HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 01-30MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP JANUARY 30, 2001
The Joint Workshop of the Meridian City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Mayor Robert Corrie at 7:25 p.m. on Tuesday, January 30, 2001.
Members Present: Robert Corrie, Cherie McCandless, Tammy de Weerd, Ron Anderson, Keith Bird.
Others Present: Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Bill Nichols, Tom Kuntz, Bruce Freckleton, David Swartley, Larry Moore, Will Berg.
Planning and Zoning Commissioners: Keith Borup, Sally Norton, Jerry Centers
Commissioners Absent: Bill Nary, Richard Hatcher
Corrie: At this time I’m going to open the Meridian City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission Joint Workshop for Tuesday, January the 30th at 7:30 p.m. At this time I would like
to have Roll-call by the City Clerk on both the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Roll Call: Tammy deWeerd Cherie McCandless
Ron Anderson Keith Bird
Mayor Robert Corrie
Roll Call: Sally Norton Jerry Centers
Bill Nary Rick Hatcher
Chairman Keith Borup
Item 1. Discussion concerning single loaded streets around parks
Corrie: Thank you, I saw Bill yesterday. Welcome Sally, Jerry, and Keith. We’ll start on the agenda. Item No. 1 is discussion concerning single-loaded streets around parks. Mr.
Kuntz do you have five minutes.
Kuntz: Did he say five minutes?
Bird: That’s for three items.
Kuntz: Thank you Mayor and Council, and Planning and Zoning Commissioners. We would like to thank the Council and Planning and Zoning to allow time tonight for addressing a couple
of items. We have members from our Parks and Recreation Commission here tonight and our Pathways Committee both here. I know they’re going to talk as soon as my five minutes are up
so I’ll try and move ahead. We have two issues that we wanted to get some discussion on. Both issues are pertinent to our completing our Parks Comprehensive Plan. We plan
to have that to present to the City Council at a planning workshop the second meeting in February and then bring back the Council hopefully for adoption at the end of February. The
two items -- the first one pertains to requesting the need for single loaded streets around future park sites. There should be a memo that you received tonight. I won’t read it verbatim
but just to give you a quick background on why we feel like it may be necessary to request this, if at all possible. Our Comprehensive Plan will provide for approximately eight community
parks ranging in size from 20 to 30 acres. The service area for those parks is roughly one to a two-mile radius and the sites preferably have street frontage on two sides with one of
those sides boarding on a collector arterial street. That’s because they are truly community parks and the community needs to be able to see that they’re there so they can use them without
them being hidden in subdivisions. The first item again is recommending that there be single loaded streets. What that means is that there are houses only on one side with no yards
backing up to the park. The advantage to that is it eliminates potential complaints or conflicts with homeowners related to privacy, vandalism and light encroachment from sports fields
lighting if the fields are lit. The other positive thing is that they provide more visibility into the park. Being 20 and 30 acres in size there is some distance to be able to see
from one side to the other. This provides more security for the Police Officers. It also makes the parks appear more visible, more inviting and appear safer. Another issue related
to single loaded streets is that it could possibly invite patrons to parallel park along the perimeter unless we choose to have the area posted no parking. It could also increase traffic
flow in the subdivision. The fourth and final item that we would like to have some discussion on or take into consideration with the single loaded streets is what is the City’s responsibility
as far as paying for the sidewalk, gutters and even potentially for half of the streets? With that I will rest and bring up Item No. 2 in a few minutes.
Corrie: Any questions from Council, Planning and Zoning at this point?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay Tom.
Issue 2. Discussion concerning interior subdivision pathways
Kuntz: This is the second and last item I have which will lead right into the Pathway Committee’s report. Mr. Ed Fong will be presenting that. With the Community Parks System and
them being spaced further apart then a neighborhood park system would be, it’s important that we provide trails and pathways to link the subdivisions and the community parks together.
Thus allowing a safer avenue for pedestrians, bicycles, children and adults to move between those parks and between their subdivisions. The City Pathway Committee presented a recommendation
to the Parks and Recreation Commission and that recommendation is attached to my memo. It should have
been dated December 6, 2000. Without reading it verbatim I will move down to the second to last paragraph that is underlined. It is recommended that future developments will be located
in the proximity of current and future school. Park sites will be encouraged to provide access to those sites in the form of pathways. It is also recommended that pathways between
subdivisions be considered in future developments and have the City provide guidelines of the connectivity between subdivisions is continuous and pathway designs are managed in a consistent
form. With that I’ll stand for questions or we can move right into the Pathway Committees report. Thank you Mayor and Council.
Bird: Thank you Tom.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson?
Anderson: Tom, I’m a little slow. Can I back up on the single loaded streets for a minute because I was reading some of that? Under the background information and then under the Issue
No. 1 on the first page. Those two almost seem like they conflict because it talks about the how sites would have street frontage on at least two sides. On Issue 1 you are talking
about that these community parks would have streets bordering, just a little clarification for my part. Are you saying that a community park would have to have streets all the way around
it?
Kuntz: Council member Anderson, Mayor and Council, what we’re proposing, in the best possible situation, would be that a site would have frontage on a collector arterial. We would
have a second side that would also be exposed to a street. We’re asking for consideration to have the third and fourth sides also, possibly be on single loaded streets that are part
of the subdivision streets. In essence the park would not have any homeowners with loss that would back up to the park. We know that that can’t always be the case but we would just
want to have it in there listed for consideration as these new developments come forward.
Anderson: That was going to be my comment. That might be what we would all want in a perfect world, but that might be really hard to obtain in the space configurations and as much
build out as we already have. Okay now we can move back to that pathway, sorry about that.
Corrie: Any other questions on pathway.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay, Mr. Fong.
De Weerd: I guess I would have one. Who would maintain this, would it be deeded over to the City, is it going to be maintained by the Homeowners
Association? As you’re considering the standards is that going to be part of your recommendation or who would own that pathway?
Kuntz: Councilwoman de Weerd, Council and Mayor. As far as the pathways that are being recommended, that would be interior to the developments. Those would be owned and maintained
by the Homeowners Association and the development.
Corrie: Mr. Fong.
Fong: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, Planning and Zoning Commission, everybody else in here I don’t know. I just want to thank you for the opportunity to give you an update
about our Pathway Committee’s progress. I think in the back of Tom’s handout there is a written document. I will just try to give you some excerpts from that and just let you peruse
that document at your pleasure. Basically I wanted to mention that we do have about 14 Committee members involved with our Committee, both City employees and volunteers. Tammy de Weerd’s
been a part of it, as well as I’ve been active as the liaison with the Parks and Recreation Commission. A little background about our Committee. In May of 2000, at a Parks and Recreation
Commission meeting, it was decided that we should sponsor a Committee to take a look at what a Pathway Project might look like and determine the need for that project within the City.
