The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutEmail from Anna Canning Message Page 1 of 3 Jessica Johnson ---~"_.,"-----,- '~'-'- --~--""'-'- From: Anna Canning Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 9:33 AM To: Jessica Johnson; Will Berg; Tara Green Subject: FW: MFD Position Statement Jessica, please include this in the record for the UDC text amendment. ABC Anna Borchers Canning, AICP City of Meridian Planning Director -------"'.,~--'-~,.,'-,---~----~"'- '------,"",.,-,-- From: Dave McKinnon [mailto:dmckinnon@congergroup.com] Sent: Monday, February 06, 20062:52 PM To: 'David Bailey'; 'Cornel Larson'; 'David Turnbull'; Anna Canning; 'Sherry McKibben'; 'Becky McKay'; 'Brad Miller'; 'John Forsythe'; Tammy de Weerd Subject: RE: MFD Position Statement I like Dave's analysis. I have worked on a couple of potential TNR projects and they have been modified to meet the R-15 standards rather than comply with the proposed TNR requirements. One other odd part about TNR sudivisions is the inbility to include "MEW" or open-space fronting lots because they are not alley loaded, but rather "private street loaded". Alley loaded projects inherently require additional infrstructure (and therefore cost), however the increase in density can usually offset the added cost; Unfortunately, the new TNR requirements eliminate the ability to increase density in an attractive manner. Design and appearance should to count for something. Dave On additonal thought: Why do TNC districts require a minimum of 6 acres of land? I can't think of an existing "TNC" like area in the greater Treasure Valley that is that big or bigger that functions like a "neighborhood center". Am I missing or forgetting something? --'~--_.,_.,.,------,---""-,--,---_.,'" -"-"-~--"--'-'--'- From: David Bailey [mailto:dbailey@baileyengineers.com] Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 12:36 PM To: Cornel Larson; David Turnbull; Anna Canning; Sherry McKibben; Becky McKay; Brad Miller; David McKinnon; John Forsythe; Tammy de Weerd Subject: RE: MFD Position Statement I agree that the MFD's requirements will make development under the TNR standards less desireable than standard R8 or R15 development from a cost standpoint. I have completed a TNR style layout and it is already difficult to meet the minimum net density of 8 per acre. The development I did the work on did not pencil due to the small lots sizes and relative expense of the amount of road improvements and the developer dropped the project. It will most likely be resubmitted as a standard R8 by a different owner. That said, I am not sure that, even with reduced street standards, this type of development is going to be feasible given the current market. Some smaller properties may benefit from the increased density but on a larger property (say >10 acres) it will be difficult to justify over a standard R8 and will fall flat compared to an R15 development. I believe that the city should insist that the fire department's arguments be based on an analysis of Chapter 5 of the Uniform Fire Code. Each requirement should list the code section basis and the fire code official's interpretation and authority to make the interpretation. There is no single reference to the IFC in MFD's position statement. One item in particular that was not addressed is that the maximum 500 foot block length would ensure 4 points of access - two on the street and two from the alley. This should be considered in the fire department's analysis as the IFC only requires one point of access. 2/9/2006 Message . - Page 2 of 3 In addition, the fire department should obtain and consider some actual data concerning frequency of fires in garages and other areas. I am sure that they would like a perfect world but the reality is that fire protection (including the IFC requirements) , like engineering, is based on a balance of the cost to the public versus the protection provided. The City Council has the authority to override (at their political peril of course) the Fire Chiefs recommendations but that decision should be based on a thorough analysis of the code requirements and established Fire Department interpretations of the allowed code exceptions. It should be noted that section 503 of the IFC allows the fire code official to extend (loosen) the minimums but does not address making them more restrictive. In addition, Section 503.2 - Specifications lists several items which "shall be determined" by the fire official - can the fire department provide the Council with their written policy concerning these items so they can be reviewed by the city council to help them decide what the proper outcome should be? It appears to me that there is a valid disagreement between the planning department and the fire department regarding any type of alley loaded development. This issue needs to be resolved as it applies to the other zones specified in the UDC as well as the TNR. This discussion needs to get in front of a fully informed city council so the city can move forward with its goals. Thank you, David Bailey Bailey Engineering, Inc, dbailey@baileyengineers.com -----Original Message---n From: Cornel Larson [mailto:cornel-larsonarc@cableone.net] Sent: Sunday, February OS, 2006 11:35 AM To: David Turnbull; Anna Canning; Sherry McKibben; Becky McKay; Brad Miller; David McKinnon; John Forsythe; David Bailey; Tammy de Weerd Subject: Re: MFD Position Statement (208) 938-0013 Anna: I agree with David. This will use more land than a standard subdivision layout. So why do it. Cornel ---h Original Message mn From: David Turnbull To: ðnnaGanoJn9 ; She~fv!cKibben ; B~ç!sy_McKêY ; I3raq Mill@[ ; QavidJV1cKinno"n ; ,ÇQ!]llil: larsonarç.@~bleof1e.nm ; ~ohnForsyth~ ; Q.l;>ailey~aileyengine~rs.cOIJ} ; Iamrn--YJte Weerd Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 2:30 PM Subject: RE: MFD Position Statement 2/9/2006 Message Page 3 of 3 I guess the city will have to decide whether it wants any TNR development or not. I certainly wouldn't build another one under MFD's standards. I'm sure that would be just fine with MFD. DWT From: Anna Canning [mailto:canninga@meridiancity.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 1:34 PM To: Sherry McKibben; Becky McKay; Brad Miller; David McKinnon; David Turnbull; cornel- larsoJJ9tÇ@cableone.net; John Forsythe; dbaile¥.@þaileyenginßers.com; Tammy de Weerd Subject: FW: MFD Position Statement Importance: High FYI Anna Borchers Canning, AICP City of Meridian Planning Director ---'-_....~--...._----..~,---_. ..--.._---,-,_._--_.._----~- .. ,,----,- "..--..--m........~- From: Judy Gerhart Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 12:58 PM To: Anna Canning; Craig Hood; Will Berg Subject: MFD Position Statement Attached is the Meridian Fire Department's Position Statement on the Text Amendments to the Unified Development Code Judy Gerhart for Deputy Chief Joe Silva, Fire Prevention 2/9/2006