Loading...
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