It kind of duck-tailed into the Five-Mile Creek pathway project (sic) as well as some ongoing work that was being negotiated between the City Council and the Nampa Meridian Irrigation
District. Being one of the newest members of the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting at that time, and didn’t have any other assignments, I raised my hand. Frankly I wasn’t that
excited about pathways to begin with and now that I’ve been involved for about six or seven months it is pretty exciting. It might be one of the easier ways for us to increase the amount
of park space as well as recreational activity here in the City. In taking a look at some of the work that was being done towards the Comprehensive Plan, the draft of Parks and Recreation
Commission, were a number of interviews and workshop discussions that were held with citizens and groups here in the City. Over and over again it became very apparent that a lot of
people wanted pathways. It was the joggers, it was the bicyclists, and it was the people that walked and did that for an every day exercise. It is a lifetime type of activity. They
very clearly said they wanted to have those types of opportunities here in the City. In actuality, and some of the information we have, it is ranked as one of the top five priorities
from those groups that were interviewed in the process of developing the Comprehensive Plan. I did note in the June of 2000, not June of 200 --
Bird: I was going to ask about that.
Fong: -- the City’s (inaudible) Comprehensive Plan, fast fingers this afternoon I must have missed that zero. There are a number of points that are highlighted
around pathways and trails. It specifically mentions the Five-Mile Creek pathway connecting Meridian and Linder roads through two City parks currently. I actually don’t know the existing
status of the agreement between Nampa Meridian Irrigation and the City of Meridian, but that work seemed to be moving quite along. At the last point I saw where conditionally we would
have some support from Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. With all of that as background, our first Committee meeting was held on October 26th of last year. Since then, here we are
just basically the end of January. I would point out that we’ve met eight times and spent one Saturday morning touring the City. We’ve had a very aggressive schedule from the Committee.
Those Committee members that are here, I want to thank them as well as those that aren’t here for really stepping up and abiding by our own rules. We wanted to work fast, complete
our work and move on to figuring out how to implement a plan around pathways.
De Weerd: Ed, why don’t you introduce your Committee members that are here.
Fong: Yes, those that are here. Buzz Freeman, Kevin Shreeve, and Eric Wallentine. Raise your hand. On page two I just documented a couple of the accomplishments that we’ve completed
in our Pathway Committee. The first and foremost thing I would mend is that we completed team building exercise in our first meeting. In the back three pages of the document you will
see three kinds of (inaudible) that talks about – they say my expectations, City expectations, and visions of those types of things. Those became kind of the driving forces of what
our Committee was trying to accomplish. When they say my expectations and you can look at those later on, those really were the Committee expectations, what we wanted to do accomplishes
a Committee. The City expectations actually became what our perception was of what the citizens and the community expected from our Committee. The vision statements, those items became
really the driving force for our vision. In the considerations, that really is a checklist of what our final draft recommendations would be, did we address all of those considerations?
The benefits obviously -- they become opportunities to promote the project as well as verify and determine a value for the project when it’s completed. Obstacles obviously are those
things that we need to set realistic timetables around. Money, time, a lot of different efforts we had – recognizing those as a Committee. Those become goals for this project, don’t
set too aggressive a timetable but get something accomplished. We wanted to provide a realistic objective there. The resources really are early thoughts about where and how we might
build community awareness and support for the projects themselves. From all of those three documents and I point to the vision statement, we actually developed a vision in our second
meeting. It really clearly is – says develop a safe, friendly, low maintenance, alternative transportation pathway system throughout the greater Meridian area that offers various forms
of recreations, physical fitness, and general usage to participants of all agents while increasing an overall since of community. A lot of things there, but it really incorporates most
everything that we saw from the vision that came forward from all of the groups’ input. One of the things that we also have accomplished is a
significant number of field trips around the City. We did a group Saturday meeting that I can tell you that every member of the task group committed has taken their own time, at least
two or three weekends that I know, and has literally walked almost every drain in the City. They have been through almost every park, and walked a number of streets through the subdivision.
As our Committee has grown we know the City now, and a lot of us have learned about places we never new existed. Recently two subcommittees were formed because enough work had been
accomplished that we divided into one sub-committee. They (sic) will be preparing a recommendation around the pathway locations, which include trailheads, as well as just the actual
trail locations themselves. We also have a standard recommendation subcommittee that will develop some recommendations around what the paths should be themselves. With all of that,
our plan is to complete that subcommittee work, approve it as a Committee and present it to the Parks and Recreation Commission at our March meeting. We’re hoping that we’ll present
any adjustments, but hopefully we’ll be adopted at that time. Where does the Committee go next? I think a lot of the members probably will stay on if we ask them to figure out how
we fund that type of thing and how we implement it and secure community support. The fifth item that we have completed is the pathways Connectivity Planning Document that Tom just shared
with you. We did see early on, although we didn’t have a completed recommendation yet, that there very clearly was, in terms of new development coming in, that we needed to at least
make clear what our general direction was. In terms of the connectivity needs between subdivisions, the parks and the schools. The sixth accomplishment we have -- a number of our members
have attended other -- have either contacted or attended other pathways meetings, and organizations here in the valley to make sure that Meridian is in the loop on those things. I think
we will have some ongoing participation there. Some of the other groups probably are not going to be connecting or are not thinking about connecting Meridian directly. We’re going
to try to take the other mode and say we want to connect to you in some way shape or form, primarily the Greenbelt. Some general Committee direction, and here again we’ve not finalized
work and that kind of summarized our activity today so you get an update. We really see a pathway system that has multiple trailheads within the City. They would incorporate the entire
City from south of the freeway to Chinden Boulevard. If you kind of envision what it might look like from Locust Grove going north south, to Ten Mile going north and south probably
budded by the Ten Mile drain as well as any new developments between Ustick and Chinden Boulevard. Somewhere in there we see connectivity to all of the current parks as well as any
anticipated parks is highly desirable, and as considering current school locations and future school locations simply because new development will be built around those. We have some
real opportunities to build pathway systems on the outskirts of the City. In the interior of the City where the existing development, we recognize there would be some difficulty in
having straight-line paths. In those particular cases we’re looking at (inaudible) either side locations that we’ll note as part of the pathways or streets perhaps in the case of bicycle
paths and those types of things. It is apparent to us that – we do have some natural opportunities along
the Five-Mile, Ten Mile drains and the South Slough. Actually for whatever reason I didn’t know the South Slough existed but it’s a pretty nice little place. If you walk along there
there’s a lot of wildlife. We do see that, as an opportunity currently, because there are easements there, there is fairly wide pathways and roads that might be available. A lot of
them will be suitable immediately for walking. They may not be the centerpiece or standard much like Five-Mile pathway, but they certainly are opportunities to identify as pathways.
