1979 10-30i ~
Meridian Primary School
Zonin and Develo ment Ordinance Hearing October 30, 1979
Planning and Zoning Chairman, Don Sharp opened the hearing at 7:35 P.M.
Zoning Members present: Don Sharp; Kenneth Tewksbury; Annette Hinrichs;
Burl Pipkin; Rick Orton.
Others present: Morgan Plant; Harold Stewart; Dean Mayes; Plorman Fuller;
R. L. Mitchell; Mr. and Mrs. Elmer L. Nichols; H. R. Holloway;
Martin H. Fabricius; 4dilliam D. Thomson; Gary Frodsham;
SueAnn Frodsham; Mr. and Mrs. Chastain; Bill Brewer;
Jim Potter; Barabara Geile; Karen 6denzel; Alice Sharp; Robert
M. Haggerty; Jane Orton; Gwen Alger; Brent Alger; Mark Calnon;
Freda Weast; Phyllis Rainey; Plarvin Bodine; Max A. Boesiger;
Phil Harper; Jim Grant; Gordon Harris; Gene Martin; Gordon Wood;
Anita Fauth; Leroy Fauth; Joe Glaisyer; (rant Kingsford;
Phyllis Musgrove; Bernhardine Hoseley; A. Bruce McDonald;
Arnold Stubblefield; Dan Mortensen; Michael L. Milhollin;
Herbert A. Risner; Jerald L Johnston; Steven 4!. Hosac;
Helen Martin; Ray Martin; Dwayne Cope; Jim= Christensen;
Doug Burnett; Doris Oliason.
Sharp addressed the public with the history of the Comprehensive Plan stating
that this was the beginning process for planning for our City. The sound base
of input from citizens resulted in the best Comprehensive Plan in the country.
He expressed confidence that the same process will bring a good zoning and
development Ordinance.
Chairman Sharp stated the Planning and Zoning Commission is conducting this
hearing with open minds and they want to hear what the public has to say. This
is not a decision making meeting, but an input meeting. fora ten day period,
the Commission would accent written comments and after that, plan the next process.
Sharp lauded Annette Hinrichs and Grant Kingsford for the hours of their time
and effort to draft a proposed ordinance.
Chairman Sharp instructed the public as to hearing procedure and called for the first.
Mike Milhalin forfeited his time to Jim Potter.
Jim Potter, Potter Surveying, addressed the Chairman and Commission with a written
testimony. (On file with these minutes) Potter named technical aspects of the
proposed ordinance :vhich are of concern to the surveying profession..
1. Section 3.U2, Page 4 - defines alleys and specifies that no alley be
more than 20 feet in width.
2. Section 3.02, Page 4 - Area Requirements provides for the establishment
of minimum size dwelling units as part of the zoning ordinance.
3. Section 3.02, Page 23 - Subdivider or Developer requires that a Sub-
division applicant be the agent of the owner or have proprietory interest
of the land.
4. Section 3.02, Page 23 - Subdivision defines a subdivision as the division
of any tract of land into two parts which requires any dedication.
5. Section 6.02-C, Page 32 - Specifies that no legal lot may be diminished in
size after its creation.
6. Section 12.00, Page 43 - Zonina Schedule specifies that key lots will
have a minimum frontage of 5~ at the set back line.
7. Section 13.04-G - Erosion, this section, as written would mandate metigation
of all natural erosion on all commercial and industrial sites.
8. Section T3.05 K-1, Page 52 - Home Occupation specifies that only resident
family members may be employed in same.
9. Section 14.01 I-2, Page 54, -.Front Yard Parking, the intent of this
statement is vague.
10. Section 14.01 I'-4, Page 54 -Front Yard'Parking, requires parking spaces
for multi-family dwelling uni s o e ee in length.
Meridian Primary School
Zoning and Development Ordinance Hearing .2.
•
1979
11. Section 14.102, Page 55 - Parkins Space Requirements, space requirements
are excessive.
12. Section 14.05 E, Page 57 - Use of Parking Facilfitaes, the last sentence of
this is totally incoherant.
13. Section 14.05 PJ, Page 58 - Screening on LandscaFinq, last paragraph refers
to a 3" diameter size class tree.
