Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Staff Report
Changes to Agenda: None Item # 4A: Ten Mile Annexation (AZ-11-001) Application(s): - Annexation & zoning of 116.25 acres of land with a C-G zoning district Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This subject property consists of (3) individually owned parcels totaling 80.62 acres of land zoned RUT in Ada County, and is located at the northwest corner of I-84 & S. Ten Mile Road. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: Agricultural land [approved for future residential uses (Baraya Sub.)], zoned R-8, R-15, and R-40; and agricultural land, zoned RUT in Ada County. South: Interstate 84; and agricultural land [approved for future commercial, employment, and residential uses (Meridian Crossing)], zoned R-40, C-C, M-E, and H-E. East: Agricultural land, zoned RUT in Ada County. West: Agricultural land [approved for future commercial, employment, and residential uses (Meridian Crossing)], zoned R-40, C-C, M-E, and H-E. History: See staff report (section VI.C) for other properties within the Ten Mile area that have been annexed and zoned consistent with the future land use map (PLUM) designation contained in the TMISAP. Summary of Request: The applicant requests approval to annex all of the subject property with a C-G zoning district. A conceptual development plan is not proposed at this time but a layout for collector streets within the site based upon the transportation system map contained in the TMISAP has been submitted that is consistent with the Plan. Comprehensive Plan Designation/Compliance wlComp Plan? The TMISAP collectively designates the subject properties for Medium High Density Residential (MHDR), Mixed Use Commercial (MUC), Mixed Use Residential (MUR), Green Space & Park Land (PARK), and High Density Employment (HDE) uses as follows: • Janicek property (northern parcel): MUR (40.7 +/- acres); MHDR (2.22 +l-acres); MUC (30.17 +l-acres); and PARK (6.8 +l- acres) • Fedrizzi Ten Mile property (central parcel): HDE (2.14 +l-acres); MUC (1.04 +/- acres); and PARK (1.77 +/- acres) • SJJV property (southern parcel): HDE (28 +/- acres) MUC (5 +/- acres) Staff is of the opinion the proposed C-G zoning is not consistent with the PLUM designations for these properties. As an alternative, Staff has provided a recommendation on zoning that is consistent with the land use designations for this property (see Exhibit A.2 of the staff report). Compliance with UDC? No specific uses are proposed at this time Written Testimony: Brad Boe (concerned about the proposed road alignment in relation to the approved concept plan for his property); Keven Shreeve (in agreement w/staff recommended zoning of H-E & C-C for the SJJV property); Richard & Patsy Fedrizzi (in agreement w/staff recommended zoning of C-C for their property) Staff Recommendation: Denial of annexation w/C-G zoning as proposed by the applicants. In the alternative, staff has proposed zoning consistent with the PLUM that could be supported but would require agreement by ALL of the applicants & continuance to a subsequent meeting in order for staff to update the staff report accordingly. Notes STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: July 21, 2011 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Watters, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: AZ-11-001 -Ten Mile Annexation E IDIAN~ IDAHO I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicants & property owners, Janicek Properties, LLC; Fedrizzi Ten Mile, LLC; and SJJV, LLC, have applied to annex and zone a total of 80.62 acres of land with a C-G zoning district. The applicant has submitted a conceptual layout for collector streets within the site based upon the transportation system map in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP). Neither a conceptual development plan for the overall site nor for the individual properties has been submitted. See Section 10 of the staff report for more information. II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the proposed AZ application and zoning as proposed by the applicant based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Exhibit D. In the alternative, staff has proposed other zoning that could be supported. (See analysis in Sections VII and IX for more information.) III. PROPOSED MOTION Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number AZ-11-001, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 21, 2011, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial of the annexation and you must state specific reason(s) for the denial of the plat.) Continuance I move to continue File Number AZ-11-001 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS A. Site Address/Location: The site is located at the northwest corner of I-84 and S. Ten Mile Road and extends to '/ mile south of W. Franklin Road on the west side of Ten Mile, in the east % of Section 15, Township 3 North, Range 1 West. (Ada County Assessor Parcel #'s: S 1215131200; S 1215417210; 51215417400) Owner(s): Janicek Properties, LLC 270 E. Connemara Lane Eagle, ID 83616 Ten Mile Annexation AZ-11-001 PAGE 1 Fedrizzi Ten Mile, LLC 3026 S. Whitepost Way Eagle, ID 83616 SJJV, LLC 360 E. Montvue Drive, Ste. 100 Meridian, ID 83642 C. Applicant: Same as owners D. Representative: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, LLP 1029 N. Rosario Street, Ste. 100 Meridian, ID 83642 E. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant's narrative for this information. V. PROCESS FACTS A. The subject application is for annexation and zoning. 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: July 4, and 18, 2011 C. Notices mailed to subject property owners on: July 23, 2011 D. Applicant posted notice on site(s) on: July 11, 2011 VI. LAND USE A. Existing Land Use(s) and Zoning: This site consists of agricultural property currently zoned RUT in Ada County. B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: 1. North: Agricultural land [approved for future residential uses (Baraya Sub.)], zoned R-8, R- 15, and R-40; and agricultural land, zoned RUT in Ada County. 2. East: Agricultural land, zoned RUT in Ada County. 