Currently it could be used and is (sic) being used by our citizens we just haven’t formalized that. What are some of the obstacles that we do see, there are some areas where we do
see sidewalks that are disconnected occasionally? We would urge the Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission to try to maybe look at trying to standardize some sidewalks and make
sure they connect as well. A primary case of that is on Ten Mile, I believe, where there is a sidewalk that clearly is much narrower than the other sidewalk. For some reason these
appeared to be about ten feet apart. It’s something that we certainly can work around currently, but future projects it would make sense to have those things connected. We could call
them nice pathways at that point as well. From a pathway specification what are we thinking about in general terms? There will probably be a number of pathway specifications depending
on the priorities that the Committee recommends in terms of what should be developed immediately. Obviously the centerpiece or Cadillac might be considered the Five-Mile pathway. Because
of timing constraints as well as financial constraints there may be opportunities to have the paths along the existing drains -- maybe work for awhile. There may be cases where we know
future development isn’t there for a long time. We may leave them as dirt trails, just identify them or there may be some that we want to have some type of composite material put down
in the interim. Depending upon the priorities for that specific pathway, whether it is bikes, hiking, roller-blading and that type of thing. Those recommendations would come in a number
of different specifications for the pathways themselves. Some general concerns from the Committee, and I may have spoken for the Committee in this particular case, but I just tried
to summarize some things we’ve talked about. One is the community commitment, both from the general population -- we have a large Committee that represents a lot of people but we have
not actually gone out and solicited the vast majority of public opinion. We did have a cross-section of all of those groups interviewed for the Comprehensive Plan Draft. Until you
go out and ask for money and ask for people to volunteer time you just don’t know, in my opinion, that you people want that. That’s one key area that I think we’ll want to address as
a Committee as well. The second thing obviously is funding. We’re well aware of the City’s juggling priorities so we also feel that within the Committee we’ll probably form a subcommittee
to take a look at how we might find alternative methods for developing these pathways whether they be community groups. They could be church or school or those types of activities,
perhaps even corporations might sponsor it or individual neighborhoods perhaps might do that. We think that’s an opportunity. I think the biggest concern we have at this point is the
urgency of commitment from within the City to make sure, do you want a pathway or not?
With all of the developments coming and our real opportunity to really have a connected pathway system, we really see the need to take some steps in our planning process to incorporate
pathway into those new developments. It really would make a nice framework surrounding the City with the new develops both north and south if we take action now. With that I think
I would just open that up to any questions and brought along some friends of mine in this Committee so they can answer some questions if you like as well.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Fong, what would your Committee recommend for the width of the pathways?
Fong: Currently right now we’re looking, I think our last discussion last meeting was between 20 and 25 feet. That incorporates I think as well – it’s (inaudible) pathway in land of
either side.
Bird: I take it from that that all of the pathways will be multiple use roller-blading and then the whole works?
Fong: That is the plan although we did have an interesting discussion, last meeting as to how many of these pathways, if they’re within the City will be required to meet ADA or American
Disabilities Act? Obviously Five-Mile pre-pathway would meet that requirement but if we were developed pathways that form community funds or that type of thing would we be required
to have them all the ADA code or is there even a code for that? We’re unaware of that currently.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, one more question. Did -- going through subdivisions sometimes 20 to 25 feet might not be available. What is the smallest recommendation for width your Committee
came up with, 10 feet, 15 feet?
Fong: We’ve not addressed that yet Councilman Bird, but we will be addressing that. We recognize that within the correct 5 percent limitation that may (sic) become smaller. I think
the important thing there would be the connectivity, and we will come up with the standard and recommended standard.
Bird: That’s what I would like to see from your Committee is a standard of minimum maximum.
Wallentine: One other question that comes up with that is the, once again the (inaudible) minimum with recommended for bicycles. I’m just saying I think that (inaudible) but then they
also recommended that if you were going (inaudible) shoulders so you might have to cut out (inaudible) paths and steer bicycles around it (inaudible).
Bird: How does the Greenbelt get away with that because there’s a lot of places I don’t believe that’s eight feet is it? In fact there’s very few places that –
Corrie: Not that wide.
Bird: -- is that wide but this recommendation Eric, is eight-foot if you’re going to use bicycles?
Wallentine: That was the general recommendation as the materials obtain.
Bird: I would like to – myself personally would like to see an all stay multi-use wherever use wherever we possibly can.
De Weerd: You know Keith, they’ve been working with some of the regional pathway groups as well. I’ve been very impressed with the commitment of this Committee, their enthusiasm and
the quality of work. It’s really been fun watching what transpires there, looking at the development of partnerships and what is happening regionally. You can get that with your standards.
This is also something that probably can be given unto ACHD. They’re the ones that do our sidewalks and sometimes you’ll see an older sidewalk, then a newer sidewalk that comes in
that’s put into the area where the old road will eventually someday be. You do have the differences of height, placement and all of those issues. Once we get a master plan it will
be more helpful working with the developers, seeing that this is a first phase type of development instead of in Phase10 so that we can start developing some of those pathways. I’ve
really appreciated what you’ve all done and it’s pretty exciting to see the type of work that’s coming out of your Committee.
Corrie: Anything else?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I had one thing Ed, and I guess it’s just something that I’ve been confused about in the three years I’ve been on the Council. A lot of times when developers come
before us with a development we ask them for an easement or for land for a pathway if they’re along one of these drainages. It seems to be we end up with this hopscotch thing and one
developer we’re asking for a piece of land on this side of the ditch and the next one’s on this. It would make more sense to me, and maybe you guys are doing this in your planning,
maybe you can answer that for me. As you do a plan that -- you plan for one side of the ditch or the other or are you planning paths on both sides of the ditches so that we know which
developers to ask for land? We’re not asking everybody because you can’t build bridges back and forth every 100 feet when a new piece of property’s there.
Fong: Having walked across a couple of those drains and having to hop those ditches, I agree with you. I think we are planning one side of the ditch and that makes more sense. Actually,
it will be easier to implement. The existing problem we have in the City is that with a lot of the drains where people actually believe they own -- they may own the easements. It’s
going to be very difficult to get many citizens to just say we’re going to have a pathway and you can look in
my back yard and walk through there. We’re going to kind of count on peer pressure and networking with Homeowners Groups to try to get existing subdivisions along pathways to agree
to some pathways. New subdivisions are built in those drains. If we stay on one side and in our plan we recommend which side that should be we think it should be achievable.
Corrie: Anything else? Ed thank you very much, I really appreciate what you’re doing. Your Committee is moving ahead very well and I’m glad to hear that. I think we’ve got a good
start on it, let’s continue with it and we’ll give you all of the help we can here. I’m sure the Planning and Zoning will do the same.
Fong: Thank you.
De Weerd: Ed, was there anything that you needed specifically from us tonight?
Fong: No, I don’t think so. Just continued support. We will – one of the issues I guess, one of the challenges we have had is securing a map that meets our needs. There seems to
be a lot of individual maps that show drains, pathways and those types of things. Gathering a single map that has projected school sites, projected park sites, the drains and those
types of things on it, it is a very difficult process. We’ve been trying to secure that since October 26th.
De Weerd: That’s why you brought in the expert right?
Fong: That’s exactly right. Any support that we can have and when Kevin’s calling for that that would be helpful for us simply because we’re trying to draw that picture of that vision
of the pathway system right now.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
De Weerd: COMPASS.
Fong: COMPASS, yes that’s right.
De Weerd: So you have been working with COMPASS as well?
Fong: Kevin will be working on that.
