be highly visible, Staff recommends those elevations incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g. projections, recesses, step-backs, pop-outs), bays, banding, porches, balconies, material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines. Single- story structures are exempt from this requirement. Public Testimony: Many letters of testimony have been received on this application, primarily from residential neighbors to the north in Alpine Pointe Subdivision (aka Zebulon Heights). The primary concerns are the intensity of the development (i.e. density is too high); not enough transition in lot sizes to lower larger lots to the north; extension of N. Dashwood Pl. and Centrepoint Way and resulting traffic generated from this development and from the developments to the south that will be routed through their subdivision until Centrepoint can be extended to the north to Wainwright in a more direct fashion; and safety concerns for children pertaining to traffic. The neighbors have suggested several alternate development plans that would result in less traffic through their neighborhood. See public testimony in the project file for more information. 4. ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE The applicant requests alternative compliance to UDC 11-3G-3B, as allowed in UDC Table 11- 5B-5, to be allowed to count the area of a local street buffer toward the minimum qualified open space for the development. The qualified open space pertaining to street buffers listed in UDC 11-3G-3B allows the full area of collector street buffers and 50% of arterial street buffers to count toward the minimum required common open space; local street buffers do not count toward the minimum requirements. The Applicant proposes to construct a 29-foot wide landscape buffer along the southern boundary of the SFR portion of the site with dense landscaping along E. Jasmine St., a local street, to buffer the abutting 3-story apartment structures in Brickyard Subdivision. In order to grant a request for Alternative Compliance, the Director must determine if the alternative provides an equal or superior means of meeting the intent and purpose of the regulation (see Findings in Section IX.D). The Director has reviewed the request and finds the proposed alternative means for meeting the intended purpose of UDC 11-3G-3 has been met. Page 18 VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment if the parcel to the north (R4582530100) is also included, the Annexation & Zoning and Preliminary Plat applications with the conditions included in Section VIII.A per the Findings in Section IX. If the parcel to the north (R4582530100) is not included in the map amendment, Staff recommends denial of annexation and zoning request for the eastern parcel (i.e. R-40 zone). B. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these items on May 2 and July 18, 2019. At the public hearing on July 18th, the Commission moved to recommend denial of the subject CPAM, AZ and PP requests to City Council. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Jim Conger; b. In opposition: Malissa Bernard (representing many neighbors on Dashwood Place to the north in Alpoint Point Sub.); Frank Marcos (Alpine Point Sub. HOA President); Kenneth Clifford; Sherry Garey; Greg Walker; Patricia Pitzer; Joy Cameron; Sandi King; Laura Trairatnobhas c. Commenting: Connie Thompson; d. Written testimony: Many (47+/-) letters of testimony were received (see public record). e. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s) of public testimony: a. Consensus that proposed density of development is too high; b. Not enough transition in lot sizes is proposed to larger lots to the north; c. Concern pertaining to the extension of Dashwood Pl. and Centrepoint Way and resulting traffic generated from the proposed development and from the commercial and multi- family residential developments to the south that will be routed through the subdivision to the north if Jasmine is connected to Centrepoint before Centrepoint can be extended to the north to Wainwright; d. Safety concerns for children pertaining to traffic; e. The proposed development is premature and that infrastructure (i.e. the extension of Centrepoint to Wainwright) should be in place prior to the development going in, not after the fact; f. There has been no negotiation with neighbors by the Developer as directed by the Commission; 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. The desire for the City of Boise to take action on a request to exclude the eastern portion of the site from their Area of City Impact boundary prior to the City making a decision on this application; b. The possibility of only an emergency access via Dashwood Pl.; c. Concern pertaining to adequacy of parking for the development; d. Preference for R-8 vs. R-15 zoning for the single-family portion and R-15 vs. R-40 zoning for the multi-family portion of the site as a transition to adjacent zoning; e. Density should be reduced due to Heritage Middle School and Rock Mountain High School already being over capacity; f. Desire for the Applicant to work with neighbors to address issues that were brought up at the hearing. 4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation: Page 19 a. The Commission recommended denial of the proposed CPAM, AZ and PP applications to the City Council based on their desire for the Applicant to obtain approval from the City of Boise for the adjustment to the Area of City Impact boundary; and opinion the applicant did not sufficiently work with the neighbors on their concerns pertaining to the proposed development. 