3. South: Interstate 84; and agricultural land [approved for future commercial, employment, and residential uses (Meridian Crossing)], zoned R-40, C-C, M-E, and H-E. 4. West: Agricultural land [approved for future commercial, employment, and residential uses (Meridian Crossing)], zoned R-40, C-C, M-E, and H-E. C. History of Previous Actions: None for the subject property. Other properties/projects in the Ten Mile area that have been zoned consistent with the FLUM designation contained in the TMISAP are as follows: • Meridian Crossing (AZ-09-008) -This property consists of 115.26 acres and was annexed with C-C (48.59 acres); H-E (27.27 acres); M-E (22.57 acres); and R-40 (16.83 acres) zoning consistent with the FLUM designations of MHDR, MUC, HDE, and ME. Ten Mile Annexation AZ-11-001 PAGE 2 • Baraya Subdivision (AZ-06-061) -This property consists of 95.57 acres and was annexed with R-8 (28.17 acres), R-15 (54.13 acres), and R-40 (13.26 acres) zoning consistent with the FLUM designations of MDR, MHDR, and HDR. • Silver Oaks aka Avendale Apartments (AZ-OS-016) -This property consists of 24.61 acres and was annexed with R-15 zoning consistent with the FLUM designation of MHDR. • Southridge 31 (AZ-08-016) -This property consists of 36.27 acres and was annexed with M- Ezoning consistent with the FLUM designation of ME. • Southridge (AZ-06-031, RZ-08-008, AZ-09-009) -This property consists of 300+ acres and is zoned R-2, R-4, R-8, TN-R, TN-C, L-O, C-C, and M-E and consistent with the FLUM designations of MDR, MHDR, MUC, PARK, CIVIC, and ME. • Barletta Subdivision (AZ-10-002) -This property consists of 5.94 acres and was annexed with Rl zoning consistent with the FLUM designation of LDR. D. Utilities: 1. Public Works: a. Location of sewer: 36 inch sewer trunk main located near the Purdam Drain on the North East side of the subject property. b. Location of water: Ten Mile Rd and W Franklin Road. c. Reclaimed water is available to this site and located in S Ten Mile Road. d. Issues or concerns: None E. Physical Features: 1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: The Purdam Drain bisects the northern parcel (Janicek's property) and extends to Ten Mile Road across the northern portion of the Fedrizzi property; other smaller ditches/canals traverse the property. 2. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards that exist on this property 3. Flood Plain: This property does not lie within a floodplain. VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS The subject property is located in the area governed by the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP). The TMISAP focuses on developing an area that has an identity of its own but which links to nearby developments. The plan emphasizes the community's support for higher densities and mixed uses to create a vibrant and economically strong city. The plan also stresses the community's commitment to good site planning and design as a means of establishing a place everyone can be proud of and one that protects the interests of future businesses and residents (pg. ix). The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) contained in the TMISAP collectively designates the subject properties for Medium High Density Residential (MHDR), Mixed Use Commercial (MUC), Mixed Use Residential (MUR), Green Space and Parkland (PARK), and High Density Employment (HDE) uses. The designations for the individually owned parcels are broken down as follows: Janicek property (northern 80.62 acre parcel): MUR (40.7 +/- acres); MHDR (2.22 +/- acres); MUC (30.17 +/- acres); and PARK (6.8 +/- acres) Fedrizzi Ten Mile property (central 5.11 acre parcel): HDE (2.14 +/- acres); MUC (1.04 +/- acres); and PARK (1.77 +/- acres) Ten Mile Annexation AZ-11-001 PAGE 3 SJJV property (southern 30.52 acre parcel): HDE (28 +/- acres); MUC (5 +/- acres) The applicants propose to annex all three of the subject properties with a C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) zoning district. The C-G district represents the largest scale of the commercial districts and allows the broadest mix of retail, office, service, and light industrial uses. Staff is of the opinion this designation is more appropriate in areas with a Commercial or Lifestyle Center FLUM designation because of the more intense types of commercial uses desired in those areas and does not support C-G zoning of the property. Staff has included analysis below on each of the FLUM designations for this site and has recommended a zoning district that staff believes is compatible with the associated land use designation and the TMISAP for this area. Consistent with sound planning principals, future zoning should be consistent with the future land use designations of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is of the opinion the integrity of the Plan should not be modified to address what may be perceived as the highest and best use of individual properties. Consistent with past land use decisions in the Ten Mile planning area, zoning of the property should be consistent with the FLUM (see Section VI.Cfor details). LAND USE DESIGNATIONS: MHDR: These areas are recommended primarily for relatively dense multi-family housing types such as row houses, townhouses, condominiums, and apartment buildings and complexes. MHDR areas should include a mix of housing types that achieve an overall average target density of 12 dwelling units per gross acre with a range from 8-15 units per acre. (See pages 3-6 & 3-7 in the TMISAP for more information.) The FLUM designates approximately 2.22 acres at the northwest corner of this site for MHDR uses. The adjacent property to the west is zoned R-40 and is intended to develop with a mix of apartments, condos, and townhomes; the adjacent property to the north is zoned R-1 S and intended to develop with single family residential uses (townhomes &alley-loaded lots), consistent with the MHDR designation. The use of the subject property was intended to tie in with these properties but is separated on the west by the Purdam Drain, a year round waterway that is proposed to remain open, as well as a strip of land designated for PARK uses that is intended to include a section of the City's multi-use pathway. The applicant proposes C-G zoning for this property which requires conditional use approval for multi family developments and prohibits single family attached, two family duplex, and townhouse dwellings -all desired uses in the MHDR category. As mentioned above, Staff recommends an alternative to the C-G zoning proposed by the applicant that staff is of the opinion is more appropriate for this area. The TN-C zoning district allows all of the aforementioned uses as principal permitted uses, except two family dwelling duplexes which require conditional use approval. Because of the small size of the MHDR designated property and the physical separation of this property from the property to the west by the Purdam Drain, staff feels it more appropriate to zone this portion TN-C (rather than R-40 or R-1 S, or the C-G district in which all residential uses except multi family are prohibited) consistent with Staff's recommended zoning of the adjacent MUR designated property to the east. Development on this portion of the site should be compatible with the planned residential uses to the north and west. MUR: These areas are intended to encourage a diversity of compatible land uses that may include a mix of residential, office, retail, recreational, employment, and other miscellaneous uses. While the focus of these areas is on residential uses, the horizontal and vertical integration of retail, office and employment uses is essential to securing entitlements. Developments are required to integrate the three