14. Section 16.04.4, Page 65 - which deals with the duties of the Planning K
Zoning Commission, grants them the power to approve or deny permits and
application.
15. Section 16.05.3, Page 67 - Zoning'Amendment Procedures, contents of
application - requires essentially the same information as a Conditional
Use Permit.
16. Section 16.05.9, Page 69 - specifies a period of one year between zoning
amendment applications for the same parcel of land,
17. Section 16.06.1, Page 70 - Conditional Use, again grants the Planning &
Zoning Commission the authority to approve or deny, and is in violation of
State Law.
18. Section 16.08.4 B-I, Page 78 - Preliminary Development Plan Content,
specifies that the plan be prepared by an engineer..
19, Section 16.08.10 C, Page 85 - Dimension & Scale of final plat.
20. Section 17.O7D, Page 95 - Bonus Density, proviedes individual bonus
density of 25% for four items, but does not consider the cumulative effect.
21. Section 18.02, Page 100 - Planned Residential Development (design guidelines)
Much of this section is filled with philosophy, not fact, it should be
materially cleaned up to stand as a part of any ordinance.
22. Section 18.04 G & H, Items 4 & 5, Page 111 -which deals with the service
area and minimum poplulation requirement for commercial developments will
effectively eliminate any new neighborhpod shopping centers for many years.
23. Section 18.05 A4b, Page 115 - Layout & Design of parking areas is in conflict
with earlier sections of the ordinance.
24. Section 18.06, Page 117 - Planned Development Landscaping Guidelines.
25. Section 19.01, Page 118 - Responsibility for Plahs/Plats, this section
specifies the use of a registered enoineer for all plans, and as such
is in violation of State Law.
26. Section 19.02 A, Page 119, Monuments.
27. Section 19.03 62 - Surety Bond.
28. Section 20.02D, Page 122 -Street Grades, specifies a minimum gradient of
0.5%.
29. Section 20.O1E, Page 123 -Vertical Alinement, does not specify the
maximum allowable grade break without the incorporation of a vertical curve.
30. Section 20.02E, Page 123 - Centerline Offsets of Intersections, ends in an
incomplete sentence and does not specify any minimum offset.
31. Section 25, Items 13-16 - depict the flow procedures for various planning &
zoning applications and again allude to the authority of the Planning &
Zoning Commission to approve or deny, in violation of State Code.
32. Throughout this ordinance the use of the words should and shall are used as
synonyms while should is generally understood to recommend an action and
shall to mandate an action.
~ -~
dian Primary School
ng and Development Ordinance Hearing .3. October 30, 1979
Potter recommended that this ordinance be returned to Planning and Zoning work
sessions,and that citizens and members of professions and building industry provide
input to the final draft.
Steve Hosac stated that he agreed with inviting input from citizens, members of
professions and the building industry. He summarized his viewpoint on subdividing
section of the proposed ordinance as a serious problem, too many requirements, too
restrictive, etc. He referred to Page 78, Section 16.08,4-Preliminary Development
Plan, Item 2. - elaborating on Item c and d. Minimum square footage of lot (s) and
of structure (s). Hosac stated the cost of submission of the development plans for
a developer under this ordinance would be expensive. He felt it was not fair and
requires too much. The time frame outlined was too extensive and then could be
tabled another 45 days. He stated that if the City approves a Preliminary Map, that
approval should allow developers 'to go forward so long as they meet the technical
requirement design. The way the proposed ordinance reads, after the Preliminary
phase, the design phase is even more costly, and they still don't know if it would
be approved by City Council. Hosac closed comments by stating that the proposed
ordinance was not fair for property owners, and professionals should be appointed to
form a committe for a fair process.
Ray Martin, 237 E. State, stated that the homes in this area have .contributed a large
sum of tax monies because there are many long time residents and spoke against the
rezone of his neighborhood to Commercial.
Robert Haggerty, 2104 N.W. 12th. Haggerty stated he was representing the Ham Operators
and to protest the proposed ordinance pertaining to antenna structures causing
interference to homes. The strict rules would put the ham operators off of the air,
and stressed the importance of their operations. Page 48, Section 13.04, Item B -
"or electrical disturbance", Page 52, Section 13.05, Item 5 - "In the case."
