PZ Recs/Staff ReportSTAFF REPORT Hearing Date: December 6, 2011
TO: Mayor & City Council E IDIAN~--
FROM: Sonya Wafters, Associate City Planner I D A H O
208-884-5533
SUBJECT: AZ-11-001 -Ten Mile Annexation
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 116.25 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.)
The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these item_s__.on July 21. and September 1,
2011. At the public hearing on September ls`. the Commission moved to recommend denial of
the subiect AZ request.
a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing:
i. In favor: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions
ii. In opposition: None
iii. Commenting: Chris Penland
iv. Written testimony: Brad Boe; Kevin Shreeve; Richard & Patsy Fedrizzi
v. Staff presenting application: Sonya Waters
vi. Other staff commenting on application: Pete Friedman
b. Kev Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission:
i. The consistency of the proposed C-G zoning in regard to the intent of the Ten Mile
Interchange Specific Area Plan and the future land use designations for the property;
ii. The appropriateness of C-G zoning directly adiacent to residential without a
development plan (no transition in zoning/uses).
c. Kev Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation:
i. None
d. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council:
i. None
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.)
Ten Mile Annexation AZ-11-001 PAGE 1
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; 51215417210;
51215417400)
Owner(s):
Janicek Properties, LLC
270 E. Connemara Lane
Eagle, ID 83616
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 (Commission); September 12. and
26.2011 (City Council)
C. Notices mailed to subject property owners on: July 23, 2011 (Commission); September 8.2011
(City Councip
D. Applicant posted notice on site(s) on: July 11, 2011 (Commission); September 24.2011 (City
Council
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:
Ten Mile Annexation AZ-11-001 PAGE 2
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.
• 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.
Ten Mile Annexation AZ-11-001 PAGE 3
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)
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. C for 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.
Ten Mile Annexation AZ-11-001 PAGE 4
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-IS, 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
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. Oj~ce,
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
principalpermitted uses; two family dwelling duplexes and recreationalfacilities 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
Ten Mile Annexation AZ-11-001 PAGE 5
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 FL UM 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
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 % 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
Ten Mile Annexation AZ-11-001 PAGE 6
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.
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 corridors
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.
Ten Mile Annexation AZ-11-001 PAGE 7
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;
the access depicted as #3 to Ten Mile Road should only be an emergency access if approved by
ACHD. 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.
Ten Mile Annexation AZ-11-001 PAGE 8
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)
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.
Ten Mile Annexation AZ-11-001 PAGE 9
• 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 staff 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
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 TN-
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
11-2D-S for the TN-C zoning district apply to this site if the zoning recommended by staf)`'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
Ten Mile Annexation AZ-11-001 PAGE 10
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).
IX. ANALYSIS
A. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation:
The Applicant requests approval to annex a total of 116.25 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
Ten Mile Annexation AZ-11-001 PAGE 11
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
Planning Director
5. Ten Mile Interchange Commercial Traffic Analysis -Response from Gary Inselman, ACHD
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 Pagc 3
- .,,
~; ; --
___~ _ _
--.,. ~ ---- - ~ ~ 1
,~ ` ~~ ~' ~ ~ I ~ ~_,~ i
~..~.
3. Proposed Collector Street Network
Exhibit C Page 4
3. Ten Mile Interchange Commercial Traffic Analysis -Response from Pete Friedman, Deputy
Planning Director
~~E IDIZ IAN~-
~/
March 14, 20I 1
Mr. Gsiy Inscltrtan
Ada County Highway i)istrict.
3?i5 Adams Street
Garden City,. tb R:1714
Stll3JfX:T: TEN MILE INTERCHANCrE W'E'ST ACCESS ANA'YLSIS
C)ear Q~~:
Mayor Tammy de Wterd
pqr WtantN tWambers:
t~~th Bird
Bras Haaglu~
thanes itamtree
Oa+rid Zaremba
This is in responsa is the Tern Mile tuterchang+c Cotnmcrcal Traffic Analysis dated Felxuary I5,
2t)l l >xy IJabie Eaigirteering. Gity aC Meridian P]anairtg and Pubtie 1A+orks staff have revic~d
the s~tysis, prrapostd right of way alignments stud aroetses for consisbtttcy adtlt the Ten Mile
Interc}aattge tSpearific Area Plan {TMISAF}. In the a6scrtcc of specific development plans we ate
in gmaal agtrti with the underlying asztnttptans of the study and rsoane of the prbpased
access paints.. We one of the apiniaa that it wrould ba beneficial to wait until specific
det~alaFwnerti plans are propascd to dotermine other acoesses.
