P & Z Staff CommentsRECEIVED
Page # Comments
1-4 Population estimates in Table 1.1 are high and 2000 actual population should be corrected
to reflect the Census figure of 34,919. The estimates will be modified by Intermountaln
Demographics by early April 2002
1-4 Land use acreages in Table 1.2 will change based on final Comp Plan adopted by
Council; the "Total Units" appears high and should be re-calculated based on net densities
1-5 Add 6.9 acre Autumn Faire Park to Table 1.3
2-2 Add Ponderosa Elementary School to map;
Labels are missing for Lewis & Clark M.S., Mt. View H.S., River Valley E.S., Chief
Joseph E.S. and Peregrine E.S.;
Too much acreage is shown for River Valley E.S and Mt. View H.S.;
Should Charter H.S. and alternative schools be added?
2-4 P&Z staff proposes the following modifications and/or relocations of several proposed
(also pathways shown on this Facility and Trails Plans. Several pathways bisect existing, built
3-5) parcels and others are more appropriately shown along streets or other property lines:
· Settlers Creek Trail (T-7) - relocate at Elixir Industries & Lewis & Clark M.S.
· Ten Mile Creek Trail (T-6) - at UPRR crossing, just west of T~n Mile Rd. -
relocate trail to cross on Ten Mile Road and not add a new rail crossing.
· Ten Mile Creek Trail (T-6) - at SE comer of Meridian and Overland Rd. - 1,200
feet of trail is shown through the existing Meridian Greens Subdivision #3, where
there is no existing pedestrian easement recorded. Is this a feasible leg of trail?
· Meridian Loop Trail (T-1) - at UPRR crossing, between McDermott and Black
Cat Road - relocate trail to cross on Black Cat Road and not add a new rail
crossing.
· Meridian Loop Trail (T-l) - at Fairview, 1/3 mile east of Locust Grove Rd - south
of Fairview, trail bisects three (3) existing, platted lots in T.V. Business Center
and several county parcels. We recommend trail be relocated east to Hickory.
· Five Mile Creek Trail (T:4) ~ at UPRR crossing, between Meridian and Locust
Grove Rd. - relocate trail to cross on an existing street, not add a new rail crossing
· Off-Street Trail, b/w Ustick and Cherry, on east side of Ten Mile - omit this
section of trail as there are no available easements through existing subs
· Rutledge Creek/Eight Mile Trail (T-5), b/w Meridian and Locust Grove Rd. - do
not show path crossing 1-84.
· Rutledge Creek/Eight Mile Trail (T-5), b/w Meridian and Locust Grove Rd, South
ofi-84 -- omit one mile of this section of pathway from 1-84 to Locust Grove,
which is shown bisecting CocaCola's existing 15-acre parcel and shown through
Meridian Greens Sub, where there are no existing easements.
· South Slough Trail (T~8), b/w Locust Grove and Meridian Rd. - the majority of
this mile of trail is shown through existing Howell Tract, Finch Creek,
Chamberlain Estates and Bedford Place Subs, where no ped easement exists. We
question the feasibility of this ~ mile section of trail.
MAR 2 8 2002
CITY OF MERIDIAN
P&Z Department Staff Comments on CPRSP Action Plan (11/01) CITY CLERK OFFICE
2-5 Sect. 2.2.1.B. 1.b. - This policy requires mini-park standards that are NOT in the current
Zoning or Subdivision Ordinance. Either the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances need to
be amended to match these policies or this policy should be changed to "encourage" and
not "reouire" language.
2-5 Sect. 2.2.1.B.2 & 3 - Same note as above. Policy #2.a. -We question if 20,000 s.f. is too
large for certain tot lots, especially for those owned and maintained by Homeowner
Associations of subdivisions less than 10 acres. We suggest a change to Policy #2.d. to
read "If possible, walking distance from any residence served by the mini-park should
not exceed one-quarter mile, and not require pedestrian crossing of busy streets."
2-5 Sect. 2.2.1 .B.3.b. - Is "street frontage" measured along only one side of thc park or is it
combined, total frontage of the park? This should be clarified. (This comment applies to
all park sizes.)
2-7 Sect. 2.2.2.B. 1 .b. - If park development is tied to "when the area is serves reaches about
50% development," this area needs to be better defined. Is it all area within ½ mile? Does
it mean the entire park is to be developed, or just a phase of it?
2-8 Sect. 2.2.2.B.3.b. - Same comment as Sect. 2.2.1 .B. 1 .b above. Also, "usable active park
area" needs to bc defined.
I 2-10 Sect. 2.2.3 - The definition lists Community Park size range as "20 to 30 acres," but
Section B.2.a shows the range as "roughly 15 acres." Seems these should be the same.
2-10 Sect. 2.2.2.B. - Same note as Sect. 2.2.1.B.l.b above.
2-10 Sect. 2.2.3.B.1.c. - Same comment as Sect. 2.2.2.B.l.b on page 2-7.
' 2-20 Sect. 2.2.6.B.l.c. - Strike the last four words, "apprc~vzd by thc z~ty." The appropriate
irrigation district(s) should be referred to in this policy, not the City.
2-27 Table 2.6 - Modify Five Mile Creek Greenway (OS-9) to include 1 mile of Existing trail.
3-3 Sect. 3.2.B. 1.i. - The Master Pathway Agreement currently in effect b/w the City and
NMID (pg. 6, par. c) states the City is responsible for the construction, operation,
maintenance, repair and cleaning of pathways and landscaping and must also provide
waste receptacles, etc. We recommend the City Attorney review the subject pohcy in the
Action Plan against this Master Agreement statement to ensure private parties can legally
assume landscape maintenance of pathways within NMID's easements.
3-3 Sect. 3.2.B.3.d. - If parking and restrooms for trailheads he within NMID's easements, it
should be confirmed that such uses are permitted under the Master Agreement.
General We did not see any descriptions of the process of how land for public pathways will be
acquired from private property owners adjacent to the future pathway easements. There is
also no statement if these public pathways will be located on private easements or
purchased/owned by the City. Having an established, clear set of procedures will be
critical to the legal implementation of the pathway/facility plan and should be added.
General There does not appear to be any standard in either the CPRSP or Action Plan for the
minimum number of trees to be planted within the various size parks. Open space in
residential subs are required to plant one (1) tree per every 8,000 s.f. of open area. We
recommend a similar standard be adopted for public parks.
General We recommend creating a "Definitions" section at the fi'ont of each Plan and define all
primary terms in the documents, including the park definitions already provided at the
front of several sections.
General There are a few discrepancies between the P&R standards in the "Action Plan" by MIG
and the P&R standards in the CPRSP (starting on pg. 79) by Landerman-Moore. These
discrepancies should be resolved and/or which parking, size, and service standards
prevail.