Rick Orton, 134 E. State, stated that he makes his comments as a private citizen and
homeowner. He voiced general support to a zoning ordinance and stressed the importance.
Orton stated-.that by the Zoning districts on the zoning map displayed, his property
is proposed to be rezoned from residential to Commercial and this rezone would give
him no protection from incompatible uses. He preferred a zoning that would give him
recourse of public hearing and of medium density. Orton submitted five letters
protesting the rezone from Mr. and Mrs. DeMott, Emma LaPan, Richard Nourse, Lily
Wright and Eura Waitley. He cautioned the members of City Council, Planning & Zoning
and professionals to review the ordinance, to prepare it for final submission, and
consider the old town neighborhood. The proposal increased from 3 zones to 9 zones.
Orton stated that some of the zones are unecessary, and would like to see the ordinance
revised in regard to necessary zones. The ordinance is extremely complex and will
complicate Engineers, land surveyors, City Council, Planning and 7_oning, and increased
costs of living. Orton stated he realized the complex drafting of an ordinance and
felt the City will have a goad one. He also stated putting an administrator on board
at this time would be costly and more feasible five years down the road. Orton
stated he would like to see the impact of this ordinance flanked by a map before it's
done, so we could get some idea of the dollar impact.
Max Boesiger, Sunnybrook Farms, spoke to urge keeping the process as simple as possible.
Phil Harper, 150 Rainbow Dr, Boise, spoke concerning the filing of preliminary plats
for subdivisions. This process increased expence; the builder cannot produce a product
that an average family can afford; rejected the 1350 sq, ft. minimum because of cost
of construction; loans, etc. Harper not in favor of cheap construction, but size for
marketing. .Page 79.
Jim Grant, 936 Storey Ave., representing Idaho Power. Grant referred to Page 18 -
Public Service Facility. He questioned the intent of that section, .comparing the first
statement of the paragraph to the last part "including the furnishing of electrical".
Do they or do they not cover transmission, distribution, lines, poles and conductors?
Page 18 - Public Utility - does that include partnerships, companys or corporations?
Does it include the garbage service in Meridian? Grant directed to Page 23 - Structure.
He questioned citing utility poles, power or street lights as structures being clarified.
Pages 34, 35, and 36 - clarifying all the different zones. Public Service Facilities
are listed under Conditional Use for Agricultural, R-4, R-8, then Public and quasi-
public uses for Commercial Districts, pages 37 and 38. Grant stated this does not
clarify poles as structures. On Page 39 - Public Service Facility is moved back into
a Conditional Use. On Page 41, under limited Office District, it lists Public Utility
Facilities under Conditional Use which is a change of name. Page 42, under Light
Industrial District, it is listed as Public Service Facilities under the Conditional
Use column. Why is this not included under Principal Uses? Grant stated Public
:,K.
Meridian Primary School
Zoning and Development Ordinance Hearing .4. October 30, 1979
Service Facilities would be one of the principal uses. Substations should be
included in all Principal Use categories. Page 46, Section 13.02, Item E. -
Exceptions to Height Regulations, the exclusion of poles need to be in that
area also.
Arnold Stubblefield, 110 E. 3rd. Stubblefield stated that he felt the proposed
ordinance needs much study and a lot of consideration before adopting as law.
Since the building industry must abide by these ordinances, he encourages the
Planning Committee to meet with the developers so that what goes into this
Ordinance will be to the public's best interest and fits their needs. Stubblefield
pointed out that the proposed Ordinance required the City to hire an Administrator
and Staff which would be very costly to the public. Page. 63-64 "The Administrator
shall be appointed by the Mayor", no mom. hle questioned if the City had already
set up the hiring of an Administrator for this Ordinance. Page 62 - Signs, "off site
signs", not addressed other than you cannot have it. Page 69-70 - Zoning Amendments,
and Conditional Use. He stated the way he read it, the Council cannot grant unless
the Ordinance agrees with the Comprehensive Plan, unless the City goes back and
changes the Comprehensive Plan. In this Ordinance, the Conditional Use Permit
is just like a zone change. A years delay is not far fetched. Page 30, Section
5.04 - Non-Conforming Lots. He stated there are a number of lots under minimum
in old part of town. He pointed out someone who owned 2 lots would have to sell
two (2) lots as one (1) because it might not. meet the minimum requirement.