major use categories -residential, commercial, and employment. Live-work units are strongly Ten Mile Annexation AZ-11-001 PAGE 4 encouraged in MUR areas as are a variety of other housing types. Office, employment and commercial areas are generally small in scale and focused on neighborhood services within these areas. Traditional neighborhood design concepts are essential. The mix of uses should allow for a diversity of housing with for-sale and rental properties. The goal in these areas is to achieve a FAR of 0.75 or more. This land use designation calls for an overall target density of 8-12 dwelling units per acre, with higher densities allowed on individual projects. The FLUM designates approximately 40.07 acres of this site for MUR uses. The adjacent property to the north is designated for HDR (High Density Residential) uses; a portion of which is zoned R-40 and the remainder is yet to be annexed. The property to the northwest is designated for MHDR uses and is zoned R-1 S & R-40. Again, the applicant proposes C-G zoning for this property which requires conditional use approval for multi family developments and prohibits single family detached/attached, two family duplex, and townhouse dwellings -all essential uses in the MUR category which focuses on residential uses. Vertically integrated residential projects are principally permitted in the C-G district. Office, employment and commercial areas in the C-G district are not limited in scale and are not focused on neighborhood services as desired in MUR areas. Additionally, maximum building height in the C-G district is 65 feet, which could result in larger scale commercial uses than desired in MUR areas as office, employment and commercial uses are generally small in scale and focused on neighborhood services within MUR areas. The TN-C district allows all of the aforementioned uses in addition to office and retail uses as principal permitted uses; two family dwelling duplexes and recreational facilities require conditional use approval. Because the focus in MUR areas is on residential uses and most residential uses are either prohibited or conditional uses in the C-G district, Staff is of the opinion the TN-C district is more appropriate and consistent with the MUR designation and the intent of the TMISAP for this area. Also, the maximum building height in the TN-C district is 45 feet and the maximum building footprint is 20, 000 square feet; however, other than retail, all other uses may be allowed a greater footprint through the conditional use process -this helps to limit the scale of development & directs the focus to neighborhood services rather than larger scale commercial uses within these areas. Finally, the zoning district compatibility matrix contained in the TMISAP lists the TN-C district as the best zoning choice for MUR designated areas. Therefore, staff recommends a TN-C zoning district for all of the MUR designated area. MUC: These areas are intended for the development of a mix of office, retail, recreational, employment and other miscellaneous uses, with supporting multi-family or single-family attached residential uses. The horizontal and vertical integration of residential uses is also essential in this area. This designation requires developments to integrate the three major use categories: residential, commercial, and employment. Traditional neighborhood design concepts with a strong pedestrian- oriented focus are essential. The goal in these areas is to achieve a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.00-1.25 or more. The MUC designation calls for an overall target density of 8-12 dwelling units per acre, with higher densities allowed in individual projects. No more than 30% of the ground level development within the MUC designation should be used for residences. (See page 3-9 in the TMISAP for more information.) The FLUM designates approximately 36.21 acres of this site for MUC uses. The adjacent property to the west and south, also designated MUC, is zoned C-C and is proposed to develop with ground level retail with residential above consistent with the MUC designation. The applicant's proposed C-G zoning of this property allows office, retail, vertically integrated residential projects, and recreational facilities as principal permitted uses in the district but requires Ten Mile Annexation AZ-11-001 PAGE 5 conditional use approval of multi family developments and prohibits single family attached residential uses -important components of MUC designated areas as they provide an essential mix of uses and support the commercial uses. The TN-C district allows all of the aforementioned uses as principally permitted uses except for recreational facilities which require conditional use approval. The zoning district compatibility matrix contained in the TMISAP lists the TN-C district as the best zoning choice for MUC designated areas. For these reasons, staff recommends a TN-C zoning district for all of the MUC designated area north of the `/z mile collector street. The boundary of the TN-C zone should go to the centerline of the proposed collector street (see Exhibit A.2). (Note: There is small strip of land at the southwest corner of the Janicek property that is between the subject property and the road that is zoned C-C. The zoning of this area should be "cleaned up" by rezoning the area to TN-C to the centerline of the road if a rezone is submitted in the future for the Meridian Crossing property.) The C-C district is very similar to the C-G district in that it allows (& prohibits) all of the same uses listed above for the C-G district that are desired in the MUC area but allows slightly less intense uses overall than the C-G district. The property to the west of the SJJV property is zoned C-C. The zoning district compatibility matrix contained in the TMISAP lists the C-C district as a possible zoning choice for MUC designated areas. To add variety in development potential for the site, staff recommends the area on the south side of the proposed `/z mile collector road be zoned C-C from the south boundary of the Fedrizzi parcel north to the centerline of the proposed collector road and west from the Fedrizzi property to the location of the stub street at the west boundary of the SJJV property along the frontage of the collector street in the approximate configuration shown in Exhibit A.2). This will bisect a portion of the SJJV property with two zones in the area where the property should eventually be divided by the extension of the stub street to the east. Zoning this portion of the site C- C is consistent with the adjacent C-C zoning and the MUC designation. HDE: These areas are recommended as predominantly office, research and specialized employment areas; and generally do not include retail and consumer service uses serving the wider community. Limited retail and service establishments primarily serving employees and users of the HDE areas are encouraged. HDE areas