Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 2, 2006 P&Z Minutes .' .., , .~ Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 84 of 113 Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of Al 05-065, to include all staff -- the staff report and with the modifications in the motion. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 16: Public Hearing: ZOA 05-002 Request for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment with the areas to be amended include: the Definitions of collector streets, adult entertainment, and net density; the standards for the Traditional Neighborhood Residential Districts; the fence standards; the table detailing the Decision-Making Authority by Application; changes to application requirements; how to measure block length; screening and chainlink fencing; requirement for certificates of zoning compliance; off- street parking space standards and measurements; off-street loading space requirements; family day care standards; and sign standards for family day care by the City of Meridian Planning Department. Rohm: Okay. And I want to thank you folks for sticking around here and we are -- it looks like we are going to get to our last item on the agenda. So, at this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on lOA 05-002 and start with the staff report. Canning: Commissioner Rohm, could we have just a moment. We need to get another presentation loaded on, so we have to shut this one down for just a moment. Rohm: Absolutely. You take all the time you want. Canning: I think that officially comes under the terms aiding and abetting the enemy, but that's okay. Thank you for waiting, Commissioners. Shall I start? Rohm: Absolutely. Canning: Thank you. Commissioners, we have a very exciting thing before you tonight. When we started the Unified Development Code, one of the major objectives was to incorporate a portion of what had been in north Meridian area plan regarding getting some traditional neighborhood development standards actually into the code that were a district option. The north Meridian area plan had proposed some standards that were going to be adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan and we wanted to take those and, instead, create a unique zoning district that would allow for traditional neighborhoods to be built and by traditional neighborhood, what we -- what we are referencing is some of the -- actually, the newer developments that are looking to the old style of platting where you had an alley, where you had fairly narrow lots, and, then, where you had a street section that came together and was a little closer and tried to create a neighborhood feel. So, a very gridded pattern with alley access properties. So, as we developed the UDC, we had included those, but as it got closer to the time for ,. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 85 of 113 it to be reviewed by you all and by City Council, the fire department and the police department expressed some concerns with those standards. So, we decided to hold up -- they wanted to have an opportunity to talk to the Process Improvement Group, who had worked on those standards, and they wanted to work with them to see if we could come up with some compromise solutions or some alternative. So, we went ahead and just kind of adopted a blank table when it went before City Council. It was -- there was asterisks in the whole table that said to be determined by Council at time of the plat approval or development approval. But we have gone back and we now have those standards for you. And this is -- some of the history is detailed in my memo to the -- that was submitted for the application. We did meet with the fire department and the police department to try and come up with some alternative provisions, but we were unable to reach any sort of agreement or compromise. So, you have an unusual situation tonight where you have two staff departments that have politely agreed to disagree on this topic. So, the fire department will be presenting their case for why you shouldn't adopt these standards tonight. I'm going to refer to that -- to that memo, because it does layout a couple things. When the PIG group -- the Process Improvement Group met with the fire department and the police department, they did come -- they did add additional standards to the draft provisions that had been in the previous version of the UDC and those were specifically to address the fire department and police department concerns and I wanted to go over that. They did do special -- they looked at when a reduced street section would be appropriate with regard to when the developer provided off-street parking and I will go through those in a minute. The other thing they did is to look at where fences were located, because this was a concern of the police and to the fire department and to give some specific regulations for these districts as to when that would -- how that would occur. They also looked at fences down side property lines and when that would be appropriate and not appropriate. And they also added some provisions regarding lighting, so that to address some of the police department concerns related to alleys becoming an attractive nuisance. And you will spot these as I go through the proposed language that's -- or the language that's proposed before you tonight. But I did want to point out, though, that those were added -- the PIG group felt that those were important to address, the police and fire department's concerns, yet we were still not able to come to consensus on these standards. So, the first thing I'd like to do is go ahead and go through what we are proposing briefly. You all have it in your staff report. I think everybody in the audience has a copy as well. So, we -- or they are close to a copy if they don't have one in their hand, so -- I will go through it briefly. The first thing we did was to give some clarity on the purpose statement. The Comprehensive Plan talks about these having a density of eight units to the acre, so we did go back and make that consistent in the purpose statement. We had reduced it to six thinking it would be a gross number and, then, we kind of went back and bumped it back up to eight to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. But we did make it clear that that was an eight net units to the acre, instead of an eight gross units to the acre. We also added the definition for net density, since we were using that term now. We had to go and give a definition of what that would be. The first major thing we get to is that Table 11-2D2. This is a brand new table. Basically, we just took out everything that was in there and developed a brand new table. And this is the dimensional standards for alley accessed property in the TN- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 86 of 113 R district. As we went through we decided that it was really appropriate that the alley access properties had different standards than the street access properties. So, the first table you see is the alley accessed properties. And they would have a minimum density of eight net and a maximum of 15 net. The minimum front setback would be ten feet. The minimum rear setback -- if you have a parking pad -- now the parking pad is this 20-by-20 pad at the rear of the property, so off the alley that allows for off-street parking. So, you have got two cars parked in the garage. It's mandatory to have at least a two car garage for the city. And, then, also this 20-by-20 pad. So, you're really accommodating four off-street parking spaces for each residential home when you have got that parking pad. So, if you have got the parking pad, it would be five feet to a garage and/or living area and with that parking pad it's 20 to the garage and five to the living area. The minimum side setbacks for property lines for detached single homes -- family homes would be four feet. If they are attached, obviously, you have got a zero lot line there. Minimum side street setback off the alley would be five feet, off the local street ten. And that's consistent with the front setback. And off a collector it would be 20 feet. They did want to require -- and this was a new thing, too. To require that these developments have an eight foot parkway with class two trees and a five-foot sidewalk. So, that's an option under our code, but they actually required it of all these developments to have that separated sidewalk. The street landscape buffer was the local streets -- again, were required to have the eight foot local -- or the eight foot parkway with class two trees. Collector, you could go down to 13 feet and this was just enough to accommodate the eight foot parkway with a five foot sidewalk. Arterial 25. Entryway corridor 35. Interstate 50. Maximum building height 40. And those are the same throughout each one. Did want to remind you that some of these notes are rather important. Setbacks are measured from the back of the sidewalk or the paved surface of the alley as applicable. So, we are not measuring from property lines. Really, the important distance was from the edge of the alley pavement or the edge of the sidewalk. So, that's where we are measuring from. And, then, the -- some of those are build to setbacks. And that was the -- without the parking pad, that five feet. What we were concerned with is if it gets anywhere between five and 20 feet, people are tempted to park. It's pretty clear you can't fit a car in a five foot space. Just not going to work. Even if you're trying to parallel park it, it really doesn't work. So, it was a build to setback. You either met that 20 feet or you brought it up to five feet. Okay. The next setback is for the -- or next table is for the street access properties and I'll just go through a little bit of what's different. The front setback, instead of being ten feet, it's 20 feet to the garage and to accommodate that 5-20 pad and ten feet to the living area. Minimum rear setback is 12 feet. Side setbacks are the same. And street landscape buffers are the same, except for the collector is wider. This assumes that the -- that the houses are oriented a different way, so that's why it gets a little wider. You're assuming that because these are street access, that the back of the homes are facing the collector. Whereas you wouldn't make some assumption on an alley. So, that's why it's wider. You have got the eight foot landscape, the five foot setback, and you need a little additional landscaping there between the sidewalk and the fence or back of the property. And, then, we get into a very interesting section and you may have to think and I apologize, because it's very late, but it gets a little tricky. There were some optional street widths that we have proposed and they really kind of key on the fact of Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 87 of 113 whether you have this 20 by 20-foot parking pad. Okay. And so if you have got four off- street parking spaces, basically, it allows for a reduced street section, where if you're not providing that, then, you're going to kind of our standard street section. So, the first one is for alley access properties that provide a parking pad, that parking pad has to be 20-by-20 and, then, the alleys would have a 20-foot right of way with 16-foot of that paved. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and Director Canning, I would like to discuss that one. If you're on E1 B. Canning: Yes. Zaremba: Even though the alley right of way is 20 feet wide, if the pavement only needs to be 16 feet wide and, then, the pad is measured from the edge of pavement, you end up losing four feet -- well, two feet on a side of really the depth from the garage to where the roadway bed would be. I mean the parking pad would be two feet on each side into the right of way, wouldn't it? Canning: Yes. But that was -- the 20 feet was -- that was our minimum that we have been requiring throughout the city from the edge of sidewalk. So, sometimes the edge of sidewalk is in a person's property, sometimes it's in the right of way, and we made that decision with the UDC to go with the edge of sidewalk, so that we get those minimum dimensions. Zaremba: Shouldn't we, then, require, though, that the pavement of an alley go all the way to the edge of the right of way? Canning: That's certainly a topic for discussion tonight, yeah. Borup: Or the other option -- Zaremba: Anybody else want to argue with me? Borup: Or the other option would be that it would be measured from the right of way, rather than from the pavement. Wouldn't that be the other option? Zaremba: Well, then, you could have -- put a strip of bare ground or gravel or something in between. Borup: Well, no, you wouldn't want that. Zaremba: On each side. Borup: No. You would have a 22-foot driveway. Zaremba: Well, that would work. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 88 of 113 Canning: Commissioner Rohm, Members of the Commission, I would get -- maybe I can get through these and I will try and go a little faster, because, otherwise, we will all be asleep by the time I go -- but this is the last major section I wanted to go through in any detail and, then, you might want to take other public comment and, then, have your discussions after that. Okay. So, if you did that 20-by-20 foot parking pad and you would be allowed a reduced street section of 29 feet and, again, measured from back of curb to back of curb, with parking on both sides. If you didn't provide the parking pad, you would still have the 20 foot easement -- alley easement with 16 -- or right of way with 16 feet paved and, then, you would have a couple choices there. You could either do a 33 foot roadway section with parking on both sides or if it were -- if there were not residences on the other side, like say there was a park or an open space, like what you see in Heritage Commons where there is that large open space in front of the alley property, then, you could still have the 29 feet with parking on one side. Is that correct? Let me double-check. Yeah. Parking on one side with the 29-foot. Okay. And, then, for street access properties we wanted to make it clear that we didn't anticipate that these would just be kind of on the perimeter of the property and that most of the lots would be alley access, but if you had street access and if you -- you have to provide a parking pad and so, therefore, you would be allowed the reduced street section of 29 feet with parking on both sides if you requested that. And, then, block lengths would need to meet some certain standards and those were that although they could exceed 500 when a pedestrian pathway is used to break up the block, it is anticipated that most blocks will not exceed the 500-foot requirement. And what this does is this makes this consistent with the ACHD standards for areas that have a gridded street pattern with short blocks and so these -- that 29-foot parking -- or 29-foot section with parking on both sides is an adopted ACHD standard for grid-like developments that have short block, 500 foot blocks. I did want to briefly point out that they added some fence requirements, only having open vision fences no greater than three feet high in the front and that they be wrought iron or similar material. And, then, we cleaned up some of the side yard fences to make sure that there weren't -- if there was only four feet to the property line that we didn't have an intervening fence, because this is a problem for the fire department. So, you can't have four foot of fence and, then, a four foot setback. So, if there is only four feet, then, you wouldn't have a fence. Now, you could do a fence from building to building if there was a use easement similar to what is out at Heritage, but you wouldn't have a fence going the length of the side property line. We also added the lighting and that was that the -- each dwelling unit would have a minimum of two lights at the front of the unit and two lights along the alley. And those lights would be on light sensors, so that they activated as soon as -- at dusk and dawn, basically. And those would be a requirement of those units. I'm going to really quickly go through the rest of the changes. We changed some of the fence stuff. We realized that you couldn't put an arbor over your fence gate and not be in violation of our fence standards, so we went and made some corrections on that. And, then, street collector, our definition really wasn't working and I apologize -- Steve Siddoway gave me alternative language to this and I forgot to bring it. I can -- I can get that to you individually and I can make sure we get a consensus from Compass and ACHD on what the appropriate definition should be. We were referencing something that's incorrect Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 89 of 113 and, unfortunately, the thing we need to reference isn't created yet, but should be created within the next six months or so. So, we are really kind of at a quandary as to what to define at this point, but I think we can come up with something. And, then, we realized that we were a little bit deficient in our adult entertainment -- and you don't really want me to go into that, but if you want me to, I will, so -- vacations, we are recommending some changes here. After -- these were based on what we thought was appropriate at the time. Really, at this point we are a little unclear still on vacations and probably any vacation requires a Public Hearing at City Council is kind of the way we are going, as a determination, regardless of what this says, the city engineer has told us that any vacation application really should go to a Public Hearing, so we are processing that way, unfortunately. We are still trying to work this one out. So, you might see this one again. If you want to adopt it this way you can. If you want to adopt them all as requiring a Public Hearing, you can. We hope to resolve this, but I'm not sure state code will let us at this point. The only thing we did agree on is that the Planning and Zoning Commission doesn't really need to hear vacation applications. That's about the one consensus we have come to on the matter. The other ones are really just clean-up stuff and are not worth taking your time about. We did strike the off-street loading spaces, because they are just -- it's kind of in philosophy with what the parking spaces was. If they are going to need a loading space, they are going to know what it needs to look like. There is no real standard these days, because there is -- it needs vary so much by use. So, we just left it up to them to determine what the appropriate loading space was, if they needed one. So, we were recommending that be struck from the existing code. Just some clarifications to family day care. Some clarifications for parking standards and how parking measurements are done. The figures we had for parking lots were horrible, I apologize, and just didn't have time to get them fixed up with the UDC. We decided it would be better just to explain how to measure them. With the advent of autocad the former tables and -- were really not necessary. They were very complex. So, we just tried to simplify this and this really gets to the same thing. And, then, we were missing some sign provisions for family day cares, so we have added those. And, then, just added some correct numbering for sign tables. So, really, the bulk of the application is the traditional neighborhood residential development standards. I do have some pictures and I sent my photographer out to two places and he forgot that I sent him to two places, so I only have pictures of Soda Springs. Soda Springs was the development -- and I think Mr. Campbell didn't start it, but I think he ended up with it and he has developed it and the other one is Heritage. Most of you, I think, have been out to Heritage and know how that looks, so that's the one that my photographer forgot to hit. So, I just have Soda Springs for you today. The interesting thing about Soda Springs was that it ended up being close to what the standards are that you see today. We tried to take what we knew were some of the deficiencies of these two developments -- these are the only two new alley-loaded projects that have actually been