Stubblefield stated the only place he could see you could put a Mobble Home was
in an R-8 zone and yet there was not provided anything big enough fora Mobile
Home Park, then only with a Conditional Use Permit. He suggested to allow Mobile
Home Parks in R-4 zone. Page 37 - Commercial Neighborhood. There are no principal
uses and he cannot do anything without a Conditional Use Permit. He suggested the
principal uses be filled in and spelled out, and requested that this zone be changed
to CC. He also requested the R-8 zone proposal on Cherry Lane and Linder be changed
to R-15.
Norman Fuller, 1103 W. Camellia. Fuller agreed with Jim Potter, Rick Orton, Steve
Hosac,and Arnold Stubblefield comments. There should be a committee of professionals
to review the ordinance. He felt the taxpayers do not want to pay the bill for
implementing this proposed Ordinance. Fuller stated that Meridian Greens, south of
the Freeway has had a density of 5.12 approval, and referred to this not having a zone
somewhere between R-4 and R-8, but if that's what it takes, they would request an
R-8. Page 66-67, Accompaning an application fora rezone. He stated that with an
administrator with the words "where applicable" would be most of the time. It would
be costly to time and money. There should be a way to rezone something without a
Conditional Use grant.
Doris Oliason (not in City Limits). Olason spoke on bureaucracy and the type of
structure, but did not give any input to Ordinance. She felt the public should
know where the proposal (was coming from.)
Stubblefield asked for an expression from Commission.
Sharp stated that the Commission has some of the concerns that the public has.
Annette Hinrichs stated that the two school teachers that worked on the proposed
Ordinance this summer could no way do the job as an Engineer or Architect, so this
is why they were here this evening. She stated they need the public's input..
Potter stated that his desire is to see the Commission agree to input tq the final
draft from a group of builders, developers and professionals.
Annette Hinrichs requested that they re-draw the sections that they think need to be
re-drawn. The Commission would be very appreciative.
Steve Hosac questioned time schedule.
Sharp stated that first comes the ten days for written comment, then after that, take
another look at it, from there i~ goes to City Council and Public Hearing process.
The first opportunity will be t e 13th of November, 1979.
Ken Tewksbury suggested that wi~hin the next ten days, the group (developers, builders,
professionals, etc.) submit rec mmendations on a schedule. What they feel they would
need for revision, the time lim~t,and construction. Tewksbury stated that their points
have been well taken. '.
Meridian Primary School
Zoning and Development Ordinance Hearing .5. October 30, 1979
Hosac stated this whole undertaking (revision of Ordinance) cannot be handled
at on hearing. His personal opinion would be a major re-.drafting. Hosac felt
the first step would be to form a group, '.then a new document and obtain a new
public opinion.
Joseph Glaisyer stated that the City has not time schedule to complete this. He
reminded the public that Hinrichs and Kingsford had devoted a tot of time to bring
the draft this far. This is the first public hearing and there will be more.
Glaisyer encouraged meetings with developers, architects, surveyors, builders and
landowners. He asked that the public remember that the Planning and Zoning Commission
and City Council will keep working with the Ordinance until it is right. Glaisyer
thanked Hinrichs and Kingsford for a job well done.
Sharp closed the public hearing and thanked those attending for their comments and
interest.
~_
' -21L'~2~~~
C' y Clerk
rman
9DDJ_ECTt OCT.. 9 lgT9 PdcZ ME$TIN6 9TATEMBNT
I have prepared a etatemealt that I xould like to read tonight fiat is rep+
researtativs of three long-time reeideaitial areas and fandlies xho are xithim
30O it. of one and/or both of the developments under ooneideration this
evening, i.e. the Oaneral.Commereial use and L.D.3. sites.
The Mr. and Mra. Haxloy, Elnbury and Buakey families some to this meeting
as frisndly,optimiatio,:~et eoneerned families sinoe the lntendsd w• of the
immediate area is about #.o uadergo a ehangs that x111 aSfeet our residsmtlal
area. !Shoving this, our intent is simply to minimise umreseeaary noise,
traffis~ilox and eeenis oontraet xhile both devslepmenta are in the ear],y
planning stages.