should provide a variety of flexible sites for small, local or start-up businesses, as well as sites for large national or regional enterprises and should be designed to encourage multimodal travel and convenient circulation to supporting services located within the area. Whenever possible, HDE areas should provide restaurants, lodging and other services in support of the employment uses. Land use types in HDE areas include corporate, business and professional offices, research facilities and laboratories with complementary uses primarily serving district employees and users, such as business services, conference centers, child care, restaurants, convenience retail, and hotels and motels. It is anticipated that buildings will range in height from 1-6 stories, have total floor areas of 10,000-1,000,000 square feet, and that the FAR will exceed 1.0. Designs that promote open space and parks are strongly encouraged. Structured parking is also allowed. (See page 3-11 of the TMIASP for more information.) The FL UM designates approximately 30.14 acres on this site for HDE uses. The applicant proposes a C-G zoning district, which allows the broadest range of commercial uses including offices, research and development facilities, retail, restaurants, hotels/motels, and consumer service uses. In the C-G district, these uses are not limited to primarily serve employees & users of the area as intended in the HDE designation; uses in the C-G district are intended to serve the wider community. This development pattern has the potential to diminish or under utilize the area that is envisioned as a prime economic development driver for the City. Additionally, the maximum building height allowed in the C-G district is 65 feet which may not allow for the full build out potential desired in the HDE designation. Ten Mile Annexation AZ-11-001 PAGE 6 The H-E zoning designation was implemented after the adoption of the TMISAP specifically for HDE designated areas and accommodates the desired uses in the scope and manner intended for this area. H-E zoned areas are intended to be located in close proximity to federal and state highway interchanges and major arterials. The subject property abuts Interstate 84 on the south and S. Ten Mile Road, an arterial street, on the east. The maximum building height in the H-E district is 95 feet allowing for maximum number of stories allowed within the HDE designation. Additionally, the H-E district limits retail and restaurant uses as accessory uses to the principal permitted uses on the site as desired in HDE areas. For these reasons, staff recommends the HDE designated property is zoned H-E consistent with the intent of the HDE designation. PARK: Parks and public recreational facilities are located convenient to the neighborhood, community or regional populations that they are intended to serve, where the land is suitable for the planned activities. Convenient access to neighborhood parks should be provided by local streets, sidewalks, and bicycle and pedestrian pathways and trails, with a reasonably direct route available from most neighborhood locations. Adequate vehicle parking and pedestrian and bicycle support facilities, such as benches, lockers, and bike racks, should be provided. Narrow open space comdors are recommended locations for pedestrian or bicycle pathway connections. The FLUM designates a relatively narrow strip of land, approximately 140 feet wide for PARK uses that bisects the Janicek property and runs along the northeast boundary of the Fedrizzi property to Ten Mile Road. The area consists of 8.57 acres and is designated on the Meridian Pathways Network Map contained in The Meridian Pathways Master Plan to contain a section of the City's multi-use pathway system. The planned pathway will provide a pedestrian & bicycle connection to adjacent residential, commercial, and employment uses when constructed. This open space area will also provide a convenient recreation area for adjacent residential uses as well as commercial & employment uses within the development. Because there is not a specific zoning designation for PARK designated land, staff recommends the area is zoned the same as the adjacent land. TRANSPORTATION: The transportation component of the TMISAP specifies future through- connections as they relate to the overall transportation network and collector street network. Interconnectivity is a hallmark of the plan with the intention of having a sound understanding of the street alignments rather than creating alignments based on case by case development applications. Street design elements integrate walking, biking, transit, driving, and delivery routes. Conceptual renderings depict streetscape improvements, commercial, civic and mixed use areas as they relate to the overall use and development concept (pg. ix). The Land Use Map and Transportation System Map contained in the TMISAP identify a conceptual collector street network for the Ten Mile planning area. Staff has reviewed these maps in relation to the applicants' proposed street network for the site and found it to be consistent with these maps. The street network plan proposed by the applicant includes anorth/south street through the SJJV property that runs along the west boundary of the Fedrizzi property that is not shown on the maps; however, staff is supportive of this street as it will provide a connection between the two future east/west collector streets. After discussion with the owners' representatives, City staff reviewed the analysis, proposed right-of- way alignments, and accesses contained in the Ten Mile Interchange Commercial Traffic Analysis dated February 15, 2011 prepared by Dobie Engineering, for consistency with the TMISAP. Mr. Pete Friedman, Deputy Planning Director issued a letter dated March 14, 2011 regarding his review, included in Exhibit A.3. In summary, in absence of specific development plans, the City is in general agreement with the assumptions of the study and some of the proposed access points, but is of the opinion that other accesses should be determined when specific development plans are proposed. The access points that Staff is in general agreement with are circled in red on the map included in Mr. Friedman's letter (see Exhibit A.3). The access depicted as #5 should be moved to the property line; Ten Mile Annexation AZ-11-001 PAGE 7 the access depicted as #3 to Ten Mile Road should only be an emergency access if approved by ACRD. As previously stated, all other accesses should be determined at a later date with a specific development plan. Gary Inselman, ACHD, also issued a letter dated March 17, 2011 in regard to his review of the traffic analysis and proposed access points (see Exhibit A.5 for more information). In summary, ACHD has not approved a signal, nor will they consider approving a signal at this time for the north access road to Ten Mile on the southern portion of the Carney property; the accesses shown on the