Shreeve: I’ve received some mapping from the City Clerk room when of course you got through COMPASS. (Inaudible) we do have the current City mapping as of course received from COMPASS.
We’re in the process of trying to decipher all of the layers and different things and just get familiar with that to try to generate basically, in house within the Committee itself
the mapping that we need (inaudible).
Corrie: Thank you Kevin.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Shari do we have some arial photos as well? Okay, are there any questions from the Planning and Zoning people?
De Weerd: You’re our first line so you really have to be bought into this.
Freeman: That’s why it really helps them to have a pathway plan like you say, so you know what needs to be.
Corrie: That makes your job a lot easier when (inaudible) the first time.
Freeman: We’ve got to rely on the staff when they say this drainage is designated for a pathway and even then –
Corrie: You need more:
Freeman: Well it still seems to me like the main thing that could be worked out is the agreement with Nampa Meridian.
De Weerd: The agreement is final. We have a signed master agreement.
Freeman: On all of the drainages?
Corrie: On the pathways?
De Weerd: On the natural drainage.
Nichols: Councilwoman de Weerd, Mayor, members of the Council, members of the Commission. What we have is a Master Pathway Agreement. There have to be negotiated on each separate
pathway a license which ties into the Master Pathway Agreement. The license is designed to take into account any special features, particular problems with the drain. We couldn’t get
our friends at Nampa Meridian Irrigation District to give us a Blanket Pathway Agreement that would cover all potential pathways but we’ve at least got a Master Pathway Agreement and
then we just have to negotiate the specific instance. It gets a lot of the issues narrowed down with regard to what we actually have to work with them about.
Freeman: Is that given to the developer (inaudible) that agreement, that Master Agreement? Would that be the (inaudible) start with we’re asking someone to do a pathway? This has
already been worked out (inaudible)?
De Weerd: I’m sure it probably would be worked out at staff level. I know Nampa Meridian has been asking us for a Master Plan for at least a year. At least since we’ve started working
on the Five-Mile Pathway Agreement.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Freeman: (inaudible) pathways but still the Master Plan’s got to go beyond that.
Bird: I hope so, Comprehensive Plan is the master as I recall isn’t it? It just re-mentioned the drainage, this Committee is the one as I see it’s going to give us a master layout
and then at that point the developers know when they come forward if their land includes some of this and you eliminate all of the problems. Then you have to go to Nampa Meridian and
get the individual agreement. Once you get the master plan it’s pretty easy.
Freeman: (Inaudible) ten years too late.
De Weerd: Better late than never.
Bird: Well that’s probably true but it’s better to start now than to wait five years from now.
De Weerd: Right now it’s the alternative to some of the transportation issues too so it’s one of those timely buzz words, thank you, thanks Ed. Mr. Mayor, can I also take this opportunity
to introduce our new Commission member, Bruce McCoy. We confirmed him I think it was last week. It’s nice to have you here Bruce.
McCoy: It’s good to be here.
Corrie: Okay, Tom.
Kuntz: Without taking up any more of your time, any direction on Issue No. 1 as far as the Planning and Zoning Commission? Any comments they wold like to submit? I know that our new
Commission President, Sherri Baker is also here if you would like to hear any words from her.
Corrie: Sherri any comment?
Baker: No, other than hopefully like Tammy said Planning and Zoning is our first line of defense when it comes to either the pathways or the single-loaded streets around park land or
park land that we’re in negotiations with or are obviously currently undeveloped. Big case in point is the 58.8 park --
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I need to stop Ms. Baker for a minute. You have a pending application that will be coming before the Planning
Commission, which is for a development on the north side of 56-58 acre park. You should not entertain any information about that in this setting.
Baker: Okay, my only comment was it was too late to do anything about that –
Nichols: Well, but I just –
Baker: -- my point is as these things come about, as proposed parks come up and we proposed subdivisions come up, we need to have whether it’s an Ordinance or whether it’s guidelines
that Planning and Zoning tries to follow and Council tries to enforce. That hopefully, strongly recommends that we have these pathways that wherever possible we put in as many (inaudible)
streets around the proposed parkland so that you start to have a nice pathway to a nice park.
Bird: Very true.
Corrie: Anything else Tom?
Kuntz: No sir, thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I guess that would be the ideal. It’s something that staff, even Planning and Zoning staff and parks staff can strongly encourage. I think there are incidents
where it probably wouldn’t work. I guess the question that still is yet to be answered would be, if you had the single loaded streets do you put sidewalk on the park side? Definitely
you would have to have curb, would the City be responsible for any portion of the road? Those definitely are questions that we will get from the developers. If we don’t have the foresight
to have the answers before we get to that point it’s going to be another one of those wishy washy things. Did the Parks Commission come with a recommendation on that? They did?
Kuntz: Was that a question Councilwoman de Weerd?
De Weerd: Yes.
Kuntz: I’m sorry, (inaudible) we will.
Corrie: Hang on here just a minute, the attorney’s getting a little bit antsy. Is that okay, those guys (inaudible)?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council as long as you’re talking about general policy and not specific to any one development than you are allowed to do that.
Corrie: All right, thank you.
Kuntz: Council member de Weerd, I guess I would like to ask for our Planning and Zoning Director’s input on that. We certainly have some thoughts on it but I know she’s also got some
thoughts on whether the City should be responsible for sidewalks around the parks if there single loaded streets and or paying for half of the street development.
De Weed: Is this a pass a (inaudible)?
Kuntz: No ma’am, it’s a microphone.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council I’m not sure legally what there maybe issues as far as maybe someone saying that it’s a taking if we require something like that. They are certainly benefiting
from being adjacent to the park. We require pathway construction along the existing drainages now and the City doesn’t necessarily have to participate in that although they have agreed
to do that in certain instances. The developers are benefiting from that park, I think it adds to the development to have a single loaded street. They are required to have curb, gutter
and sidewalk along any streets now and they are also not having to provide any of the services that would normally have to be installed for lots within that subdivision. Without getting
specific I – unless legal counsel says that we’re in jeopardy of being accused of the taking I don’t see why a new annexation since we can require that the development agreement is part
of a new annexation you can’t impose additional requirements. Passing the (inaudible) again.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, the microphone doesn’t reach that far from there to here. I would say to you that if it’s a condition of annexation and zoning, since you’re
not required or mandated that you have annex to anything at this point. Somebody comes to you and says, as a condition we want you to annex our property so we can have these urban services.