Alse, ire hays signed the petitions presented to na by Mr. Moere~e reprasen•~
tativa Mr. Marty Igo who assured na Mr. Moore is peraonallq eoneernsd abut '
any impact hie deve7apmente might have on sash of ne is partiealar aitaas w
are in the areas of s3SOae prarimity to the developments and h1s intent 1s b
avoid devslopm,ent detrimental to rasidensea on the south Bide o! tJvarlamd ~i
Wa appresiats this peraonai sonee'rcr.
We haveMsthe pstitione~}S~tin~ on them the folloxing 5 rsservaliwn tAat w
xonld like to be diasusaed tonight ao that the building pleas can ittserpor..
ate them (moat are already ineludsd), eapeeially sines the sonaidsaratlserR aa~
areither sumberaome nor ooetly but xi].l help mini~atge disruption to cur res.
idensss. !hs reasrtrations 1l.s£e~ for sonaideration arse
1. A deoelaaYa'6l.on lane in front of the LD8 property (Notes this was a~eyd ..
to by the shnrsh at last %oreaabar'e City Counoi~ mestirrg).
Y. A greenbelt of grass, treea,ehrubs,and hedges about s0 feet Sn xidt~h
on the LDS property (Voter future bldg. eotpansloa on the bluepriat
goes south toxard Overland Rd.).
3. Fhtraneea/exits to/'from the LDS property on Over].aad Rd. should tie at
the mctreme East and Wsat ends of the property sa ourrantly ehom ees
the Dluepriat.
. ~,~
,1
NOTES All of the above currently appear or are glannsd on the blue.,...
print. Our concern is greenbelt xidth and unmarked aatits ar
entrances on Overland Rd.
Q. A apeefl limit of 90 m.p.h. on Overland Rd. !n front of the dsvelepaessta '
and our reaidenoea. (Mr. Frank Capahaw of the Nxy. Diet. Tre~flc Qttiry
at a>y request last year pertoreasd a traffio flop study and esne]aaded,.`~.,
that xe need a lover speed licit and more ~rforoemeaet of it. A sopy '~f
rsa cent to the Sheriff~a Depet. Nothing has been dears.).
S. d eonorste median road diveder that x17.1 require persona eaeitiag Date KJ
Overland frcm both propertiea/devpmt~s. under eonaideratiaar to drive
West (i.e. turn right) upon entering onto Overland, This x111 direct
treSfio axay From Country Perraoe and our reaideneee located.. r
on Overland Rd.
We appraolate your eonaideraLion of these 5 irattera and anything else thq
sould vo7aentari]y do to preserve the integrity of our living area.
auk ton for your oour0tcey reYg~'rding our //nhome~ sad pae~,ops[rti[/e~~a. gu„ay~
l~d~w~.. ~Y~. L7 L6 Q.~...J n ~ ~i ~~/WI.. L t'/Ai {L. i 4'
(` • •
POTTER
4D W. FRANKLIN
MERIDIAN, ID 03642
C2OB] BH0-5491
October 30, 1979
Mr, Chairman & fellow Commissioners
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
City Hall
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Re: Zoning & Development Ordinance
Public Hearing of October 30, 1979
Mr, Chairman & Commissioners:
I would like to present the following testimony concerning the pro-
posed Zoning and Development Ordinance,
My name is James V. Potter, proprietor of Potter Land Surveying
of Meridian,
I regret that I cannot address you this evening as the designated
representative of the Idaho Association of Land Surveyors, the limited
time available since this document was made available precluded us
making a formal association review, However, in view of the fact that
I have held every State office of that association, have served as a rriem-
ber of the Idaho Technical Advisory Committee for three years, and
presently serve as Chairman of the Western Federation of Professional
Surveyors, I believe that I can speak for the surveying profession,
As spokesman for the profession, I will confine my testimony to
those technical aspects of the proposed ordinance which are of concern
to surveyors:
1, Section 3,02, Page 4 defines alleys and specifies that no alley be
more than 20 feet in width, This restriction is impracticable, Many
periferal alleys in a development are later converted to street through
the platting of adjacent parcels and increased alley widths may also be
desirable to accomodate onsite drainage retention systems such as
perforated pipe drains,
2, Sec, 3, O2, Page 4 -Area Requirements provides for the establishment
of minimum size dwelling units as apart of the zoning ordinance, Mr.