north and the north/south collectors conform to ACHD standards & would be approved; the direct access to Ten Mile Road via the Fedrizzi property does not conform to ACHD standards & would not be considered - emergency access only would be considered if required by the City; the access to the street shown at the west side of the Fedrizzi property conforms to ACHD policy & would be approved; the access points shown on the south collector generally conform to ACHD policy but ACHD will withhold comment on the function & operation of the accesses until additional information that was requested is provided; the proposed right-of--way layout appears to be sufficient for the proposed roadways, however a more detailed review of the required right-of--way for the various roadway segments by ACHD and the City is suggested before legal descriptions are prepared. Approval of any access points will be contingent upon the parcels developing consistent with the land use assumptions within the TMISAP and are subject to change or modification if the proposed land uses and/or traffic conditions change in the future. All future development of the parcels will be subject to the ACHD policy in effect at the time the application is received by ACHD. DESIGN: The TMISAP emphasizes density and mix of uses along with the quality of the built environment. Recommendations on the location and design of building frontages and limits on building heights play an integral role in the future evolution of the Ten Mile Interchange Area. The location, scale, form, height, and design quality of public and private buildings directly affect the Ten Mile Interchange Area's success as a great place to live, work and raise a family (pg. 3-31). MUR: All development within this category should incorporate traditional neighborhood design concepts in accord with the TMISAP such as higher density buildings close to the street, easy pedestrian access, narrower streets to slow traffic, parking lots behind or under buildings, and residences with porches or balconies facing the street. MUC: All development within this category should incorporate traditional neighborhood design principles and concepts in accord with the TMISAP (see MUR above). A strong pedestrian- oriented focus is essential in this area. HDE: All development within this category is strongly encouraged to incorporate designs that promote open space and parks. Structured parking is also allowed. 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): • Implement the City's Pathways Master Plan to provide a bike and pathways system between neighborhoods, local collectors, and community destinations. (Chapter 6, pg. 83) A section of the City's multi-use pathway system is designated on this property in the area designated for PARK uses in the City's Master Pathways Plan. This pathway will provide pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to and through this development. • Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City. (Chapter 3, pg. 45) Ten Mile Annexation AZ-11-001 PAGE 8 This property is contiguous to other properties already annexed into the City. Urban services can be provided to this property upon development. • Work with transportation agencies and private property owners to preserve transportation corridors, future transit routes and infrastructure, road and highway extensions, and to facilitate access management planning; use COMPASS' Access Management Toolkit. The primary purpose of the subject annexation is to identify and establish a street network system in this area to facilitate development of the Ten Mile Interchange area. Staff has reviewed the proposed street network in relation to the Transportation System Map contained in the TMISAP and found it to be consistent with the plan. The City, along with ACHD, has provided a response to the Ten Mile Interchange Commercial Traffic Analysis (see Exhibit A for more information). • Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system. (Chapter 3, pg. 48). The multi-use pathway planned through this property will link to a pathway northwest of this site in Baraya subdivision which will contribute to the goal of providing neighborhood connectivity through the City's pathway system. • Support a variety of residential categories (low-, medium-, medium-high and high-density single-family, multi-family, townhouses, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities. A mix of residential uses is required to be provided in MHDR, MUR &MUC designated areas. The zoning proposed by staff will allow for a variety of residential uses to be developed within this site. • Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers. (Chapter 3, pg. 54) The southern portion of this site is designated for HDE uses. In close proximity to the north, a mix of residential uses is required within the MHDR, MUR, &MUC designated areas. • Improve and protect creeks throughout commercial, industrial, and residential areas (Chapter 5, pg. 69) Although not a creek, the Purdam Drain crosses the subject property and is a year round waterway. This waterway will remain open but will be piped at vehicular crossings. The area where the drain is located is designated to develop with PARK uses and will be improved as an amenity. In summary, Staff is of the opinion the proposed C-G zoning is not consistent the with the land use designations contained in the TMISAP and the overall plan for the Ten Mile area for the reasons stated above. As an alternative to denying the application, staff has provided recommendations on zoning that stajf feels is more appropriate for this area. The collector street network plan submitted by the applicants is determined to be consistent with the transportation plan contained in the TMISAP. VIII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (UDC) (Staff has included details in italics below pertaining to staff's recommended zoning of the property.) A. Purpose Statement of the Districts: • The purpose of the commercial districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accordance with the Meridian comprehensive plan. Six (6) districts are Ten Mile Annexation AZ-11-001 PAGE 9 designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to streets and highways (UDC 11-2B-1). The purpose of the traditional neighborhood districts is to encourage mixed use, compact development that is sensitive to the environmental characteristics of the land and facilitates the efficient use of services. Vertically integrated residential projects are encouraged in all traditional neighborhood districts. A traditional neighborhood district diversifies and integrates land uses within close proximity of each other, and it provides for the daily recreational and shopping needs of the residents (UDC 11-2D-1). B. Schedule of Use: UDC Table 11-2B-21ists the principal permitted (P), accessory (A), conditional (C), and prohibited (-) uses in the proposed C-G zoning district. Any use not