We want to be part of the City. Then you can impose conditions related to that development as a condition for that annexation and we’ve done it in a variety of ways. We’ve had developers
donate to, although it’s not necessarily a condition of annexation, some of them have donated park land as part of their development. Some of them have donated these pathways. We’ve
had open space requirements, we’ve had a variety – we’ve had well sites for water. We’ve had – some of them have looked at whether there’s property within their development that the
School District is interested in as a school site, although the City doesn’t operate schools it’s one of the things that’s considered. We can do some more research on it. Our preliminary
indication is that as long as it’s a condition of annexation and zoning you would be permitted to say, as a matter of policy if there is a park site proposed that you could say we don’t
want houses backing up to this park site. The best way to do that is to have a single loaded street. One of the things that you might take into account on that is how many sides do
you want streets on? That’s where we need to get the Parks Director and maybe give us some insight
on that. If you go to Nampa there are parks that have streets on all sides of the park, essentially so that some of them have parking areas and some of them the street is where people
park. You have other parks, which are not completely surrounded by streets, but there might be streets on two out of the four sides or three out of the four sides. If the Parks Director
Department Commission has a recommendation as to the policy that should be adopted in terms of the minimum number of streets, then that also would impact it. You might just do it on
a case by case basis and say, for this one it looks like two streets is enough. You’ve got the collector on one side and then this side street into the subdivision. Another issue might
be, although the current indications were going to go toward these community parks versus the neighborhood park at seven to eight acres. We’re going to have some of those parks proposed
and what do you want on those? How does this single loaded street issue work into those particular parks?
De Weerd: Where safety could be a factor in it too with limited visibility.
Nichols: Exactly.
Corrie: Sally?
Norton: I have a question and that is not only the single loaded street issue. It sounds like the City really wants the developer to pay for the entire street including sidewalks on
both sides of the street. On their side with the houses and the sidewalk where the park is going to be, is that my understanding?
Bird: That’s the ideal situation.
Kuntz: Yes ma’am.
Norton: What about liability let’s say somebody hurts themselves on the sidewalk where the park is?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Norton: So if the City owns the land and somebody hurts themselves on the sidewalk it’s the City’s responsibility. We want the developer to put in the sidewalk on the entire street,
is that correct?
Bird: If we can get it.
De Weerd: Sally I think a lot of times you’ll have the curb there. Some of the standards that the Commissioners been looking at is having a pathway along the perimeter anyway where
you wouldn’t have a sidewalk you would have the connecting points where you had a piece that would connect to your pathway. I don’t know if necessarily you would have to have a sidewalk
there. Again, that’s something that staff would work out with the applicant and something that
certainly in their recommendation to Planning and Zoning you’re going to hear something about it. If staff feels that the sidewalk should be there I’m sure it’s going to be something
in their comments.
Borup: That’s what I liked about coming earlier about flexibility you have some ideal guidelines (inaudible) situation. The longer you realize that then –
Corrie: You can work with that.
Bird: Keith’s situations going to be maybe a little different. I believe the Recreation Commission could come up with – through with the Parks Director and stuff, come up with some
ideas to give to (inaudible) cookie cutter.
Borup: (Inaudible) hopefully someone (inaudible) already so he’s not going to have a road around that area. Now if they’re connected to a school you’re not going to have roads on both
sides of the (inaudible) beyond that just topography and the layout of the subdivision land. They (inaudible) what happens.
De Weerd: Well certainly smaller parks aren’t going to need that either.
Corrie: Jerry?
Centers: Well I would hope that staff would – they want to require so that there’s no surprises for a developer down the road, comment that we could require this or that I wouldn’t
want that to be a surprise –
Corrie: I think the staff could work with the developer and those bases and tell them what the – could might be what we’re looking at. A general of the parks and pathways, to let them
be aware of what could be coming up and not hitting them right between the eyes. That would be a staff –
Borup: The guidelines could say that this is what we want and if the City can’t comply with them it’s up to them to show good cause why these could vary (inaudible).
Corrie: Change it.
Centers: Well want and comply are two different meanings you know. This is what we want but do we necessarily have to have it or is it required by City Ordinance? This is what we
would like to have if you want to address the Commission and the Council you could provide it.
Corrie: Versus an Ordinance that you’re going to have to do it. You’re right Jerry.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, it sounds like maybe I’m the only odd ball. I guess it’s just -- my sense of fairness tells me that if we put a park in that we ought to pay for the improvements
on our side of the street. If that included curb, gutter and sidewalk then (sic) that’s our property. Whether we’re building a Fire Station, a Police Station or a City Hall we own
that park, it’s our property, we ought to put it in. I’m like everybody else, yes it would be great if they give it to us but my sense of fairness says we ought to pay for ours. I
wouldn’t have any problem, even like with Tammy, if we had some type of deal that said that if we put a pathway around the park and it was within so many feet of the curb that that could
count as the sidewalk. It just seems to me like we ought to be paying for our fair share and not dump all of that on the developer.
Bird: I don’t disagree with you but if they offer to put it in why not take it?
Anderson: This (sic) is what these guys are saying, they’re not always going to offer so they need direction. Are we going to require it or not?
Bird: You’re right.
Centers: I agree with you Councilman Anderson, we have an item on the agenda Thursday night where the developers offered, we didn’t ask.
De Weerd: We can’t hear about that.
Centers: To extend the sewer line.
Corrie: Yes, we’ll let you –
De Weerd: We’ll let you figure it out.
Corrie: Bruce?
Freckleton: Mayor, may I address the group for a moment. I think our intention for proposing this was to move away from having properties back up to a park. That was the main intention
to get away from those situations because those things are called (inaudible) carpet exist. In many cases (inaudible) the plots, in the City the park would back up to canals, parks
are backed to the schools, parks would back up to other public lands and wouldn’t necessarily require roads on all four sides. Our main intention was where parks impacted neighborhoods.
Neighborhoods would be opposite the street from the park. That was our main goal, is to move those complaints and don’t (inaudible) buffer zone. It creates a vision of a vigorous
open space as well as a safer zone around the parks. On the issue of sidewalks, I’m inclined to be with Ron on the issue of the City taking responsibility of the sidewalk on the park
side of the street only. If the City does it, the City can then dictate if we want to have pull-outs in lieu, if we want to have
a special curb put on it, and/or brick work along there. It makes it add to a park (inaudible).
Smith: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Gary?
Smith: May I just make a comment? The Highway District’s policy on single loaded roads is typically that the developer builds his side, curb, gutter and sidewalk, his half of the roadway
plus 12 feet on the other side of centerline and that’s it. Then the developer of the property adjacent to that undeveloped portion of the roadway completes the road. That’s just a
general requirement by the Highway District for roadways that are build on perimeters of developing property. That may (sic) work in with what Councilman Anderson was talking about
as developer of the park then taking the responsibility to complete that improvement.
Borup: That’s also got some undeveloped property though right (inaudible) properties vacant and undeveloped.
Smith: That’s correct and whether it’s against undeveloped park property or developing park property I guess I ‘m just making that comment to apply in either case.
Corrie: Anything further on that discussion?
Borup: I just have a question, the memo talks about the community parks 20-30 acres so when they developed on the guideline I think they could on the smaller ones too but are we looking
at those same guidelines or looking at something different. I don’t know if the (inaudible) addressed that or not. Hope that they include it in –
Baker: Yes and I shouldn’t have said ordinance before policy, it was really more than (inaudible) looking for and to keep it as something that we’ll talk about. It may be hard to do
it and say 10 acres and under, we recommend this, we would like to see this, it would be more than 10 acres we would like to see this. We may have to do it on case park by park basis.