built that we could take pictures of. The other ones you have approved some, but they haven't really been built yet. So, these are the two new guidelines. So, we took what we thought to be the best from those and tried to fix some of the problems. So, Soda Springs here, you -- David's giving me glaring looks. I'm sure Todd will be by the end of this, too. Here you see the reduced front setback where the houses really welcome the street and you see detached sidewalk, although I don't think Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 90 of 113 that's an eight foot planter. The eight feet has been a fairly new one that comes from ACHD. So, the sidewalk planter in the front would be wider. This does look to be about a ten foot setback off the street. So, this is the -- kind of the look we are trying to achieve with these standards. This is the entrance street as you come in. This is a 29- foot back of curb to back of curb street and you see the houses coming out toward that street. This is the alley. Now, I do want to point out that you have got -- here is 16 feet. The actual asphalt paving is 16 feet. There is a two foot ribbon gutter that also is on this side, so -- but the -- this does show a 16-foot alley. Now, the alleys aren't the most attractive thing, so, you know, keep in mind this is an alley. What we found on this one is this is one where the applicant wanted to come closer, but this is too far away. It's too tempting to park in that area, whereas a five foot one would be closer to here. So, this is why we came with the build to line, you either build it five feet or you build back at 20 feet. So, you get the -- the full parking pad in the back. So, this was kind of an example of how we don't -- the distances we don't want these units at. Sorry, Todd. Didn't know he stayed here to be abused, so I apologize to him advance. But this does have a 16 foot alley and the 20 foot right of way, so -- and that was it. And so I just wanted to show you those few pictures of that look that we are trying to hit and this is really -- and if you can imagine the Heritage one looks similar to this. They might be set back a little bit further and Mr. Turnbull can give you a better indication of that. And I guess I'll pass it onto our -- the other staff that's presenting tonight. Silva: Good evening. I should say good morning. Joe Silva, Meridian Fire Department. I'm here to present -- you know, Anna had graciously offered to present the fire department's perspective on traditional style neighborhoods and I almost accepted that when I knew it was going to be probably a little later in the agenda. Thank you, Anna, for conspiring with the enemy. Basically, what the Meridian Fire Department is here to speak to is that -- just like the Planning and Zoning Department and our development community, we are here to promote friendly neighborhoods and I think that was -- I think that was part of the things we heard in the joint meeting with the City Council the other night, that we wanted to promote different planning concepts that promoted a sense of community and we wanted to depart -- a departure from -- from traditional style. I should clarify that. From styles we are accustomed to seeing in Meridian. But as we move through design process and the important decisions that the Planning and Zoning Commission make, we want to make sure that we incorporate things like crime prevention and fire protection. Obviously, in the City of Meridian, the -- do you want to use that picture? Do you want to comment on this picture, Anna? This is Heritage Commons. It's Mr. Turnbull's project. It's a relatively new planning concept to the City of Meridian, so there have been a couple things that we have learned along the way that we want to make sure that as we move forward from this point that we have great planning concepts and good planning guidelines as we move through the process. Obviously, as Anna alluded to in her presentation, one of the things that we see in traditional style neighborhoods are detached sidewalks, larger -- you know, we are trying to get a good greenscape going through there and to get a sense of community and make it a walk-able community. The thing that really challenges the fire department and other folks that need to provide essential services in these communities and these neighborhoods is the fact that we need to have a good network of roads to be able to Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 91 of 113 deliver our services. In particular, obviously, it goes without saying that the fire department has to maneuver large vehicles down through the neighborhoods and we don't have a choice of -- if we pull around the corner on a given day whether or not we are going to choose not to deliver or pick up garbage service or pick up children that may be waiting for a school bus. We have to provide services that the citizens that -- to meet the expectations of our service levels in the City of Meridian. There are a couple of concepts that traditional neighborhoods have in common with some things that we have already in the Old Town. Obviously, alleys are a component there. Some things are concerns -- as neighborhoods mature sometimes the affect or the vision that we had when we set out, these things change as the neighborhood -- as the neighborhood would mature. And so we want to make sure that the vision as we move forward is correct and we are all on the same pages, both working for the city and giving information to our elected officials and our appointed officials and also giving feedback to our development community. Historically, a couple things we have had problems with areas that have alleys is, number one, that we have -- because it's an area that's concealed generally out of public view, children will go in there and they will do different acts of vandalism and also we have had in recent -- in recent months small cases of arson in alleys, so -- and the ever present parking violations that present obstructions when we are not expecting them when we turn the corner. Obviously, when we are talking about single family dwellings in complexes like traditional style neighborhoods, the only form of fire protecting that these particular people have is fire department access and an adequate water supply to suppress the fire. However, when we examine neighborhoods that have already been built -- and this area here is basically between Pine and Idaho east of 5th. We have access problems as the street sections or the alleys grow narrower, we have difficult times accessing the rear of these particular structures. What we are -- what the applicant in this case has proposed as part of this revision in the traditional style neighborhoods is a 29-foot street section with parking on both sides. Just to recap kind of -- and just kind of refresh your memories as a commission on what that really entails, is in the case of Meridian Fire Department, we have worked very closely with the development community and we have, actually, brought out requirements, our standards, into compliance or we have moved them into being consistent with Ada County Highway District, and that being with a 29-foot roadway. We have two ten foot drive lanes, one eight foot parking lane. Anything less that comes before staff or -- that comes before staff, if it has less than a 29-foot drivable surface, there is no parking allowed on that. On a 33-foot roadway -- and I want to note there is an asterisk here. These figures on the left-hand side include one foot for the width of the curb. So, when you do the math on this -- on this chart, I want to make sure that you know that we have included one foot in there for the width of the curb. So, the 30 -- the typical 33-foot street section has two nine foot drive lanes and two seven foot parking stalls. However, we have not been consistent with our surrounding -- and in this case Boise. They require -- they have the same requirement for the 29-foot roadway, but on the -- they don't accept a 33-foot street section, is because they are trying to preserve two foot -- two ten foot drive lanes or a 20-foot fire lane down the center with two cars parked on either side. So, visually that's what that street section looks like. That's a 33 -- excuse me 36. It's late. Thirty-six foot back-to-back typical section and a 33 back-to-back typical section. So, that's what those look like. That's a visual recap of Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 92 of 113 what we just had on the chart. The Process Improvement Group has proposed a 29- foot street width, again one foot for curb, so what we are going to end up with is two seven foot parking stalls, one on each side, and 14-foot net in the center, two seven foot drive lanes. That particular figure, 14 feet, becomes very important and keep that figure in mind as we move forward, if you could, please. So, why does the fire department -- fire code in this -- in the Meridian Fire Department require a 20-foot fire lane? And the reason is -- and it's very hard -- you know, unfortunately, because of your distance from the screen, but when you look at the vehicle, our vehicles, the majority of our rolling stock you will notice presently carries a ladder up front -- excuse me. Up top. I'm sorry. The result -- the reason we had to go to that sort of change in our apparatus is because -- because of our customer base, quite frankly. As you drive vehicles that are more impact resistant, for example, we have to carry extrication equipment on all engines, so we can access the patients that we need to treat in the field. So, it's required that we carry that equipment. The equipment so happens to be in this rear compartment. As our mission has changed and under Council's direction, we have gone in the advantaged life support business. That requires that we carry a lot more medical equipment. So, we had to preserve our -- and develop more compartment space on the fire truck. So, as a result, that's why we have had to go -- when you see the fire truck going down the street with a ladder up top in this general location right here, when the arm that that ladder