explicitly listed is prohibited. UDC Table 11-2B-2 lists the principal permitted (P), accessory (A), conditional (C), and prohibited (-) uses in the staff recommended C-C & H-E zoning districts. UDC Table 11-2D-2 lists the principal permitted (P), accessory (A), conditional (C), and prohibited (-) uses in the 7N- Czoning district. Any use not explicitly listed is prohibited. C. Dimensional Standards: The dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the proposed C-G zoning district pertain to development of this site if the proposed AZ is approved. The dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-C and H-E districts, and UDC I1-2D-S for the TN-C zoning district apply to this site if the zoning recommended by staff is approved. D. Landscaping: If the proposed AZ is approved, street buffer landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the proposed C-G district. Parking lot landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. Landscape buffers to adjoining residential uses shall be installed in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3B-9C and Table 11-2B-3. Street buffer landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the proposed C-C and H-E districts. Parking lot landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. Landscape buffers to adjoining residential uses shall be installed in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C and Table 11-2B-3. (The UDC does not currently include landscape requirements for street buffers or buffers to adjoining residential uses in the TN-C district) E. Off-Street Parking: If the proposed AZ is approved, non-residential uses require one off-street parking space for every 500 square feet of gross floor area and parking areas are required to be designed in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5. Additionally, one bicycle parking space is required to be provided for every 25 proposed vehicle parking spaces, or portion thereof, in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-SC. For residential uses, the required number ofoff-street parking spaces varies according to the number of bedrooms per unit (see UDC Table 11-3C-6 for more information). Ten Mile Annexation AZ-11-001 PAGE 10 IX. ANALYSIS A. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: The Applicant requests approval to annex a total of 80.62 acres of land, consisting of three parcels owned by three different property owners, with a C-G zoning district. The property is collectively designated on the FLUM contained in the TMISAP for MUR, MUC, MHDR, PARK, and HDE uses. Overall, development in this area should integrate the three major use categories: residential, commercial, and employment and contain a variety of residential housing types, commercial uses, offices, retail, recreational facilities, employment, and other miscellaneous uses. Based on the TMISAP, Staff is of the opinion the requested C-G zoning of the site is not consistent with the FLUM designations contained in the Plan for this area and the overall plan for the Ten Mile area for the reasons stated above in Section VII. In addition, no conceptual development plans have been provided. If the applicants wish to proceed with the C-G zoning district, Staff recommends denial of the subject AZ application. Note: Staff discussed other zoning options with the applicant's representative, during the pre-application meetings that are consistent with the FLUM; however, the applicants wished to proceed with the C-G request despite Staff's recommendation. Note: As an alternative to denial of the AZ application, staff has provided a recommendation for zoning of this property contained in the analysis in Section VII above that staff feels is more appropriate for this area and is consistent with the FLUM (see zoning map recommended by staff in Exhibit A.2). If the applicants are agreeable to the zoning proposed by staff and want to proceed forward with a favorable recommendation, staff recommends the Commission continue this application to a later meeting in order for staff to draft development agreement (DA) provisions, amend the findings, and prepare a recommendation for approval. The applicant would also be required to submit revised legal descriptions based on the zoning boundaries recommended by the Commission. Because a plat is not proposed at this time that depicts the exact location of roads and lots within the development, staff recommended zoning district boundaries are approximate and may change in the future with a detailed development plan and plat. If the Commission chooses to recommend approval of the applicants request for C-G zoning of the property, the application will need to be continued to a later meeting in order for staff to draft development agreement provisions, amend the findings, and prepare a recommendation for approval. In either case, provisions of the DA would include requiring a conceptual development plan be submitted prior to submittal of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application which would necessitate a modification to the DA at a later date to include the plan; and requirement for easements or right-of--way dedication for the proposed collector streets within the property that are consistent with ACHD standards. X. EXHIBITS A. Drawings/Other 1. Vicinity Map 2. Zoning Recommended by Staff 3. Proposed Collector Street Network 4. Ten Mile Interchange Commercial Traffic Analysis -Response from Pete Friedman, Deputy Ten Mile Annexation AZ-11-001 PAGE I 1 Planning Director 5. Ten Mile Interchange Commercial Traffic Analysis -Response from Gary Inselman, ACRD 6. Access Points B. Annexation Legal Description & Exhibit Map C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Ten Mile Annexation AZ-11-001 PAGE 12 A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map Exhibit C Page 2 2. Zoning Recommended by Staff Exhibit C Page 3 3. Proposed Collector Street Network Exhibit C Page 4 3. Ten Mile Interchange Commercial Traffic Analysis -Response from Pete Friedman, Deputy Planning Director ~jQ~E IDIZ IAN~- ~/ blarclt 14, 2tlt t hir. C~aty lnsetman Ada Coursty' I-Cighvuay f~istrict ~`~?S Adams Street Gatvden C'•ity,1D R:l?i4 St1111"E:~'C: fiE(+S )v111.E 1NTERCEIANGh WEST ACCfiSS ANAYLSIS Dear Ciacy: Mayor Tammy ds weetd pear CquncN Member: KMth bird Brad Hoaglun Charles ttounttee [)avid Iarem6a 'llais is ett t~csponsc t4 t1u Ten Mite [nterchsngc Cnmrncsncial Traft'ic Analysis dated February I5, 201.1 by IDiobie Eatgint~:ering. City Qt` Meridian Planning and Public Works staff have reviewed the analysis; pmpascd right of-way alignments and accesses far consistrney with the Ten Mile lnteralt~tge Speeiftc Area Plan {1'MISAP). In the alascttce of speciftc devebpmetd plans we ate in genus) agreetrttttt with the underlying as~ttrttptntts of the and same of the proposed access. paints. We arc of the apitaian that ii would be bcnefieial to wait until specific devtaloptntttt plans ere