Hopefully we can narrow it down somewhat within size. Obviously the smaller, five, seven, eight acres, they’re probably going to be enveloped in a subdivision. You’re not going to
have as many issues as far as the number of cars you need to get to it, or being able to (inaudible) to patrol it as well as a larger park’s going to be. That’s something certainly
that will look at and come up with recommendations for parks.
Kuntz: Mayor and Council and Commission, our Comprehensive Plan will include design standards for many parks, neighborhood parks that will address specific issues as far as facing on
streets parking spaces. For those (inaudible)
and we already have a rough draft of that that just got sent to us so we will address those and really we’re talking about community parks only when we make this request as far as single
loaded streets.
Corrie: Okay, anything else on that one?
Kuntz: Thanks, very valuable input.
Corrie: Thank you Tom, do we want to continue where we are right here or do you want to go to the table or is this okay?
Berg: (Inaudible) very much of their mind as far as recording so (inaudible) mic there or something.
Corrie: We can move this over there.
Bird: We can move that mic over.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Item 3. Discussion of relieving work load of the City Council (more items handled by P & Z with only appeals going to City Council
Corrie: I think the next item on there is No. 3. It’s a discussion of relieving workload of the City Council (more items handled by Planning and Zoning with only appeals going to City
Council. I might start that one, well first thing that comes to my mind is the Conditional Use Permit. I have always thought that they have to come into the Conditional Use Permits
anyway to give you first crack at it. I thought that the Planning and Zoning Commission could say aye or naye on those. If they said naye then they could have it appealed to the City
Council rather than bringing those over to two or three months period of time before they could even get a Conditional Use Permit. Council any thoughts on that one?
Bird: (Inaudible) get rid of them period.
Corrie: They can’t quite do that.
Bird: Not quite do it, but I think there’s a lot we can eliminate. I don’t know can – about the only thing we could probably eliminate is the second Public Hearing. I’ll ask – defer
to Mr. Nichols here.
Nichols: Councilman Bird, Mayor, members of the Council, members of the Commission. You could eliminate the hearing in front of the City Council on the Conditional Use Permit but most
often we see these Conditional Use Permits and tandem with an annexation and zoning. What you would – you would still have the Public Hearing that’s required on the annexation and zoning.
You would
simply eliminate the second hearing on the CUP, which for some of these projects would have saved us some time. Most of those projects where there’s a lot of people here to talk about
the CUP, there was the same number of people in front of Planning Commission. They spent, if not the same probably more hours on those same issues. That’s one thing you can do, you
can – some communities have turned their Planning and Zoning Commission into a Quasi-Judicial body which actually makes the decision. Then it’s only on an appeal and that’s limited
to certain things. There are some things that by statute are required to be Council decisions.
Corrie: Variances come to mind.
Nichols: Yes, variances are one, vacations are another, ultimately the zoning I think is it has to be a Council decision, obviously annexation has to be a Council decision.
Borup: Plats.
Nichols: Right plats, so I haven’t honestly looked down through a number of our agendas to see which of those items could have been eliminate. Part of the problem is just the volume.
Borup: I looked at the last few because I was thinking there was a lot but I didn’t see hardly anything so lately there hasn’t been. This came up awhile back when we were looking at
City Council staying until one or two in the morning but there ought to be some help there. Since then you’ve gone to one more meeting so maybe that’s not the problem. We’ve added
an extra meeting, so I don’t know if we’re anxious to take on more (inaudible) but we don’t see where it would be really an extra load. We’d just say that we’d maybe spend a little
more time on some of these where we knew this was the only Public Hearing. It probably wouldn’t be CUP’s that were tied in with – I don’t think it would help anything on those or tied
in with the annexation and zoning. Someone’s objecting to it, they’re going to get up when they’re testifying on the annexation and zoning they’re going to say the same -- you’re going
to hear it all anyway. I don’t think that’s going to probably help you much there.
Bird: That’s true.
Borup: We do have other – day care centers, any – (inaudible) stuff in Old Town you know the little business conversations and that type of thing. Those are usually pretty short hearing
anyway that most of the time there’s not a lot controversy on. Still it’s a few less things you need to worry about. I’m not sure what extent that I’ve been – like Boise, I think,
very few of their stuff goes to City Council. They just handle it on an appeal basis. It’s one of the statutes (inaudible). Also, more to that is what the Council feels they want to
do. This
was just brought up as an offer whether you need to spend time on some of those more minor types of applications.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson?
Anderson: I guess I kind of agree with Keith initially. We just made this switch in January to the additional Council meeting per month plus we’re starting our Council meetings an
hour earlier. I think we ought to give that a chance to see if the workload is still there. If it’s still a problem then we ought to look at them. We have to give this at least six
months and see how it works out before we really make any changes in my mind.
Bird: I agree with you Ron.
Corrie: I’m not real anxious to give Planning and Zoning anymore work than you already have.
Borup: We already hear them anyway. (Inaudible) that’s what I just – it just eliminate that second hearing I think.
Unidentified Speaker: I think you would have to give public notice of that wouldn’t you?
Borup: This would require an Ordinance change.
Corrie: An Ordinance to say that you have the Quasi-Judicial Power to do Conditional Use Permits. That’s much the same as in Old Town, everything but a church I think has to have a
Conditional Use Permit. We should have a list of things that the Council has approved and said you can put a restaurant you can – and then not have to go through that, that’s permitted
use and they can go right in and do it. Now they have to go through – yes without a Public Hearing. Now they have to go through three months to put in a shoe shop, it’s not worth it
they said. That’s what I’m getting on the calls. Council other areas.
Bird: I agree with you Mayor. I agree with Councilman Anderson, I think that since we went to this format you guys have added an extra meeting. We weren’t the only ones that were
staying late, I know a few of your meetings went late too. I would like to at least give it a try as it’s going now for six months, or so see how this goes like Ron said. That’s my
personal opinion, let’s give it a try because I’m not one to want to stay here until 1:00 in the morning.
Corrie: It may work out.
Bird: It might.
Corrie: Any other comments on that?
Anderson: Shari likes those late ones.
Borup: So we’re going to just leave things as it is right now then.
Berg: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I was just going to address Shari. I thought we were trying to load the Planning and Zoning Commission with all Conditional Use Public Hearings
that require only one and then give the recommendation to the City Council and they weren’t required to have the Public Hearing.
Stiles: That’s the way the Ordinance is now for Old Town, and Commercial Industrial Projects. The only problem is it gets to City Council without a second Public Hearing and then the
Council was preparing findings with no –
Berg: The other thing was that we were having a Public Hearing at City Council level, which I got feedback from the public that they didn’t have the opportunity to come speak when you
were talking with the developer or the applicant all by themselves and getting more information. I guess what I’m saying, we’re trying to funnel the Public Hearing at Planning and Zoning
level to get that burden off your back and yet when it came to City Council you’re asking the same questions again. Yet the public didn’t get notice for a Public Hearing because it
wasn’t a Public Hearing but the applicant was able to address the Council and give information. That’s my input that’s my observation.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols, you got a reply for that?