sits on is dropped down to where a firefighter can access that ladder, it makes that apparatus, with the doors open, because we have to be able to access the fire department equipment contained within these two compartments, the width of the apparatus, which is just simply the doors open and the ladder rack down, is 15 feet five inches wide. That's not even taking into consideration that a firefighter has to stand at the sides of the apparatus, being able to get into these compartments, with an air tank on his back, and be able to step away and move away to the area where we need to use the equipment. So, you say, well, you know, perhaps we will look at the old apparatus. The old apparatus was eight foot wide, two foot compartment doors. So, even the older style apparatus was 12-foot wide with no room for allowances for firefighters actually getting in here on these compartments -- these side compartments in here to gain access to fire department suppression equipment. Again, kind of alluding to that compartment door issue, we have to be able to open up the passenger doors just to be able to get the firefighters out of the passenger compartment of the apparatus. One other thing is that in the interest of saving space we have used and brought our fire suppression hoses that we use to suppress fires on typical single family dwellings, we have brought them down in easy reach of the firefighters down here in these compartments at the side of the apparatus. These compartments are approximately six feet long and it takes approximately five feet of space to the side of the engine to be able to pull these hoses off and to be able to deploy them and get them up to the front of the structure to attempt to suppress the fire and keep it in check. So, with that -- here, again, is another example -- and I apologize for the size of this picture - - particular picture, but this is the ladder rack down. Obviously, we have parked a fire department vehicle, but this could be a citizen's vehicle here. But there is little room for a firefighter to get in between the ladder rack and the vehicle to remove the ladder should a rescue -- ladder rescue be necessary. Also, the other thing -- this yellow hose here is the hose that we use off the fire hydrants to provide to us, but when this Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 93 of 113 particular fire hose, because of its size -- it's five inches in diameter when it's charged, it sticks out five feet out from the side of the apparatus. So, we need some room -- some operational room in and around the apparatus to be effective. And most importantly, to be efficient with our firefighters, given our limited staffing levels. Sometimes when we turn the corner we can't anticipate that there will be -- there will be delivery vehicles that are parked unexpectedly and they block our single only access into a street. Anna alluded to the 20-foot by 20-foot parking pad. One of our concerns here is that a 16 foot wide alley as proposed, with a 20-foot right of way, one of the concerns is that there may be other things that enter this right of way, this two foot right of way that Anna's proposing would be available to us, one -- two foot on each side of the 16 foot alley, I might add. We have got some examples of some things that are in here that are unexpected obstructions that can hinder the firefighting operations and our ability to be effective when we get to a fire scene. Given the popularity -- here is a very popular vehicle a lot of Idahoans drive, four door pickups, and the problem with providing only a 20-foot pad out there, as we were just discussing, these vehicles are 20 -- have an overall vehicle length of 22 feet. As Commissioner Borup had mentioned, you know, perhaps if we suggest that this pad be 22 feet it would accommodate these vehicles that we are seemingly seeing more often on the streets of Meridian. This is an example -- a lot of folks -- a lot of Idahoans are, in fact, people who enjoy the out of doors. So, it's not -- it wouldn't be rational for us to believe that folks will, you know, not bring their recreational vehicle home to load their camping equipment and their food and prepare for their camping trip for the weekend. So, what we are requesting that this pad out here be extended to 24 feet to accommodate these vehicles that are -- that are being seen on our streets more and more often. Anna's absolutely correct, we have an ongoing problem, you know, this -- this five yard rear setback, which is the distance from the edge of the alley to the front of the garage, one of the concerns there is people will stop and park sideways in there, therefore, partially obstructing that ten foot -- excuse me -- that 16 foot alley that we have available to us or at least we are suspecting may be available to us. So, as the developments age, one of our concerns is that more and more obstructions will show up in these unexpectedly and the problem with that is as you were seeing and reading in the paper today, cities and agencies are becoming more concerned about their ability to control taxes and with that would be our availability of code enforcement people to go in and patrol these sort of situations to insure that the 20-foot easement that we originally designed and approved is, in fact, still available for us. Alleys can become overgrown with landscape, trees, and so forth that that could also affect both our vertical clearances and our horizontal clearances and could quickly diminish the 16-foot wide alley that we have originally approved and moved forward with. So, as to our challenges in working that easement, this is an example of, again, that project just between Pine and Idaho where these fences have. been built right on the edge of that 19-foot alley. So, these are probably, in all likelihood, inside that easement area. Again, code enforcement will become a very difficult and very labor intensive issue to deal with patrolling all these easements. One of the other things that's important to us -- and I know it's been given great debate and Mr. Turnbull has been gracious enough to improve the turning radiuses at Heritage Commons, it can be affected by landscaping or as you will see here forward -- moving forward, sometimes we get trees unexpectedly planted in areas that we are anticipating Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 94 of 113 was within that easement that we originally approved as part of the project approval process. So, then, we kind of look at the anatomy of a turn given a large vehicle that we are trying to maneuver down through here. We have a mailbox and our mirror is just barely clearing this mailbox. So, this is a setup of us approaching into this same alley that I just showed you in the previous slide. Our concern here -- there is really -- there is no vehicle -- there is not that seven foot wide vehicle that could conceivably be allowed to be parked along the curb here, so the anatomy of the turn here -- we could, actually, have been forced over seven more feet. When this particular vehicle made this turn we couldn't make it on a single tweak, we had to make a backing operation and this could occur during emergency operations, then, we tried to make a forward maneuver to go into and down the alley, just barely able to stay on here. Now, this will be approved -- yes. I'm sorry. Anna has corrected me here. This is a 12-foot alley that we are turning onto and Mr. Turnbull has added -- I'll call it a skirt, for lack of a better term, unless somebody else has a better term we can apply here. Mr. Turnbull, can you see -- was that two feet on each side that we improved that? Okay. Suffice to say that we have improved this approach here and it's been widened. Some of our concerns here are these reduced setbacks and it's proposed that these setbacks be as little as four feet. When you consider the width of this eave here, these eave-to-eave dimensions here could be as little as six feet, because we would have eight feet here and it would be reduced by two -- two feet. So, eave to eave here we could be as little six feet, which could allow a fire to spread, you know, if it came out any of these openings on this side of the structure and it would impinge on this -- this adjacent structure here. Some of our concerns also was the combustible vegetation or cyprus that -- or evergreen material that they may form a year around screen just for privacy -- for purposes of privacy, can be highly combustible and propagate the flame on a combustible exterior surface. So, again, our question that we want to pose back and hopefully we get addressed is who will enforce the CC&Rs in these situations as these developments mature. However, we are to believe -- under the belief that given the vision of the city that we can -- we can accommodate a traditional style neighborhood feel or sense when we go down and that can be achieved by requiring porches on the front that allow for seating areas that promote communications between neighbors as neighbors walk down -- walk down the street. Also, you know, encourages the use of detached sidewalks and trees to make the community more walk-able. We can have side loaded garages to remove the concerns that the fire department has over the alleys. So, with that the fire department will stand for any questions should you have any. Rohm: Thank you. That was a good presentation was well. Zaremba: Pretty clear. Rohm: I think what I'd like to do here is go ahead and take our public testimony here and, then, we will try and wrap things up all as one item. So, at this time I'd like to invite Sherry McKibben up. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 9S of 113 McKibben: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'm Sherry McKibben, I'm the Director of the University of Idaho, Idaho Urban Research and Design Center and I'm here to support these changes and to tell you that in my capacity as director of the center we have been working with Meridian since the Treasure Valley Futures project, which was before the comp plan amendments, to encourage traditional neighborhoods and traditional neighborhood centers for the sense of place and the value that it gives to the City of Meridian and also to support alternative transportation by some density of housing and neighborhood uses, alternative transportation being pedestrian, bicycles, and potentially transit, reducing the car trips by allowing people to walk within the neighborhood and to also allow a diversity of housing types and sizes for all ages and incomes for Meridian citizens. 