V4'e t+ecagnize that the artxlysis is coriectty based an tree adapted lend use designadaras aCthr
TMISAP at~en though the precise land utxa are not identified, Vljhila the FAR ernpioyed in the
at~tysis (,5p) is lower tluut anticipated in the TMISAP it seems reasonable since the.
retxrrnrnended I:ARs in the plan do sot account for road rights of way sad alleys. Thos, wa one in
~cral agroerrtern with the asstttttptidns
With regard to the pwpaacd accesses. vt~e recognize and sapport tine District's policy of
idctrkifying arecse at the time of development app[icatlon and appreciate the District`s flexibility
'tn reviewing rite ptapt>sed accesses and right of w•ay alignments itt this unigwc situatitan. Based
mt our review of the analysis ><tul the proposed acc~aes afar eomments are dirextcd to speciFc
arCaS aJ] the aittnchod rasp whir 4Utrae~raiir-jt numeric tatxis;
We defer to the r3isrri~ct on the {t-cation of the access to the west side of Ten Mk Road.
that would tae located on the: north. portion of the lanicek prapetty m the south portion. aC
the Carney ply (~ ~
A,pprvval ofthe atcaessesprapased for the north and txarihfsouth collectors slwuld tae
del`emcd until a :gprecific devetopmertt p#an is proposed. frt order to tictermine the prc~isa
location. and fitt~ctionality. (Z)
PtiinttM+g Qepartrnatat . 33 E. &oawraiy, Meridyrs, iD 831342
Rhona 2U6~88+1.5533 . Fax X08-~8ty8.8&54 . wruw.mericiiancity.org
Exhibit C Page 5
141r. Dart' Inselmara
Pagc 2
• The e#inr.`t aecosg from the Fexlrir.~ property to Text Mile Road should be limited to
"emergency only" until such time as eriher aer, to that property can be acl~evted. Tha
prapossed driveway amass to the Fe~riixxi property on the nort6~outh c~lkctar should be
approved. (3)
• Un tht south side of the south collector road we recommend that first right in-tight out
west of Tex-1•~le RR-ad be Approved. as 'ell As the left W right in - right out located to
the west ofthAt ACQlsB.(4)
VVo Are of the npinkm that the access lacAted on the we~tera edge of the S3JV property be
approved ks conUert with a apccific development praposa! aad coasidctAtion be given to
1ncAting it on the e.otnmon property i'ene wlth Mcridieaa l l $. (S)
+ (>xt the north. side of the south collector we recatruryead fat approwai of the Access
ttnmetliately east ofthe roundsttwut (th And rr~commend that Action or- the atbcr two be
deferres2 ("J) until a ~pccfic d~lapment application. is tcndared foresonsidetation. in
aehliGan wr Arc unsure of the necessit}+ of the left in turning movement as proposed for
that tnddlc access. (>~
Ti~arslc you fur cansidctation o#'taur comments. Please feel free lv cal[ ifyou have any questions
ur .vould like t4- mast w discuss the pre~rasexi alignmrnta.
ly, O
~•-~~
F`~P
Ueputy Dirrctor
Cc Anna Caoniag
i3le~icy McKay
Pat I3abie
Tim c`ea~ns
Access should be moved
to the property line
`rah
-sv- -~ r~+a~#
rrmrc rwr
wweaw.
'f
~,
r~
~ ~°
~
.,~
T + e
e~e
i~
s i
. ~
r~~
~. r
~~~ ~
_ _
aMraieeix
~f
e
~ a•c~e+r,-~ e ,
~
,
~~~~ 6 -
~
...~
i a,. { _ _ __ ~ f
Emergency access only if
approved by ACHD
Exhibit C Page 6
4. Ten Mile Interchange Commercial Traffic Analysis -Response from Gary Inselman, ACRD
March 17, 2p11
s~r~y McKay
Engineering Solutiar-s, LLP
1b29 N. Rosario Street„ Smote 1{)f)
Meridian, Idaho $3642
RE: Ten Mite tntelChange 1Aleit Aeo®si Attalyala
[dear ~edKy~
s w. ~r~ad, ,t
]Wen S. Franden, vice PN~iaer-t
tarot A. FIdC~c, GamrnBSinner
Sera M. @akrr, Cnrnm
0~1d L: Caen, cflmm~ion~r
AGtiQ has reviewed the Technical Merraarandum (Memo) firam DoWe i:r~gineering, trio, dated t=eba~uary
15, 2f11'1 which you hand delivered at our meeting on March 2, 201 i. Concurrent with our review of the
traffic enatyreie, ACH[} requested then city of Meridian review and verity #hrf tend use assur~tionse
Enolosed is the City of Meridian tether dated Mich 14, 201 t verifying general agr~eernent with the tend
use asaumptiar~s es well as taomments an the primed access points,
The Memo referenoed using inforrnauon from the Lortmer Study #vrr the Ten Mile Interd~ar~e as wad
as the study :prepared by Ht3R. Please provide ooples of the relevant sections from these studies from
which the information was obtakx~d. The tVlemo also references Appendix A, B and G. These w~ riot
included M the subnni#tal. Please pr+avide a copy of the appenc~ces.