Nichols: Councilman Bird, Mayor, members of the Council, it doesn’t mean that it’s wrong.
Berg: I didn’t say -- I just (inaudible).
Nichols: There are certain requirements of due process. The fact that you’ve had the Public Hearing. It comes up on the application; you ask staff to comment on the application at
Council level. You ask the developer to comment on the staff’s comments and although it’s understandable it’s somebody that may have some interest in the project. Typically an objector
feels like that they should be able to get up and say what their objections are all over again. It’s not a requirement of due process that you give them that right to stand up and speak.
There are limits to it and where there’s been a Public Hearing with a body that has the ability to make recommendations to you, you consider those recommendations as part of what you
do. You consider staff and the staff listens to those people. They call up staff and make their complaints and put their comments in the record. They’ve had participation in the process
and that’s what due process requires.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I guess -- I think that procedurally we need to be better communicators on the process. If there’s only one Public Hearing required as Planning and Zoning makes
their recommendations, they can even note at that time there’s only one required Public Hearing on this. When it goes to City Council staff then the applicant will be allowed to address
City Council. If the people would have any comments please give it in written form so the City Council would have that. I don’t know how that works, they could still submit a letter
at that point could they not or not?
Stiles: Not once the Public Hearings done.
De Weerd: Because your Public Hearings closed?
Bird: After the hearing got closed.
De Weerd: Well then just at least know that this is the one and only.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
De Weerd: Just an explanation of the process. I think that – I’ve heard a couple of comments both at Planning and Zoning and City Council that they don’t understand our process. Staff
gives the report then the applicant speaks and they can only come up one time. I explained it’s not a debate and that it is a formal process. I guess we need to remember that there’s
always the opportunity that only one person – that might be there first meeting and they need to understand our process and not be – walk away –
Corrie: I was just thinking about that, you brought that out. I think probably a good idea is in our Council meeting is each item explain what it is. What we’re doing, and what the
procedures going to be. If you do that enough times I suppose they will get what it is. I think she’s right, the communications – a lot of times people have sat out there and we’ve
gone through it. They’ve called me the next day and said what in the world did you do? To me it was easy, I know what we did but they don’t. From this standpoint I think it’s – I’m
going to try to do a little better on my communication to the public, and I think that will alleviate a lot of that problem and how we are going to be doing it. I kind of got on the
tailend of that, did I do all right on that one?
Bird: Yes you did.
De Weerd: Excellent.
Borup: I think that maybe we would ask probably from the Clerk’s office then, just to note on the agenda on which items would only have the one Public Hearing so we don’t overlook it
and we can make mention of that at the beginning. It seems like a lot of times after everything’s over we say oh, this is
the only one wasn’t it. I do, I forget which ones are which sometimes. Just some little --
Berg: Planning and Zoning staff should know too.
Borup: They need to mention their staff report.
Berg: They could very easily this is the only Public Hearing and that would be very simple to do.
De Weerd: But if you put on the agenda Will, even the people will see that and know, oh this is the only Public Hearing.
Borup: (Inaudible) one hearing, I don’t know. It doesn’t need to be a big long explanation.
Corrie: I think it would be, who out of those circumstances -- have the Commissioner, head Commissioner or the Mayor give that – of course we wouldn’t have it at this point. This would
be the form that we’re going to follow and this is the one Public Hearing, let them know –
Borup: Sometimes the staff reports do mention that but I don’t know if it’s all the time. It doesn’t seem like normal but quite often and that maybe enough if it’s just in a staff
report.
Stiles: I think we have it once in awhile.
Corrie: Anything else?
Issue 4. Discussion of Design Review format (subcommittee of P & Z Commission)
Corrie: Are we on item 4 now?
Bird: Yes.
Corrie: Discussion of design review formats (subcommittee of Planning and Zoning Commission.)
Borup: That came up specifically from Commissioner Hatcher but that’s been a question for the last several years. We have no design review procedures. I think a lot of people are
concerned about it getting out of hand, I know I am for one. I’m also concerned that we’re not doing sometimes very much of – we’ve tried to handle that a little bit on the Planning
and Zoning. A lot of times we’ve even held things up because we don’t always receive all of the elevations even. We’ve requested that, and it doesn’t always get in our packet. It’s
been turned in
somewhere but it doesn’t necessarily make it to us. There have been some things that’s gone through – I would like to go back a few years and redo that one because the design a (inaudible)
just certainly could have had some improvement. On the other hand, I personally wouldn’t want to see things get out of hand where you start dictating every little nick-picking color,
window side and things like that. There should be some (inaudible) up – that’s why maybe as you came up – if others feel that way, perhaps on those projects that deserve it, and I don’t
know how you determine that but in that case that would be up to staff too. The subcommittee of Planning and Zoning and they again would just review it with a little more detail and
make a recommendation. Then like any other recommendation (inaudible) take it from there. Rather than a full Design Review Committee, you know separate body, I think we’re (inaudible)
as a City to go to that extent of (inaudible) a subcommittee and that would tell us what it was -- go beyond that or not, or anyway that’s the item for this person.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, this is a touchy subject with me. I don’t think Keith would like somebody critiquing every house he builds to telling how it needs to look and everything else, these
developers, builders, (inaudible) and architect, everybody’s got there own design. First place I don’t think our Planning and Zoning Commission or the City Council’s here to design
buildings unless we do it professionally which we have one that does. I think that if it’s a (inaudible) coming in yes you can say something, but I’m not for one, going to sit up here
and tell somebody that he needs to redesign his building because it isn’t feasible to my eye, it might be to somebody else. First place these guys are going to build their buildings
to be feasible and profitable. I would not be in favor of anybody telling some developer how to build this building. If it’s unsafe or if it’s something like that, yes. We have inspectors
and we have Ordinances and stuff to take care of that, building laws. I don’t think there’s a single builder, and it’s just like I told you, I don’t think you’d want a designer out
there critiquing every one of your houses and saying hey, it doesn’t look right on this lot but you’ve got to move it down five lots.
Borup: Unfortunately it already happens in residential but –
Bird: Who critiques it? Your sell, demand, supply and demand is that right?
Borup: (inaudible) in both meetings.
Bird: Yes, but that’s supply and demand. That’s in your neighborhood right?
Borup: No, that’s (inaudible) the developer and then after awhile it could be a homeowner but that –
Bird: Homeowners.
Stiles: Yes that certain (inaudible) for setting goals and –
Corrie: They can (inaudible) shingle roof and that’s it that’s CC and R’s.
Bird: Yes, you go into that knowing that but they don’t tell you, you have to build your front porch – you want to put drive-it there instead of stucco because you like the drive-it
better than the stucco? They don’t tell you, you have to do that.
Borup: Not to that extent, but sometimes it’s almost –
Bird: Then you got your (inaudible) even being in there.
Borup: Right, I think I’ve got some of the same concern but (inaudible).
Bird: That’s what they’re doing, we’re not talking about houses we’re talking Commercial Buildings.
Corrie: One at a time, go ahead.