1 have a little Powerpoint presentation myself here. I have done a bunch of research and I'd like to give you a packet of information for the record. I will just go quickly. What I found was that narrow streets and alleys are best in, obviously, residential neighborhoods and if they are the right size for traffic. Best if they are part of a connected grid of short blocks, 250 to 350 feet, and that makes a connected grid such that people could walk in a diagonal pattern through that -- it's sort of a zigzag diagonal pattern through the neighborhood. Safer with on-street parking. Safe with separated sidewalk and planter strip and safer with the bulb outs on the corners, so that a pedestrian at the corner can be seen beyond a parked car. Here are the benefits. Reduced traffic speeds, you know, by traffic calming, fewer fatalities, less crash costs -- that would be crash -- the cost to a victim to property, including vehicles. Efficient use of land. Allows for greater density and reduces sprawl. Allows for more attractive residential environments by spatial enclosure of the street. Less costly to construct and maintain. Less impervious surface. Storm water. Less heat build up by that impervious surface. Sized to meet the actual traffic need. A connected grid disperses traffic, so that it's not all on one or two streets, making the streets able to be narrower. Neighborhood livability and pedestrian friendly and increased property values. And I can go through some of these things. This was the original diagram that I, actually, drew that is in your ordinance right now and it shows a connected grid. It shows accessibility to a commercial center that -- this one is shown in the mid mile there. It shows a little parklet, schools, et cetera. Here was a graph showing impact speed versus pedestrian injury, meaning that the faster a car goes the more chance of more actual injuries occur. Slower speeds are better. Here a reduction in accident -- 15 studies found that traffic calming reported less accidents. A Minneapolis study showed narrow streets with closer buildings reduces speeds. Reduced speeds means fewer accidents. Here was another street width and injury accident rate. These are in the packet if you want to look at them longer, but, in other words, narrower streets reduced speeds and injuries. Best method to reduce streets is to -- or best method to lower the speed is to reduce the width and add planter strips. In other words, add things that are closer to the roadway that make motorists slow down, because they are not sure that there is going to be a fast pathway. Friendly streets. This is, you know, about what makes a valuable neighborhood. Reduced sprawl. Ten feet of street width reduces supply of homes by three to four percentage points. So, in other words, the more land you have for streets, the less you have for homes. I have a number of graphs from the Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Crash cost savings. Narrow streets can look great. Increased property values from reduced traffic volumes and speed. People like to live Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 96 of 113 on quiet streets. Okay. I have a number of alley examples that show that alleys can be friendly and they can be also accessible. This is, actually, a 12 foot alley. These are not -- I don't think many of them are from here, though I think there might some. That was a plan. Here is another alley showing parking. It's a short alley, so it's visible from both ends. This one with denser housing. Shorter setbacks. This one with trees. There are a number of publications that talk about emergency response and the number of factors that are important to think about. A connected street grid is very important, shorter blocks, so that if a fire does happen in the alley, that you might not have to have the truck go in the alley, the hose length from the street at the end of the alley could reach to the middle of the block. Designing streets for everybody is a concern. Balancing all of these many things, I think, is your job. And this is the last slide and this would be beyond narrow streets would be making our arterials so that all of us, as we drive to and from, could see the neighborhood, instead of the backs of fences and homes, so -- thank you. And I can stand for comments. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Great presentation there, but after listening to the fire department, I have got real concerns on this issue now and, basically, what I saw in the presentation was on your narrow alleyways and whatnot, you're anticipating a sign that says no parking is going to, basically, keep the alley clear? McKibben: I think that's a concern, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I think crime and vandalism and violations of parking are a concern to everyone and most subdivisions are planned these days with homeowners associations and CC&Rs and I would think that it would be part of any good neighborhood to be responsible to have their own citizens responsible for monitoring that. Moe: And, then, how long of a -- how long of a section would it be as far as your point about the fire hose? McKibben: Well, a 300-foot block will allow a truck at the end and a hose length of 150, to hit the middle of the block. Both ends. Moe: So, you anticipate that-- McKibben: Yeah. And I think Meridian's downtown blocks are a good example. They are about 300 feet long, if I'm not mistaken. Moe: Okay. Thank you. McKibben: Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Turnbull. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 97 of 113 Turnbull: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is David Turnbull. 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. Appreciate the comments that have been made here tonight. I think that we don't have to look back too far too many years when Meridian was criticized for being very monotonous, all the developments looked alike and one wasn't differentiated from another. Each were just subdivisions, one subversion after another. And I think what you have before you tonight is a proposal that will allow the creation -- encourage, actually, creation of more of these types of neighborhoods. Now, these aren't the only kinds of neighborhoods you can have, but they are certainly one that I think we should have in Meridian city's arsenal that will actually help differentiate this city and provide different living options that I think should be attractive to the city. When we started down this path a number of years ago, probably 1997, when we were doing the planning for Harris Ranch, nobody was building these kind of developments in this town and so we took a lot of time and effort and money and traveled around the country, went to places like Washington DC. We went to Memphis, Tennessee. We went to Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, Washington, and -- where else did we go? We went a lot of different places. We talked to developers that were doing these kinds of developments, we talked to residents that were living in those kinds of developments, we talked to city officials that had approved and were living with these kind of developments and we learned a lot of things. We took a lot of pictures. We had our tape measures out, we measured alleys, and I can tell you that we measured alleys everywhere from nine feet wide to 16 feet wide. We measured streets anywhere from 26 feet wide to probably 32 feet wide. And we looked at sidewalk widths and separation for planters and all of those kinds of things. And we came back and implemented what we found that we thought worked and would work in Boise and, you know, we were doing it for the first time, so we -- I think we hit it pretty well, though, when we did Harris Ranch and I have got to tell you that we have done a lot of different projects around this valley, but the two that I'm most proud of at the present time are the Mill District at Harris Ranch and the Heritage Commons project, because we have successfully incorporated these standards that we are talking about today. I appreciate the concerns of Joe and I appreciate his calm nature in presenting tonight. I know this can sometimes be an emotional issue for the fire department and I know that they have got their list of concerns that they have to deal with. But I think as Sherry noted, safety isn't just a matter of how fast this fire truck can respond, it's also a matter of creating nice livable communities with quiet local streets that benefit the neighborhood, not just on that occasional emergency call, but 24 hours a day every day making those streets safe and enjoyable for the neighbors. I sat on the PIG, the initial PIG, the Process Improvement Group. And this was one thing that we had a lot of discussion about and we have come -- we came up with a set of standards and, then, we sat down and we listened to the fire department's concerns and we modified those standards. We went from 12 foot wide allies to 16 foot wide alleys. We accommodated thing like fence setback standards and build to lines or the parking area pad. I know that, Dave, you mentioned a concern about that two extra feet of paving -- this is no different. This is no different in an alley than it would be in a regular street right of way. You always are -- or generally have some area that's in the right of way that's actually in the front yard of the property owner, so it's not any different there. And I think that we Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2. 