proposed to tittermine other acctts~s. We t+ecogniae that the analysis is correctly based tm the adapted lend use, designaianns cf the TMISAP even thnuglt the precise land uses era tent ictec~ti6ed. While tl-e FAR employed in the at~lysis f .5D) is lower than anticipated. in the TMISAP it seems reasonable since the rnunended kARs in the plan do teat account far raad rights of wa}' and alleys. Thus, we one in gtttcrai agreement with the assumptions With regard to the propvsod aolt'.35!eS, we recognize and support the Districts policy of idcntit'ying access at the time of development t?:ppticatian and appreciate the District's flexibility in reviewing the pmpt~ed accesses and right tat way aGgnment$ in this unique situation. Based an nut review of the analysis and the p~toposed accesses our comments ere direcicd to specific arlcaS nn the attaCheti mitp With tittrres}~UAUliug etttttkriC latxts; We defer to ttte I3istritn nn the k-cation of the access tv the west side of Ten Mile Rnad that would t>e l~rited an the north. portion c-fthe lamicelt pt+apc~• ter the south portion of the Carney Party t~1 Apptnvul nfthe accesses proposed for else north and northf~tuth collectors should be deferred until a specific devetopmeatt plan is proposed in order to determine the precise location and fimcti~tal'aty. I21 t~ianning t)tspartmet-t . 33 E. &oadway, Meridian, tD 63842 Rttorte 20t1~884-5533 . Fax ~flB-898-8854 . wtvw.tickancity.arg Exhibit C Page 5 t4lr. Gary ittsciman Page 2 The direcK success fram flee Fedri7aa property ter Ten Milc Road should be limited to "cmcrgetrcy only" until such time as other accasa to that property can be achieved. The ptopoa.~d driveway asocees to the Fedrixz property on the nart6-south co[lector should be approved. (~) • C)n the south side of the south collector road ewe recumrnend that first right in- right. out west of Ten Iblile itoad be approved as well as the left ird right in -right out located to the vet' of than access.. ¢t) Rre are of the opinlan that the access located on the western edge of flu SJJV pt~pert7,• be appmvrcd in ccwna:rt with a specific development propaeai aid consideration be given to locating it on the cotrunon property lira: with Nkridian ! l 8. (~j • +CAn the north. side of the south collector the recomtnertd that approval of the access immediately east ofthe raundubout {ti) and recommend that action on the athcr two be deferred ~ until a specific dcvclapntent application is terrdare,3 for consideratiaa !n addition wr src unsure of the necessity of the leR in ttrening movement as proposed for the middle access. 7lrerrk ycru fix carasidi-ration of our cotnntems. Please feel free Uo rail i[ you have any quesfioas or would like to tnoct to discuss the prapased alignments. ty. O ^~ I to ) P Ueput}~ Dircctar Gc Atrtta C:amtirrg Becky McKay Fat Dolrie Tim Curn9 , Access should be mo to the property line *+ $ *~ 1 ' ' ~a } .~ .rte ~$ $¢p ~ ~ ! '~ e~uwr ,,q~ .^ ~~~ f f ~ ~ ~k ` ' `/g ~J ~..... ~ T ~ i ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ lf d .Z:a I I 1 F ~ i ~ a~ _1 Taia. ~ + ~ a ~ ~ ~auM --- ~~ Q* ~ ~ ~ ~ ved '"'~`"°~' ~~ awa®c.rev ~ ~ r t ~w 3 y~~ - - _...__ ~3a^~-__ ~ 1~ Emergency access only if approved by ACHD Exhibit C Page 6 4. Ten Mile Interchange Commercial Traffic Analysis -Response from Gary Inselman, ACRD ,-: ~ ._, i, ~~~~~. March 17, 2t}11 Betty McKay Enginesring Solutions., LLP 1429 R, #ts~ario Street.. Suite 1d90 M " Ian, Idaho $36#2 RE: Ten Mite lnterchange tM4st Aara„algii Anatysti bear Ser,~y; Rcberca W. Arr~aid. Prat 3oM S. Frandletl, VIE Pttent Carol A. MdGM, Commt~tanar Sara M. elaker, [nmme~sonr Wxid L Case. Cbmrnlsdoner ACl-tD h6~9 reviewed the Technical MemaKandum (Memo} from Oobie Engineering, lnc, dated February t 5, 2t5i i which you hand delivered at our meeting an March 2, 2411. Concurrent with our review of the trafi~ analysis. ACHU requested the City of i-Aeridian revieuv and verify the land use assumptions. Enclosed is the City of Meridian letter dated March 14, 2011 veri#ying general agreement w~h the land uae assumprtiar~ as w+aN as c~ammenta on the pr~apoeed accesa pbinta. The Memo re#erenced using information from the lour Studtr for the fien Male intercharge as w~ as the study pre#aared by HDR. Please prfl+~de copies atif the relevan/ sedians from these studies tram vrhich the in#ormation was otrte~ued. The Memo also references Appendix A, B and C. These were net inoladed the submittal, Please provide a copy of the ~rpendices, AGHD oft'ers the fallowing corrxlaents on the proposed access paints absent the information requegte~d above Far cconnsisterlcy of revievr n# Gaminents i will utilize the numeric labels #rom the Clty'e~ iette~ and attached map: • The north cress read [i~ located on the south portion of the Garnet PrY is listed as a raew signalire~ct intarsei:tion in the Memo. A signed hse not been approved et this location by ACRD and w'II not 6-e considered at tit is time. Norte a# the informatior- ~d date submitted to date #rcrn any scturoe has lnc~cated the need to signaNze this futlxe interse~clion. Revise the Memo to remove the consideration of a signet at this location. • The proposed locations for the accesses on the north collector arxi then narthlsouth ooltector 12~ generally conform to A+CtiD policy as Proposed and would be appr©ved. • The proposed d~acl acc~eaa to Ten Male Road from the Fedrizzi parcel t9) wee last at-awn as an emergency aaasss only. There is no explanation as to why the proposal now indudeg a direct acoess to Ten Mile Road. This access does not conform to ACRD policy and will not be considered, The access to the street at the west side of the parce# conforms to AGND policy and would be approved. +- Tt~e proposed access point locations an the south collector (4, 5.6, 7, at-d 8} generally conform to ACHt:I policy, ACtip wilt withheld comment on the funct~n and operation a# the atxasselz until the information re+qussted atxtive has been provided. • T#te proposed right-of-way isry+cut appears to be sufl~icant for the proposed roadways. I would suggest a more detailed review of the required right-t~#-ww2iy for tt~ee vario~rs roadway sergme with both ACHD and the City of Meridian before legal descriptions are prepared. __---Ada Ca+rnly+~Higtm~aY l?istrict ` 3775 Adsrra Skrt~t • ~iarder ~Y ID • 6371 • PH f2UB!