ACHD offers the following comrrer~s an the proposed access paints absent the inforrnsrtion t~equested
aboue< For consistency ofi revw of tte comments I will utif~e the numeric labels from the City's letter
and attached maps
The north mess road (1) located on the south po+rlion of the Cat~ney prraperty is listed as a new
signalized intersection in the AAen~o. A signal has not been approved at this location by ACHD
and will not tae cortaidered a##his time. None of the information arrd data submitted to date from
.any t#otaroe~ has indicetttd ttae need to signa~ze this future interse~don, Revise the Memo to
ramous the consideration of a signal at this location..
The propo~d iocatiorts for the accesses on the north collector and the northlsouth coltecDOr (2)
generally conform to ACl-1t3 paliicy as proposed and. would be approved.
The proposed id"wnsci eecees to "Ton.Mile Road from the Fedriul pasreel (9) was lest ahovMn ae ar-
emergency acoests only. There is no explanation as to why the proposal now inductee a direct
~rcces$ ko Ten Mile Road, This access does not confiorm to ACHD policy amt will neat be
cs~nsidared. The access #o the street a# the west side of She parcel oor-fiorms to ACHD policy
and would he approved.
The proposed access point Ioeatior,s on the south col lector ~4r $, 6, 7, and 8) generally corrfortn
to ACHD policy, ACHD wiN wtihhald comment on the fiunctbn and operation of the aacessas
until the informatfan requested abate has been mod.
Ttte proposed r~ttt-of-way layout appears to be sufiricent for the proposed roadways:. t would
suggest a more de#ailed review of required right-of-way for the various roadway se~n~eri#s
with bath ACF~ and the City of Meridian before legal descriptions ~e prepared.
__rt~ Guusiy HiphviaY bistric# • 3775 Adams Strut • Garden t7kY. ID • 63ii4 • RH (2Q9~ 387-51a4 • Ff( 387-6393 • www.adid,ada id.us
Exhibit C Page 1
As ws descusssd, a~provai of any access pants will bs co~a-Qsnt upon the pare developing
consi$I+er~t ti~+rith tfie latxf uae arsaumptiona within the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan and are
sutr}eCt to Change ar mac~fication ff the proposed Isr-d uses sncUor traff'~c conditions chanfle in tfis
future. All future development of the parcels will be subJect to the ACHD policy in effect at the tlme floe
application is received by A~HD_
If you have any ques!bons you may contact meat 367-t~170~
Sdnce~rely,
..
p` t
Gary Irtselman
(tanager„ I^ti~ht-of Way and Clevetopmertit Services
Enclosure: City of I~Aerldian ketter dated March 14, 2Ut
Cc: Pete Friedman, tvity of Meridian
Pet Doble
Exhibit C Page 2
B. Annexation Legal Description & Exhibit Map
June 8, 2011
DESCRIPTION FOR MERIDIAN CITY
PROPOSED ANNEXATION
PARCEL "A"
(JANICEI{ PROPERTIES LLC)
T. 3N. R. 1 W., B.M., Ada County, Idaho,
A parcel of land located in the NE'h of Section 15, ,
more particularly described as follows: t:ommencing at the southeast corcer of the NE 1/4 (the East'/•
comer) of said Suction 1 S, the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING of this description, from which the
Northeast corner of said Section 1 S 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 89°14'44" West, 1321.59 feet along the south line of the SW'/. of the NE'/. to
the southwest corner of the SW '/. of the NE'/a (the Center'/. comer of said Section l S);
Thence North 00°36'5 t" East 1328.84 feet along the west line of the SW'/• of the NE'/. to the
northwest corner of the S W '/. of the NE 1/4;
Thence South 89°1 S'OS" East, 1320.97 feet along the north line of the SW'/. of the NE'/. to
the northeast confer of the SW y. of the NE'/.;
Thence South 89°1 S'OS" East, 1320.97 fuel along the north kne 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 thu east line of the SE'/. of the NE'/, to the
REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 80.62 scree, more or less.
REVI ROVAL
BY
JUN 2 2 2011
90418-Puce) A-Aanexatlon.doc MERIDIAN PUBLIC
WORKS DEPT.