2006 Page 98 of 113 have accommodated that with our 20-by-20 parking pad. That's the same thing that would be required in a front street. The alley shouldn't be any different. We -- Joe brings up several points, access problems -- you know, I look at the alleys as an access that they aren't going to have otherwise and so I think it's an added benefit. Or is it going to be the same standard as the street standard? No. It shouldn't be anything close to that. Otherwise, they won't be built. Joe pointed out that Meridian Fire Department has agreed with ACHD standards. I think -- I appreciate that, because I think what they have done so far helps, but the TN-R standards that we are proposing now are very important. I think this is a matter if we are going to do it, let's do it right. And I can tell you -- and I appreciate Joe's concerns and I have read his suggested set of standards, but if those are the standards that Meridian city adopts, I can tell you that our company, for one, will not be building any TN-R in Meridian city. We will have to go somewhere else to do it, because we won't do it unless we can do it right. A lot of the photos that you saw here tonight in these Powerpoint presentations showed you these narrower streets and you can go back and look at them and you will notice that you often don't see very many cars parked on those streets. This isn't a situation where you have bumper-to-bumper traffic on both sides of the street that were impeding the traffic - - or impeding the fire department. So, keep that in mind. I think that what we are suggesting here -- what we are proposing gives the fire department adequate access, adequate operational room. Joe brought up a concern about the four foot side setbacks. I'll just note that I believe -- Anna, you can correct me if I'm wrong -- but that's already a part of the code in the R-8 zone, is it not? Canning: Correct. Turnbull: Okay. So, this is already something that's been adopted by the city and, actually, the International Building Code allows anywhere from three to three and a half foot side yard setbacks. So, I think that that's already been addressed. So, again, we have worked hard on this. I think we have got it right. I appreciate this Commission forwarding a positive recommendation to City Council to approve the standards as they have been presented by Anna tonight. I'll stand for any questions. I know we are all getting tired. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I do have one, unless you're -- while you're thinking. Is that what you -- Rohm: It's all yours. Borup: Just a clarification. You made a comment referring, I think, to Commissioner Zaremba about the setback on the alleys being the same as the front, referring to the 20 feet? Turnbull: Yeah. The garage has to be setback 20 feet on a street. Borup: But the street is 20 feet from the property line. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 99 of 113 Turnbull: It's 20 feet from the sidewalk. Borup: If it's a separated sidewalk it is. Turnbull: Any sidewalk. Borup: Did that change? Canning: Yes. We no longer measure from property lines, we measure -- Borup: Including on non-separated sidewalks? Canning: Correct. Borup: Okay. I knew it changed on the separated sidewalks and I didn't realize that it changed on the non -- Canning: Yes. Any -- any setback now is measured from the edge of sidewalk, if it's attached or detached. Turnbull: There are occasions when the pins can actually be in the sidewalk -- Borup: Well, on the separated they usually are. Turnbull: Or the pin can be behind the sidewalks, but the city, for sake of consistency, is saying what's really important to us is that we have that setback from the sidewalk -- where the sidewalk actually is and we don't really care that much about where the property pin is. Borup: Okay. I think the difference you have on the front and you have on the alley, also have the width of that sidewalk somewhere, so you're from -- Turnbull: I would just encourage you to -- Borup: Five to -- you know, five to 13 feet from the edge of the driveway to the road, whereas the alley you're saying it's zero. Turnbull: I will grant you that alleys are different and they are supposed to be. Borup: The other question I have on the alley -- and I don't know that there is any standard on whether they are just paved -- I just noticed a big difference in the looks when they had a concrete ribbon on the edge, as opposed to unregulated pavement. Turnbull: One of the things we noticed in our travels around the country is most of them were just asphalt, you know, how a nice clean edge you don't get on asphalt. We build all of our projects with full concrete alleys with, basically, a large valley gutter. That's Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 100 of 113 the way we build that. So, you get a nice clean landscaping edge and it holds up better on the edges, too. You won't have the crumbling. Borup: Is that in the -- is that addressed? Canning: Not currently. I also wanted to add -- I'm not -- I think it's already addressed in the UDC, but the 28 and 48 curve radii, I think that the staff and the PIG group agreed that those should apply to the -- to the alley aprons as well. Turnbull: The entrance from the public street to the alley? Canning: To the alley. Yes. So-- Borup: That's alii had, Mr. Chairman. Rohm: Yes. Turnbull: May I sit down, then? Rohm: Oh. Yeah. Turnbull: Thank you. Zaremba: While we are still on the alley subject, I agree with the attractiveness of the narrow ones, but even comparing it to our parking lot requirements, which we have some modification to on page ten of the paperwork that we are looking at, alley parking pads are a 90 degree parking situation. And in our stall width and aisle requirements in a standard parking lot for a 90 degree parking stall, the stall depth has to be 19 feet. A one way drive aisle has to be 25 feet. That would add up to -- if you have a 25-foot drive aisle and a 19-foot parking stall on either side of it, that's 63 feet across. If we allow an alley to be 16 feet and, then, two 20-foot pads on either side, that's only 56 feet across. The reasoning behind the 25-foot wide drive aisle requirement in the parking lot is so that a vehicle can, actually, make it into the 90 degree stall and I guess I need some help with why that doesn't apply to alleyways as well. Canning: Didn't you know that cars maneuver differently in alleys? I'm sorry. I'm being facetious. It's too early in the morning. Forgive me. That was inappropriate. As Mr. Turnbull stated, alleys are different. That's true. If this was the only access being provided to this piece of property, it would look more like a commercial driving lot and that's what those -- those private street standards are based on is, basically, the same as the commercial drive aisle with parking spaces. But the issue is is that you have two forms of access and I think what the TN-R standards are kind of getting at is to create this look, to create this feel, we don't want to provide the full standard in the front and the full standard in the back, because it doesn't generate that appearance. On the street side it doesn't create that enclosed space that Ms. McKibbens spoke of. On the alley side, if you start providing the same kind of standard that you would for a Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 101 of113 commercial drive aisle, you're just creating far too much asphalt and far too much pavement. It's just -- it's not economical. You're developing instead of maybe 25 or 30 percent of your property in streets, you've just got everything paved and there is no room for houses. So, some of it goes back to that look, that density that we are trying to achieve on our transportation corridors, you just can't achieve them with those kind of standards that you're talking about. And driving down alleys does require different driving. There are different expectations as well. If there is somebody else driving on the alley, you find an empty parking space to pull over or you don't enter the alley until that person has exited and there are people with large trucks who sometimes have to make more than one attempt at getting onto the parking pad. But that's expected. You know, that's -- you know that when you move into your house and you accept that as part of the package that comes with your home and I can speak to this issue quite well. I live on the 12-foot Harris Ranch Mill District alley and you do do that. You pull off at the alley T, wait for somebody to go by, or you wait until somebody exits before you enter the alley and you make those accommodations. So, yes, it isn't as roomy as a commercial drive aisle, but it's certainly not intended to be. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to maybe express another observation I have that applies to that in a parking lot. You're pulling out of a nine foot stall and you need to be all the way out before you can start making your turn. Normally on an alley loaded you're coming -- if you're coming out of the garage you have got 20 feet there, you start making your turn as soon as you have exited the garage. Zaremba: That's a good point. Borup: Unless you have got another car there beside you and, then, it may be a little tight, but you know -- and even if you're in a -- on the driveway with only one car, you can start making your turn immediately. So, I think it still allows for turning the same, unless cars are hemmed in there. But that's been my thoughts on the difference. Canning: And I would note on the folks that have larger cars on our alley, most of them park -- if they get two cars inside the garage or three -- some of them have three car garages and they won't hang over for the most part, they will angle it so that they are, you know, parking at a right angle and so that they are not overlapping the alley, so -- and my CC&Rs are aggressively enforced I want to note. Nazis. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, if we exhausted that subject, I have a couple others. Rohm: I have opened -- this is an open forum. Have at it. Borup: Well, are we still on alleys you mean? Zaremba: Well, if you have more to say, I'll wait. Borup: Well, no, I'm comfortable with the width and everything. The comment I would have is just on the construction, noticing the difference between an alley that had a Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 102 of 113 concrete ribbon as a minimum and those that didn't, even brand new it didn't look as good and after a few years you know what -- I mean the edges do start sloughing off. So, I -- personally, I'd like to see a requirement for a concrete ribbon at the minimum. I mean the concrete alley handles that even more so, but is that possible to -- Canning: Did you want to -- the Commission can recommend either the one foot or two foot ribbon and I assume that would still be the 16-foot width or -- you need to clarify. But that certainly gives it a -- Borup: The ribbon would be part of the 16, in my mind. Zaremba: That certainly would be useful for the homeowners association, who is, eventually, going to have to maintain the alley. I think even though concrete is probably more expensive up front, it's easier to maintain in the long run and lasts longer, so that might be a good thing for people to think ahead on the maintenance. Borup: I was just thinking of the edges. Zaremba: Yeah. Canning: Sir, to clarify, these are public alleys. They are not private. They are public. Zaremba: You mean ACHD would maintain them? Canning: Yes. And these do meet the standards for ACHD alleys. Borup: Their standards are pavement only? Canning: I don't know. Borup: I assume they are, because some of the examples showed that. Canning: Mr. Turnbull is indicating that they do allow just pavement. Rohm: Just pavement? No asphalt? Oh. Okay. Canning: No ribbon curb. That's usually referred to as a ribbon curb. That asphalt edge would be called a ribbon curb. Moe: I guess I would anticipate, then, if ACHD is going to maintain that, then, you pretty have to stick with their design? Borup: No, you don't. Don't have to. Zaremba: Well, that's a good point as well. ACHD would have to approve the installation of it in the first place, if they are going to assume the maintenance of it. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 103 of 113 Canning: Commissioner Rohm. ACHD wouldn't object to a ribbon curb, if that's what was being indicated. I'm sorry. But I mean you can require a more stringent standard. Borup: I think for maintenance and overall esthetics, it certainly is more pleasing. Commissioner Zaremba, you had some other points? Zaremba: Yes. I'd like to go to page seven and Item G, the lighting. I agree with what's there, but I would want to add one more thought to it. I don't know if down shielding is appropriate, but I think we need a statement that there at least is no up-lighting. I realize lighting in an alley or around buildings you kind of do want the light to spread a little bit, so down shielding isn't exactly what I'm talking about, but we also don't want the light to go straight up. So, I don't know what the wording would be, but what's there I like. I would add a sentence to it that says light can't escape straight up or something. Canning: The UDC does have specific provisions about up-lighting. Now, it depends on the wattage of the bulb and I suspect that these would be small enough that they might actually be exempt from that. But you could have it just that there was a cap to prevent up-lighting. That's certainly a possibility. Zaremba: Well, I'm just thinking in a fairly good subdivision you -- even with small bulbs you could have several thousand watts of light escaping into the sky. Canning: I live in a single loaded alley and that alley stays fairly light. So, it does add light. Most of them -- some of them are decorative, so you would be -- you would be putting some limits on those. But there is plenty of decorative ones with -- that prevent up-lighting as well. Zaremba: Are you saying we don't need to include a statement like that or -- Canning: No. I'm saying just the opposite. I'm saying that I think these would be exempt under the lighting provisions. So, if you want to prevent up-lighting, you need to specifically address that. Zaremba: I would like to. Borup: And I don't know if that's a concern on a residential neighborhood. Normally you don't have anymore than a hundred watt bulb. Zaremba: Yeah. But if you have two per building and a couple hundred buildings, you have got some significant wattage all combined. I'm just trying to avoid anymore light pollution of the sky than we have to have. I certainly agree with -- Borup: This is just on the alley? How about the front of the house? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 104 of 113 Zaremba: Well, that -- I would just add it to that statement and I think that covers both front and back. And G talks about front and back and I would just say where ever they are we should prevent up-lighting. Rohm: Prevent it or minimize it? Zaremba: Minimize it. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: I guess you will never prevent it, because even down-lighting can bounce off the surface it's focused on and provide some light pollution. Rohm: Anything else? Zaremba: If we have exhausted that subject, I do have a different one. Rohm: Moving on. Zaremba: Okay. I'm on page nine. This is item ten. And the deletion of A about off- street parking for loading, I remember some of the discussion about that and I'm one of those that was very much in favor of requiring off-street parking for loading. I was not that interested that there actually be specific requirements that had to be met, but I think my discomfort just removing that entirely is that building uses change -- I mean the person that's building or going to use that today may have a use that doesn't involve any loading. But that building may change hands down the road sometime and there may be loading and I guess the reason I bring it up is I have done transportation systems in enough cities where they didn't require off-street parking. The traffic management is a real problem if you have a UPS truck parked in the middle of the street for 20 minutes -- I mean they usually try and move real quick, but a lot of traffic could get balled up in 20 minutes and somebody that has a big semi that needs to be off loaded, parked in the middle of the street if there is no place else for them to go, it just creates traffic problems. And the extension of that is I think it would create safety problems as well for emergency responders. So, while I don't have any problem with specifying how that has to be, I still would like to say something like loading spaces for commercial and industrial uses shall be off street. That's really all I'd care to say, but I feel like something does need to be said. Canning: I believe we do have that statement, but I will double-check and make sure that we have something to that effect. Zaremba: And it can be very generic. I'm not stuck on having specifics, but -- Canning: Could you repeat that language for me again? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page1050f113 Zaremba: What I said was loading spaces for commercial and industrial uses shall be off street. Canning: Thank you. Zaremba: That may not necessarily be the best wording, but it gets to what I think I'm looking for. Canning: If that is not in there, I will make sure that that gets included before it goes up to Council. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. I'm done. Anybody believe that? Borup: I did have one item. Rohm: Commissioner Borup. Borup: And probably ask for some clarification. That's on -- Commissioner Zaremba and I had different numbers, but it's under fences. Mine says page four. In the TN-R -- fences in the TN-R district where it talks about front yard fences, I'm not sure, does that replace the existing wording we had where this is only approving wrought iron or other materials are still approved? Canning: Are we -- this would only be -- so we are talking about F-1-C? Borup: F-1-C. Yes. Canning: Okay. That was -- would only apply in the TN-R district. Borup: Well, maybe all of them, because the previous one said it can be three foot for a closed vision. Here it says it must be an open vision. So, the three foot closed vision has been eliminated, is that what this is indicating? In the UDC page six under -- well, it says -- it's the same reference it refers to here, 11-3-A, 7-A. Canning: There are fence standards in Section 11-3-A, 7-A. There are also some very specific set of standards in the TN-R section. Because we were coming up with special ones to address some special needs, we -- there are ones that only pertain to the TN-R and one of those is the wrought iron. Borup: So, this is in addition to what's already in the book, is what I was -- Canning: Yes. Borup: Okay. It's not replacing what's in there. This is another allowed fence. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 106 of 113 Canning: If you get down to item number two with five, six, seven and eight, those are additional ones for the general section. Borup: Yeah. I'm looking under C under the TN-R district. Canning: Yeah. The one C is only for the TN-R, but there is another section that adds to the overall list of fence standards. But that particular section is only for TN-R. Borup: Now I'm confused. In which -- in the proposed changes or in the old -- Canning: In the proposed changes, if you go to page seven, item number two, you will see 11-3-B-7-C and, then, it says five, six, seven, eight. Borup: For some reason my numbering is different, then. Zaremba: Yeah. I'm not on page seven with any of that. My fence -- Borup: I'm looking at the -- the one that was in our -- Zaremba: My fence doesn't -- starts on page six right in the middle of the page. Rohm: Right. Canning: Are you looking at the memo or the staff report? Borup: I'm looking at the memo. Canning: Okay. I will turn to the memo, then. Borup: Let me turn to the staff report. It won't make a difference. Canning: Okay. Zaremba: I think I was looking at the staff report. Borup: I'm the only one that's out of sync. Okay. I'm looking at page six, item F. Zaremba: Uh-huh. Canning: Okay. That only applies to the TN-R. Borup: Right. Does that -- but the old TN-R district allowed three foot fences of any material. Is this one only allowing open less than three foot made of wrought iron? Canning: That's the proposal that's before you. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page107of113 Borup: Okay. So, a picket fence would not be allowed. I mean that may only be in magazines, I don't know, but it's a real traditional neighborhood style. Is that clear? So, if I want to do a picket fence -- Canning: Mr. Turnbull has very strong feelings about wrought iron. I have to admit staff does not. It was the recommendation of the PIG group, but if the Planning Commission wants to -- Borup: No. I understand what it's saying. I would say that maybe needs to be a decision of each individual subdivision CC&Rs or something in the design of that subdivision. Moe Well, what I would say is that as is noted in similar quality and appearance, what one person would say wrought looks good, another would say that your other picket fence would look good and nice. So, who decides what the similar quality and appearance is? Borup: Well, why can't this be added to what's already in there, just as additional, rather than deleting? Zaremba: I would support adding traditional picket fences as a choice. Borup: Well, in the present one I don't think it prevents it. I don't think we need to specifically say picket fences, but that's getting kind of -- that's getting kind of specific. I guess I'm saying I'm not saying why we need to delete what's already in there. Rohm: Well, I'd like to know what Mr. Turnbull's thoughts are on why he wants to stick to the wrought iron. There has got to be a reason. It deteriorates. Canning: David, I'm sorry, you're going to have to-- Borup: Essentially, he's saying he doesn't think the people will maintain their fence. Turnbull: I believe it will look better long term for streetscape. If you want to put picket fences in, that's fine with me. I just wouldn't do it. I can write my own CC&Rs. Borup: Exactly. I think that's -- I don't think it makes sense to dictate every subdivision in town needs to be the same. How about some diversity? Zaremba: I certainly agree with the maintenance aspect. Wrought iron is -- stays attractive a lot longer and doesn't fall apart, doesn't need to be painted as often, but -- Borup: What I'm proposing this just be added to without -- without deleting the previous -- however that -- and maybe -- actually, I think the way it's presently written doesn't prevent a wrought iron fence anyway. The way it's presently written it would allow anything. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page108of113 Rohm: It doesn't prevent wrought iron or picket fences. Borup: Either. Any of it. You can do anything you want under the present standards. Zaremba: So, your suggestion is -- Borup: I guess I'm saying leave it like it is. Zaremba: Take the standard and -- Borup: Leave it like it is. Zaremba: -- plug it in here. Canning: The existing ordinance would also allow for a solid fence and I haven't heard you discuss that issue, so -- Zaremba: I agree with the see-through. Borup: Yeah. I think I -- yeah. Eliminate the solid. Silva: Mr. Chairman, can the fire department just comment on that real quickly? We are opposed to the wrought iron approach, as long as there is a gate provided there as a requirement, instead of a solid, because what happens is when we have a solid picket fence across there, we will quickly pull the pickets off if we have to go down through there. But wrought iron, if there is not a gate there, it -- it's a lot longer operation to make entry and get down that side of the house should the need arise. So, as long as there is a gate provided there -- you know, we could quickly, typically, you know, cut a lock, but it -- to cut through a fence is a little more time consuming than -- Borup: So, you're saying you want a gate if it's a wrought iron? Silva: I'm sorry. It's only going to be three foot high? Borup: Yeah. Silva: I'm sorry. It's late. Moe: It's actually early. Zaremba: Well, I still agree with having a gate somewhere along the frontage. I think that's a fair requirement, regardless of the type of fence. Rohm: I would presume that there would be one. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 109 of 113 Borup: Well, a gate to the front door, but not necessarily a gate down the side. I think he's referring to a gate down the side property. Is that correct? Silva: Yeah. Between the homes. Rohm: Yeah. So, that's -- I think you're talking about two different things. Rohm: I think you can get over or around it -- okay. Silva: All the tall firefighters can typically get over them pretty easily. Rohm: There you go. Borup: Well, then, I guess the conclusion is just to eliminate item C? Canning: Yes, sir. And, then, if you wanted to address the gate issue, that would be in number two for the side yards for -- and just add a provision -- Borup: If the fence is taller than three foot or higher at a gate -- wait a minute. I -- this is on what setback? Canning: If you go to section two, that's where the gate would apply for the taller fences. Borup: Under the side yard? Canning: Yes, sir. Borup: Well, that -- Canning: It would be 28 for a side yard fence that extends from one building to another. And, then, also in -- Borup: I'm not sure why that should apply in a TN-R district and not in every other district in town. What's the difference? Canning: None. Borup: We don't require gates anywhere else. Silva: The only thing is we are noticing a transition here to a wrought iron fence where we typically -- while we typically always had the wooden fence, we can break through that -- Borup: Okay. You're saying if it's a wrought iron fence you would have the gate? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 110 of 113 Silva: Yes, sir. Borup: That makes -- you don't bring a torch with you or anything? Silva: No. We can make entry. It just takes a little more time. Borup: All right. Comments from any of the other Commissioners? 1-- Rohm: Personally, I think a three foot fence can be -- you can get through it -- Borup: Right. But I think they are saying if it's taller than three feet and it's on the side of the garage and it's wrought iron, they have a problem getting through. Rohm: There you go. But we are talking about a three foot fence there. Borup: No. We have moved on. Moe: No. We are back into the next section two. We are actually going to discuss -- the maximum fence height at the side yard, it's going to not exceed six feet, so, therefore -- Rohm: Ask Joe on that. Then, we need to add something for a gate on the side fencing there, don't you think? Moe: Yes, I do. Canning: Commissioners, if you'd like some suggested wording, this would go as one of the standard fence regulations applicable in all districts and it's something to the effect of where wrought iron fences are proposed that are greater than three feet in height, a gate shall be installed. Rohm: Perfect. Borup: Makes sense. I have nothing else. I only had one thing, so it grew. Moe: I'm fine. Zaremba: Do we want to specify where the gate is? I mean what if they put it on the back property line? Canning: I'll work on that part, too. So, this would be for fences in a side yard, but parallel to the street. I'll figure out some better wording, but -- Zaremba: Okay. Works for me. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 111 of 113 Borup: So, are we just looking for -- was the purpose of this just to make recommendations and we have done that and we are done or do we need a motion? Canning: You need a motion, sir. Borup: Did we leave anything out? Rohm: I think that all of the items of discussion have been captured either through the recorded tape -- I don't think that we need somebody to restate every single listed item that we discussed. Borup: Oh, I wouldn't do it if I was doing the motion. Rohm: Yes. You're on. Borup: I am? Rohm: Yes. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number ZOA 05 -- wait a minute. I do have -- excuse me before I do that. Did we ever reach a conclusion on the alley width? Everyone's fine with 16 feet? Rohm: I believe that's where we ended up. Borup: With garage setbacks of 20. Moe: Because there was no discussion, I assume that, yes, we were in agreement with what was noted. Borup: Okay. Well, I'm going to add -- Canning: Commissioner Borup, we need to close the Public Hearing first. Rohm: Oh. Borup: I move we close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on ZOA 05-002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Now you're on. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2. 2006 Page 112 of 113 Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number ZOA 05-002 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 2nd, 2006, with the modifications as discussed and noted, with clarification on the alley widths would remain at 16 feet as presented with either a concrete edge ribbon on both sides of the alley or a concrete alley -- do we need to specify the width of that ribbon? I don't think so. I'd just as soon leave that up to the developer. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: Discussion. Borup: Discussion? Canning: For staffs clarification -- so what I have is make sure that there is 28-48 turn radii from the alley to the street. Lighting fixtures to prevent uplighting. Loading space for commercial and industrial uses shall be off street. Remove the requirement for wrought iron from the fences. And, then, add a general requirement for fences that when they are wrought iron and they are parallel to the street, that there is a gate. Is that all of them? Borup: And, then, I'd like to see a concrete ribbon on the alleys. Canning: Oh, no, I -- those two were clear. Borup: Okay. Canning: So, I didn't repeat them, but yes, sir. Rohm: I think that's it. Borup: That's it. Zaremba: If you're incorporating those into the motion, I -- the second accepts those changes. Borup: Well, those were intended in the motion to start with. They weren't changes. Zaremba: Okay. Clarifications. Rohm: Okay. With that being said, all those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: I would like to hear one more motion.