• •
-2-
Andrew Hess, of the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Portland Regional Office, advises that this clause is discrimatory and
in violation of the "fair housing act. " Mr. Warren Felton, Deputy Attor-
ney General, State of Idaho, advises thafth'isprovision appears to be
discrimatory and would allow the city to control its tax base through
zoning which he believes has serious legal implications,
3. Sec. 3. 02, Page 23 -Subdivider or Developer requires that a
subdivision applicant be the agent of the owner or have proprietory
interest in the land. This requirement has no significance at the application
stage, It is required at the platting stage and earlier application of this
requirement could seriously affect land transactions made contingent
on public acceptance of development,
4. Sec. 3. 02, Page 23 -Subdivision defines a subdivision as the divi-
sion of any tract of land into two parts which requires any dedication. This
section while increasing the stringency specified in State Code which
stipulates four or more parts, does not address the creation of 2-4 units
not requiring dedication. Can such divisions continue under state law
without submission to the city planning & Zoning Commission and Council?
if not is there to be a short plat procedure or will the city accept a Record
of Survey as sufficient?
5, Sec. 6. 02-C, Page 32 specifies that no legal lot may be diminished in
size after its creation, What about lots which are reduced in size by
subsequent right of way takes?
6. Section 12. 00, Page 43, Zoning Schedule specifies that key lots will
have a minimum frontage of 50' at the set back line, This requirement
will restrict the design of key lots and eliminate the use of 'flag lot'
design, Narrow frontage key lots and flag lots are very well accepted
in the market by people desiring more than average seclusion. This
requirement does nothing to enhance lot characteristics, rather it en-
courages uniformity and inhibits creative design.
7. Section 13. 04-G, Erosion, this section, as written would mandate metiga-
tion of all natural erosion on all commercial and industrial sites, It is
not attainable.
8. Section 13. 05 K-1, Page 52, Home Occupation specifies that only re-
sident family members may be employed in same. This clausewould clearly
eliminate most "Home Occupations". Most individuals require intermittent
assistance such as clerical, and may require full time assistance during
periods of illness or absence. This requirement will result in rnany personal
hardships, A numerical criteria would be preferable for ernployees in
"home occupations, "
.. ~ ~ • -3-
9, Section 14, Ol I-2, Page 54, Front Yard Parking, the intent of this
statement is vague,
10. Section 14. Ol I-4, Page 54, Front Yard Parking, requires parking
spaces for multi-family dwelling units to be 25 feet in length, The
reason for oversize parking spaces for multi-family units is not es-
tablished and would appear to contribute to the "asphalt jungle" without
cause.
11. Section 14.102, Page 55, Parking,Space Requirements, space require-
ments are excessive, The requirements substantially exceed the.recommen--
dations of the American Association of Highway Officials (AASHO) for urban
design, Moreover, the AASHO recommendations have not been revised
since the increased sale of smaller vehicles mandated by energy conservation,
The adoption of the requirements specified in this section will contribute
to the 'asphalt jungle' without cause orbeneficial effect,
12, Sec, 14. OS E, Page 57, Use of Parking Facilitiesy The last sentence
of this article is totally incoherant,
13. Section 14. OS N, Page 58, Screening on Landscaping„ last paragraph
refers to a 3" diameter size class tree. Is "class" redundent or does it
refer to an acceptable specie? This requirement of 3" trees will require
machine planting and contribute to increased development costs to be
passed on to the end consumer,
14, Section 16, 04. 4, Page 65 which deals with the duties of the Planning
& Zoning Commission, grants them the power to approve or deny permits
and applications, This is in violation of Idaho Code which limits their auth-
ority to that of a recommending body,
15. Sec, 16. O5. 3, Page 67, Zoning Amendment Procedures, contents of
applications -requires essentially the same information as a conditional
use permit, It would appear that the drafter of this ordinance was confused
about the differing purpose of these two provisions, It is extremely unlikely
that any applicant for a rezone would know who all of his tenants would be-
let alone their spacial requirements and desired architectural treatment,
16, Sec, 16, O5. 9, Page 69, specifies a period of one year between zoning
amendment applications for the same parcel of land, In periods of rapid
growth, this requirement could result in discrimination allowing an adjacent
land owner to proceed ahead of the earlier applicant,
17, Sec. 16.06. 1, Page 70, Conditional Use - again grants the Planning
& Zoning Commission the authority to approve or deny, and is in violation
of state law.