5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: a. None Page 20 VII. EXHIBITS A. Applicant Proposed & Staff Recommended Future Land Use Maps Proposed by Applicant: Page 21 Recommended by Staff: Page 22 B. Annexation & Zoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 C. Preliminary Plat (date: 2/18/2019) & Phasing Plan Page 30 D. Landscape Plan (date: 2/20/2019) Page 31 E. Possible Conceptual Development Plan for Parcel to the North Page 32 F. Qualified Open Space Exhibit & Site Amenities Note: Only qualified open space depicted in the R-15 zoned area is approved. Not Approved Page 33 Page 34 G. Conceptual Building Elevations (Single-Family Attached/Detached and Multi-Family Apartments) Page 35 Page 36 H. Parking Exhibit Page 37 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement (DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of $303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six (6) months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat, phasing plan, landscape plan and conceptual building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. All single-family attached and multi-family structures shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. An application for Design Review shall be submitted and approved for all attached dwellings prior to submittal of building permit applications. An application for Design Review and Certificate of Zoning Compliance shall be submitted and approved for all multi-family structures prior to submittal of building permit applications. c. Single-family homes along the west and north perimeter boundaries of the development shall be restricted to a single-story in height as proposed by the Developer. d. The rear and/or side of 2-story structures on Lots 14-18 and 51, Block 2 that face N. Centrepoint Way shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g. projections, recesses, step-backs, pop-outs), bays, banding, porches, balconies, material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. e. A Conditional Use Permit is required to be submitted and approved for the multi-family development prior to application for Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review. f. The construction of N. Centrepoint Way from the southern boundary to the northern boundary of the annexation area shall occur with the first phase of development. g. The Developer shall coordinate with the developer of the property to the south (Brickyard Apartments) to incorporate pedestrian connections between the two developments on the west and east sides of N. Centrepoint Way. h. A minimum 10% (0.5 of an acre) qualified open space shall be provided with development of the portion of the site on the east side of N. Centrepoint Way based on the total land area before dedication of right-of-way (i.e. 5 acres) as set forth in UDC 11- 3G-3B. This requirement is in addition to the common open space standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27C for multi-family developments. Page 38 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, shall be revised as follows: a. Depict an easement for the Nourse Lateral along the north boundary of the site. If the easement is 10 feet or greater, it shall be located within a common lot that is a minimum 20-feet wide and outside of a fenced area unless modified by City Council as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6D. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C shall be revised as follows: a. Include mitigation information on the plan for any existing trees on the site that are not removed by the residential property owner for fire wood in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-10C.5. 4. The 50-foot wide private street easement (i.e. Jasmine Lane) shall be relinquished where it crosses the subject property. Proof of relinquishment shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 5. For lots accessed by common driveways, an exhibit shall be submitted with the final plat application that depicts the setbacks, fencing, building envelope and orientation of the lots and structures. Driveways for abutting properties that aren’t taking access from the common driveway(s) shall be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line away from the common driveway. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited unless separated by a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped buffer. 6. Provide address signage for homes accessed by the common driveways on Lot 12, Block 1; Lot 7, Block 2; and Lot 19, Block 2 for emergency wayfinding purposes. 7. A perpetual ingress/egress easement is required to be filed with the Ada County Recorder for all common driveways, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. A copy of the recorded easement should be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 8. All existing structures on the site shall be removed prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat phase in which they are located. 9. Parking is restricted to only one side of the 27-foot wide street sections; signage shall be installed prohibiting parking on one side of the street to ensure emergency access can be provided. 10. The Director approved the Applicant’s request for Alternative Compliance to UDC 11-3G-3 to count the local street buffer along the south side of E. Jasmine St. toward the qualified open space. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272 1.2 The following proposed manholes have less than 3' of cover: A-3, A-4, A-5, C-1 and D-5. Public Works has previously discussed with the applicant the possibility of using grinder pumps in these shallow areas, but the plans do not note the use of them. If the parcel to the north of the multi-family is to be served by Meridian, applicant must stub sewer at minimum slope in N. Centrepoint Way to the north boundary line. Page 39 1.3 Each phase must be modeled to ensure adequate fire flow. 1.4 Public Works has met with SUEZ Water and agreed that water service to the north for the multi-family portion of the development will be provided according to how annexation proceeds. Meridian will provide water in Meridian, and SUEZ will provide water in Boise. If the area being considered for inclusion is to be served by the City of Meridian, the Public Works Department would like to have a completed water main loop north to the existing water main in E. Wainwright Drive. The purpose of this loop is not for flow and pressure reasons, it is to create redundancy and for mitigation of water quality concerns created by dead end mainlines. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code (MCC), the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian’s standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2” x 11” map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year- round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work, the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. Page 40 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at (208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at (208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. Page 41 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/164748/Page1.aspx D. POLICE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/165252/Page1.aspx E. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO (COMPASS) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/165379/Page1.aspx F. NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/165231/Page1.aspx G. SETTLER’S IRRIGATION DISTRICT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/164812/Page1.aspx H. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=165010&dbid=0 I. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/164959/Page1.aspx J. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT (WASD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/165083/Page1.aspx K. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/0/doc/169441/Page1.aspx Page 42 IX. FINDINGS A. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 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. The Commission finds the proposed map amendment and FLUM designation of MU-R is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan if the property to the north (Parcel #R4582530100) is also included in the map amendment as detailed in Section V.1 of this report. 2. The proposed amendment provides an improved guide to future growth and development of the city. The Commission finds that the proposal to modify the Future Land Use Map to include a parcel of land that is currently in the City of Boise’s planning area for development in the City, along with the adjacent parcel to the north as recommended, will provide an improved guide to future growth and development of the City if the City of Boise approves an adjustment to their Area of Impact boundary. 3. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan as noted in Section V. 4. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development Code. The Commission finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development Code. 5. The amendment will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. The Commission finds the proposed amendment will be compatible with adjacent existing residential and future commercial uses. 6. The proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities. The Commission finds that the proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities in this portion of the city. Sewer and water services are available to be extended to this site. 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. The Commission finds the proposed map amendment provides a logical juxtaposition of uses and sufficient area to mitigate any development impacts to adjacent properties. 8. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City of Meridian. For the reasons stated in Section V and the subject findings above, the Commission finds that the proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City if the parcel to the north is also included in the amendment as recommended by Staff in Section V.1. Page 43 B. Annexation and/or Rezone (UDC 11-5B-3E) 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; The Applicant is proposing to annex and develop the subject property with R-15 and R-40 zoning consistent with the MDR and proposed MU-R designations. If the property to the north of the land proposed to be zoned R-40 is not included in the FLUM amendment, the Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (See section V above for more information.) 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment and development complies with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that it will provide for a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment and subsequent development would be detrimental to the public safety and welfare due to the high volume of traffic from the proposed development and commercial development to the south that would be funneled through Alpine Point Subdivision with the extension of N. Dashwood Place to E. Wainwright Dr. 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 City services are available to be provided to this development. The School District has submitted comments, included in Section VIII.J that currently show student enrollment is below capacity for the elementary school and over capacity for the middle school and high school; the Commission finds the proposed map amendment would result in an adverse impact on the school district. 5. The annexation (as applicable) is in the best interest of city. The Commission finds the proposed annexation is not in the best interest of the City at this time due to the Commission’s desire to have the City of Boise act on a request for exclusion of the eastern portion of the subject property from their Area of City Impact boundary. Further, the Commission finds the Applicant did not work with the adjacent neighbors sufficiently on issues discussed at the hearing. C. Preliminary Plat (UDC 11-6B-6) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) The Commission finds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the conditions of approval in Section VIII. Page 44 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The Commission finds public services can be made available to the subject property and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; The Commission finds the proposed plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City’s CIP. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; The Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and The Commission finds the proposed development would be detrimental to the public safety and general welfare due to the proposed extension of N. Dashwood Pl. to Wainwright Dr. and the resulting high volume of traffic that would be routed through a residential neighborhood (Alpine Point Sub.); extension of N. Centrpoint Way, a collector street, to E. Wainwright Dr. should take place first. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05-1170, 8- 30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) The Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that would need to be preserved with this development. D. Alternative Compliance (UDC 11-5B-5E) Required Findings: In order to grant approval for an Alternative Compliance application, the Director shall determine the following: 1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements are not feasible; or Staff finds that strict adherence or application of the requirements of UDC 11-3G-3 are feasible. 2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and Staff finds the proposed alternative means of compliance provides an equal means for meeting the requirements in UDC 11-3G-3. 3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties. Staff finds the alternative means of complying with UDC 11-3G-3 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties and will actually be a benefit to the public welfare by providing a buffer between the high density and medium density residential uses and 2- and 3-story structures.