} ~7-b14ty • F>t 38a'-6343 • www.achd.ada d.us Exhibit C Page 1 Ar` we deecussed a~roval ref ank ;r-ccess p~oiirrts wall be contEr-Qent open the ~ cieveiopr~ consiatsnt with the latref use assumptions within the Ten Mile Ither~ge Spe+~itic Area Plan and are sut~ietrt to change ar mdttit`wCatibn if the pnapc-sed land urea andlor traffic aondilrana change in the fiuture. All future development of the parcels welt tie subJect to the ACND pQacy in eNeot et the time the application is received hY ACHE. lfi you have any quas~ons you may contact m~e at 387-8170 Sincerely, r°, tsary lrtselman Manager,. Right-ctff-fey antt ,~!Inprrtent Services Enclosure= City +~# !ui>eridi~ letter dated March 14, 2011 +Gc, bete Fr~drnan, t~ity at Meridian Fat Gcrbie Exhibit C Page 2 B. Annexation Legal Description & Exhibit Map June 8, 2011 DESCRYPTION FOR MERIDIAN CITY PROPOSED ANNEXATION PARCEL "A" (JAMCEK PROPERTIES LLC) A parcel of land located in the NE'/, of Section 15, T. 3N., R. 1 W., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of the NE 1/4 (the East'/. comer? of said Section 15, the REAL POINT OF BEGIN1~iING of this description, from which the Northeast corner of said Section 15 bears North 00°33'38" East, 2658.23 feet; Thence North 89° 14'44" West, 1321.59 feet along the south line of the SE %, of the NE '/, to the southwest corner of the SE'/, of the NE 1/4; Thence North 69°14'44" West, 1321.59 feet along the south line of the 5W'/. of the NE'/• to the southwest corner of the SW 'h of the NE'/• (the Center'/+ comer of said Section 15); Thence North 00°36'51" East 1328.84 fat along the west line of the 5W'/. of the NE'/. to the northwest corner of the SW %. of the NE 1/4; Thence South 89°15'05" East, 1320.97 feet along the north line of the SW '/, of the NE'/. to the northeast corner of the S W '/, of the NE '/.; Thence South 89°15'05" East, 1320.97 fat along the north line of the SE %. of the NE'/. to the northeast corner of the SE '/. of the NE %,; Thence South 00°33'38" West, 1329.11 feet along the east line of the SE %, of the NE Y. to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 80.62 acres, more or less. REVI _ ROVAL BY JUN 2 2 2011 904t8-Parcel A-Amuxation.doc MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. Exhibit C Page 3 Sane 8, 2011 DESCRIPTION FOR MERIDIAN CITY PROPOSED ANNEXATION PARCEL "B" (FEDRIZZI TEN MQ,E LLC) A parcel of Iand located in the NE'/. of the SE'/. of Section 15, T. 3N., R. 1 W., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corns' of the SE 1/4 (the East'/+ comer of said Section 1 S), the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING of this description, from which the Southeast corner of said Section 1 S bears South 00°30'03" West, 2659.46 feet; Thence South 00°30'03" West, 278.00 feet along the east line of the NE'/• of the SE y to a point; Thence North 89°14'44" West, 800.00 feet parallel with the north line of the NE'/. of the SE'/. to a point; Thence North 00°30'03" East 278.00 feet parallel with the east line of the NE '1. of the SE '/. to a point on the north line of the NE'/. of the SE'/.; Thence South 89°14'44" East, 800.00 feet along the north line of the NE'/• of the SE'/. to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 5.11 acres, more or less. REV~~~ROVA-- BY._-- ._._.------ JUN 2 ~ 2011 MERIDIAN Pt)13LIC WORKS DEPT. 9041E-Parcel B-MnexaNar.doc Exhibit C Page 4 Exhibit D June 8, 2011 DESCRIPTION FOR MERIDIAN CITY PROPOSED ANNEXATION PARCEL "C" (SddV LLC) A parcel of land located in the NE '/a of the SE '/~ of Section 15, T. 3N., R. 1 W., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the northeast comer of the SE 114 (the East'/r corner of said Section 15), from which the Southeast comer of said Section 15 bears South 00°30'03" West, 2659.46 feet; Thence South 00°30'03" Wcst, 278.00 feet along the east Line ofthe NE'/. of the SE'/a to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING of this dexription; Thence South 00°30'03" West, 736.74 feet along the east line of the NE'/. of the SE'/, to a point; Thence North 89°34'08" West, 233.31 feet to a point on the northerly right of way of Interstate 84; Thence along the said northerly right of way the following courses and distances: Thence South 47°33'05" West 109.09 feet; Thence South 66°54'30" West 105.73 feet; 'Thence South 80°09'21" West 150.16 feet; Thence South 76°O1' 13" West 330.69 feet; Thence South 79°54'26" West 177.77 feet; Thence South 84°46'38" West 162.75 feet; Thence South 88°47°OS" West 108.28 feet to a point on the west line of the NE'/, of the SE l/a; Thence leaving said northerly right of way North 00°33'27" East 1299.33 feet along the west line of the NE'/, of the SE'/a to tho northwest corner of the NE'h of the SE'/,; Thence South 89° 14'44" East, 521.59 feet along the north line of the NE'h of the SE '/, to a point; Thence South 00°30'03" West, 278.00 feet parallel with the east line of the NE'/. of the SE'/. to a point; Exhibit D Thence South 89°14'44" East, 800.00 feet parallel with the t~tth line of the NE'/. of the SE to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 30.52 acres, morc or less. RE pPRQV~- 0Y 1uN 2 ~ 20» M WORKS CE¢T-C 9041E-Parcel_C-Annexation.doc Exhibit D e..~~1-m «o i i ~1'~" .m-..pia is i ~ I M I y i ~ i! I I ~t jd xc V. wr ~/. I w V. Kt/. {k w V. w+/. I~ (wxo xKanpns uc) ~~. ara+c ~ Ou~+ Gmi! uc) I M~MP~R LLq j~ ly; I ¢21i,T1 I tM„I w 1~ ~ ~ w~ I ~ I ~ I ~ ~~ • ~ ~I,~ f I I ~ ~. ~ * I ~ ~ i w.: I I ' ~ .~. err p+acan s'~w1 ~ wi/. ~n/. ~~'~''~ se iN wt/. I y^~ ~ _______ d~~ ~~ 7~ Ny,/., ~ 4wL9~ ngkm~u ~ 1t1NW C-6- _ ~ ' ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~~I~w __ '~'" ~ I ' ~ ~no« is ~ / / wr ~ w~ ax saxs awo ~oomM .s rim raw~ar } i~.x on ua~s ~'ai4+ira~ ~pidrTa- i I r°-ARCL Y 1- ~y~ j 1 I + am m m~i ~~I ~i~ j I ! ~--~a~-~' I I PMIOB.'C' ; 5~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ K1/.91/. MMi/.Y1 I ~ ~ w Q1HIpW1 ~l~ LLC) I /~ IB 1/. t 1/. I b I (wamrn iia uc7 p ,t 2uw6 C-6 I F ! °j ~~`w ar cw-w~iV~ ~~lf MOQfwI[M ~~1111b6TAR M VYPlfi •~[ I K y IMy I I ~! 1Kt I ~s ~• I I 22 23 Exhibit D C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. Annexation 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: a. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; The Applicant is proposing to annex all of the subject 80.62 acre property with a C-G zoning district. Staff fmds that the proposed zoning map amendment is not consistent with the FLUM and does not comply with the applicable provisions of the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP). b. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds that the proposed map amendment to C-G is not consistent with the FLUM designations for this site as the size and scale of commercial uses & structures accommodated in the C-G district will exceed that desired in the TMISAP for this area. c. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council consider rely on any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. d. 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, Staff 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. e. The annexation is in the best of interest of the City (iJDC 11-SB-3.E). Staff fmds that annexation of this property and subsequent zoning of the site to C-G is not consistent with the future land uses designated on the FLUM and the objectives contained in the TMISAP for this area of the City. Therefore, staff finds that the annexation and zoning of this property with a C-G district as proposed by the applicant is not in the best interest of the City and should be denied. Exhibit D