- • • -°~
18. Sec. 16. 08. 4 B-I, Page 78, Preliminary Development Plan Content,
specifies that the plan be prepared by an engineer. This appears to be in
violation of State Code which provides that a final plat be prepared by a
Surveyor, While the State Code does not specify a registration requirement
for the preliminary plan that' are historically considered within the purvue of
any qualified surveyor, engineer, planner or architect,
19. Sec. 16. 08.10 C, Page 85, Dimension & Scale of final plat. This
section is in error. The State Code was changed two years ago elimi-
nating the use of the 'hard board'. This section should reference Section
50.13 of the Idaho Code, thereby accomodating any future charges as well.
Ir_ addition, there is no mention in any section of this proposed ordinance
to the proper use of otlier sections of the state code relating to plats and
curve= .~,
i. e. Condominium-law and record of survey
20. Sec. 17. 07 D, Page 95, Bonus Density, provides individual bonus density
of 25% for four items, but does not consider the cumulative effect. This is
a short sighted concept as it provides no incentive to the developer to
consider more than one item. A schedule of cumulative density bonus would
result in more pleasing developments.
21. Sec. 18. O2, Page 100, Planned Residential Development (design guide-
lines) Much of this section is filled with philosophy -not fact- it should be
materially cleaned up to stand as a part of any ordinance. Design criteria
is appropriate in a public ordinance, but design philosophy is best restricted
to private publications on the subject,
22. Sec. 18. 04 G & H, Items 4 & 5, Page 111, which deal with the service
area and minimum population requirement for commercial developments will
effectively eliminate any new neighborhood shopping centers for many years.
The adoption of these requirements will mandate central city development
thereby increasing traffic congestion and violating natural energy conservation
goals.
23. Sec. 18, 05 A4 b, Page 115, Layout & Design of parking areas is in conflict
with earlier sections of the ordinance.
24, Sec. 18. Ob, Page 117, Planned Development Landscaping Guidelines.
This section is similar to Section 18. 02 -full of philosophy and little fact,
25. Sec. 19.01, Page 118, Responsibility. for Plans/Plats, This section
specifies the use of a registered engineer for all plans, and as such is in
violation of state law. This section should be rewritten to comply with
state law - requiring the services of an engineer, surveyor or architect,
as appropriate,
~. ~ ~ _5_
26. Sec. 19. 02 A, Page 119, Monuments
If the city desires a uniform street monument, this section should specify
type and should probably state that the street monuments be placed subse-
quent to the completion of street improvements.
27. Section 19. 03 B2 Surety Bond
This section does not recognize the authority of the Ada County Highway
District over the streets nor their increased requirements for bonding.
28. Sec. 20. 02 D, Page 122, Street Grades specifies a minimum gradient
of 0. 5%. This is unrealistic and unattainable in most of the valley floor
Acceptance of this criteria would require continuing rolling grades, excess
site filling and excessive storm drainage systems. This would have a
material effect on development costs and would increase street and drainage
maintenance costs.
29. Sic. 20. OlE, Page 123, Vertical Alinement, does not specify the
maxi:~u:^: allowable grade break without the incorporation of a vertical curve.
30. Sec. 20. 02 E, Page 123, Centerline Offsets of Intersections ends in an
incomplete sentence and does not specify any minimum offset. A minimum
offset requirement is essential to avoid traffic hazards.
31. Sec. 25, Items 13-16 depict the flow procedures for various planning
and zoning applications and again allude to the authority of the Planning
& Zoning Commission to approve or deny, in violation of State Code.
32, Throughout this ordinance the use of the words should and shall are
used as synonyms while should is generally understood to recommend an
action and shall to mandate an action,
In summary, I would like to state that in more than 25 years of practice
in surveying and subdivision design, I have never reviewed an ordinance
that contained as many legal, technical, and grammatical errors as this
one. I would recommend thatihis ordinance be returned to planning and
zoning work sessions, and that responsible citizens and members of the
professions and building industry be invited to provide input to the final
draft,
Thank you, 1
~ ~/,
James V. Potter