Exhibit C Page 3
June i, 2011
DESCRIPTION N'OR MERIDIAN CITY
PROPOSED ANNEXATION
PARCEL "B"
(FEDRIZZI TEN MILE LLC)
A parcel of land located 1n the NE'/. of the SE'/. of Section 1 S, T. 3N., R. 1 W., B.M., Ada
Couaty, Idaho. more particulafly ducn'bed as fol}ow:: Commencing at the aortheaat corner of the SE
114 (the Eat'/. comer of aald Section I S), the REAL POINT OF BEGIIVNING of this deacrtption,
from which tl~ Southeast corner of said Section 1 S bears South 00°30'03" West, 2659.46 feet;
Thence South ~°30'03" West, 278.00 feet along the east line of the NE'Y. of the SE y, b a
point;
Thence North i9°!4'44" Wut, 800.00 feet parallel with the north line of the NE'/. of tlx SE i,
to a point;
Thence North 00°30'03" East 278.00 feet parallel with the east line of the NE'/. of the SE y. 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 Y. to the
REAL POINT 08' BiCGINNING. Containing 5.11 acres, more or lua.
REVi PROVAL
BY .--
}UN 2 ~ 2011
MERIDIAN PUBLIC
WORKS DEPT.
90411-Pvicel &Mnwaion.doc
Exhibit C Page 4
June 8, 20 t I
DESCRIPTION FOR MERIDIAN CITY
PROPOSED ANNEXATION
PARCEL"C"
(SJJV LLC)
A puce) of land located in the NE'/. of the SE '/. of Section t S, T. 3N., R. 1 W., B.M., Ada
County, Idaho, more particularly deaeribed as follows: Commencing at the northeast eotnu of the SE
1/4 (the East'/. coma of said Section 1 S~ from which the Southeast comet' of said Section 1 S bears
South 00°30'03" West, 2659.46 fat;
Thettce South 00°30'03" West, 278.00 feet along the east line of the NE Y+ of the SE'/+to fhe
REAL POINT OF BEGINNING of this description;
Thence South 00°30'03" West, 736.74 feet along the east line of the NE'/. of dte SE y. to a
Point;
Thence North 89°34'08" West, 233.31 feet to a point on the northerly tight of way of Interstate
a4;
Thence along the said ~rtherly right of way the following courses and distances:
Thetu:e South 47°33'03" West 109.09 feet;
Thence 3out6 66°34'30" Went 103.73 feet;
Thetnx 3oudt 80°09'21" West 150.16 fed;
Thence Soudt 76°Ol' 13" West 330.69 feet;
Thence South 79°34'26" West 177.77 fat;
Thrace South H4°46'38" West 162.73 feet;
Thence South 18°47'05" West 108.28 feet to a point on the west line of the NE Y. of the SE
I/4;
Thence leavir~ said northerly right of way North 00°33'27" Eat 1299.33 fed abng the west
line of the NE'/+ of the SE'/. to dte northwest corner of the NE N. of the SE 14;
Thence South 89° l4'44" East, 321.59 led along the north line of the NE Y+ of the SE y, to a
point;
Thence South 00°30'03" Wei, 278.00 feet parallel with the east Gne of the NE'/+ of the SE '/+
to a point;
Exhibit D
Thence South i9° l4'14"Rat, 100.00 6met par~lel with the twtGt tine of the NR S. of the SE Y.
to ttw REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Conhinini 30.52 ^us0. more a ba.
pL lAiyp
p T
~~
~(( r
`be't e•'~
RE PPROV~-
[3Y ''--
1UN 2 2 2011
WORKS QEPTIC
t+04 U-Puoet_GMnsxubn.da
Exhibit D
..2~5Y5'l.ffi~I.., wo i ~
` ~•~'fm~ii M+o1 ~ ~»ara~. svwx 16 t•
1 N.
I ~ ~
I II 1J
.c v. r W I .. W. a~/. fi~ R ./. r./. ly
I k FI
~' uq ~ ~ ~ (u•o me uq ~ '
I~
6 I "`•'~
I y
I 1~
g 1 '~ f
~~~
~ I
I I j '~
6 I ,~~.
I I • N•r
I i S • wow ••
^y^& / ~ a _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~p ~ 4wm MbeAln Yq nj~p N_ 1 ~ F = __ _ _ _ ~~ R
1 -~
i
!I! I ~//!
~~l• o..•I I ,~ // •• ~~~ ~ I•ai•.•..•..
i \ ~Y4Y IIYT ,
I ~ {~~MCdY ~ pM•1Or~
I ` ~~ i MRY '
I 1 1-"~>t~ ~.
I 1
~ NIM'~'C I , i
w!Q AiE11!!e
~c Ww+/. 1 ~iiN I ~~ ~~ i
1 ;~ mw: es I ~ ~ Q t
I r
I I ~~ r M~
~ I •s ~• ~~
I u as
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 116.25 acre property with a C-G
zoning district. The Commission finds 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;
The Commission 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;
The Commission finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare. The Commission recommends that the Council consider 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,
The Commission finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse
impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this
site.
e. The annexation is in the best of interest of the City (UDC 11-SB-3.E).
The Commission finds 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, the Commission 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