Borup: Most economical buildings build a square block box, and I don’t know if that’s what we want to see. Again, and I don’t want to get out of hand either but I think there’s something
a little bit more we could do that – maybe what we have.
Bird: Tell me what’s unattractive with some of those out at Hahn’s, the ones we’re leasing they’re just square boxed.
Borup: Those are a commercial, again I’m thinking more of the retail.
Bird: Retail area?
Borup: Yes, I don’t know if I want to get too specific, I think that the Schucks Building on Fairview could have been a better looking building. That was discussed at Planning and
Zoning.
Bird: Yes, but that building is built throughout the United States.
Borup: No it wasn’t, that was their point. We said it wasn’t the same as the ones they’re building in Boise, they said well this is our new design.
Bird: New design but it’s built throughout –
Borup: Now but it wasn’t built that way six months earlier or a year earlier.
Bird: These guys do a lot of market research and stuff and see what’s feasible for – could turn the dollar.
Borup: (Inaudible) trying to save money they eliminated windows on two sides.
Bird: Can’t blame them for that.
Borup: Well, (inaudible) on the same halves. Like you said the subdivision, if they don’t like it they go somewhere else. I don’t think – I’m thinking more of a happy medium. We’ve
got some buildings on East First that were probably okay 20 years ago but I don’t know if anybody take (inaudible) that same building.
De Weerd: Yes, like that automotive place.
Bird: That was more than 20 years ago.
Borup: The video store.
Bird: What?
Borup: The video store, you know that was economical for them to build and that’s probably what they needed to do was to make it work for them but that could have been improved a little
bit.
Bird: It looks just as good as everything else along the street.
Centers: I tend to agree with Councilman Bird, (inaudible) personal choice. It may be appealing to my eye, it may be appealing to his or yours and then someone else comes in and says
it’s an ugly eyesore on the corner. I think the Design Review Committee – you would have to be a large Committee to get a good cross section because if you just had two or three people
you may have some bias on personal taste. I think that’s what I (inaudible) be afraid of is those people’s personal taste. The color of the roof, windows whatever.
Borup: I would not be in favor of a binding. I would just give a recommendation only, non-binding.
De Weerd: We could appeal it.
Centers: If you’re not going to take their recommendations most of the time Keith than you might as well eliminate it. It’s just like if the Council doesn’t take our recommendations
most of the time and the staffs –
Corrie: Gary?
Smith: Mr. Mayor, the Architectural Design Review Committee is a very difficult situation and it’s very controversial. I think there have been numerous horror stories come out of our
neighbor to the east and their Architectural Design Review Committee. I’ve heard those stories from builders. The Architectural Design Review Committee can be very beneficial I think
to set a tone for the City
and the general type of structures to be built. When that Committee gets to a point where they’re dictating how many yellow tulips and red rose bushes they’re going to plant then that
goes way beyond what I think the Architectural Review Committee should be. Whether or not you’re going to have a brown roof or a red tile roof or that sort of thing. Like Mr. Centers
said it’s a very difficult situation, very difficult and I don’t know where that point is that you say this is what the Committee’s going to do or what this Committee should do. I think
there needs to be some input because we’ve seen some buildings constructed that are not architectural pleasing and they’re on main entrance roads to the City of Meridian. I just offer
that up with no answer, Sorry.
Anderson: Thanks a lot.
Corrie: That’s well-articulated Gary. I do too, I think there should be something that could help us guide us a little bit. Not necessarily say this is what you have to have but if
we let everything go, anything goes, you’re going to get anything. You’ve got to be kind of careful of going overboard but yet you’ve got to have some kind of a template so to speak
of what the City at that time would really like to see.
Borup: (inaudible) we’ve got landscaping guidelines on the City entrances. I don’t know whether it says this would be a lot different. I think on the most part, business is going
to do something that’s pleasing I mean it’s to their best interest, a vast majority of the time that’s going to be the case.
De Weerd: If they’re Customer Service.
Borup: Pardon.
De Weerd: If they’re Customer Service.
Borup: Yes.
De Weerd: If they’re not who cares.
Borup: If they’re not they don’t care. I think something like this would be for those few that don’t care. It’s got to be in the location – some of the stuff in the Industrial and
Business Parks that’s a different matter. I don’t know how you determine differentiating but me if something’s got to go wind clear back through in a Business Park it doesn’t really
effect the studies of the City.
Corrie: Shari?
Stiles: I guess I see where the Design Review Committee being the most beneficial would be Old Town with the new designations of the downtown, build town area going clear up to Fairview.
Right now everything in Old Town requires
a Conditional Use Permit and I think if you had some general standards to apply that would be great for Old Town. It would encourage more development and redevelopment downtown and
people wouldn’t be told when they come in and talk to us, well you’ve got a two or three month process before you can even move in. It certainly doesn’t encourage anybody to come downtown.
That would be my number one priority for some kind of Design Review is all of Old Town.
De Weerd: Instead of Conditional Use Permits?
Corrie: Conditional Use Permits yes. That’s what I mentioned earlier with having the Old Town – certain amount of things that you can do without going through a CUP. It takes a law
to get through that, three to sometimes four months. Of course we’re doing a fast track now with the number of Council meetings and Planning and Zoning meetings but still it’s some
time. Council any recommendation to kind of talk this over and see where we would like to go and what – again.
Bird: I like Shari’s idea on downtown. I really have a problem being a designer. I’m not going to sit up here and tell some guy’s building needs another piece of stucco on it or something
like that or he needs this or he needs that. I don’t think that we’re in that business to do it. Landscaping, we’ve already got enough, on our landscaping. We pretty well tell them
what kind of landscaping you’re gong to have around the building. With our tree designation, if they’re not a very big building just wait ten years and you won’t be able to see the
building anyway.
Corrie: Or 20 years, would you like to maybe review with our discussions here tonight and then revisit when we can meet together again?
Borup: (Inaudible) from the Council but I don’t know maybe this Old Town thing might be one (inaudible) or even – I guess I’m mainly thinking of the entrances to the City.
Corrie: I agree there.
Borup: We’ve got Fairview, I guess we’ve got Eagle Road, East First we’re getting more of them now.
Corrie: Pretty soon we’re all coming in nobody’s going out.
Borup: It’s something to be worked along with that and the Old Town thing. It sounds like really Old Town’s probably more priority.
Corrie: Okay, what don’t we have staff –
Borup: I’m not sure how much design review – I mean some of the stuff Shari’s referenced is usually the residence versions so they’re not doing much on architectural there anyway.
Corrie: Why don’t we – we can maybe get together and kind of work on the Old Town part of it? Maybe we can get rid of the CUP’s and have the Committee, Council, and Planning and Zoning
people put together something they would like to see with the Planning and Zoning staff. You’ve had a lot of talk with people that want to come downtown and want to be there and so
have I so I think we could probably work it together and work something out.
Borup: It’s kind of a different issue from this because it sounds like that’s going to be a good priority to get that.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, maybe that Committee can look at Old Town and maybe some of our corridor entrances (sic).
Corrie: We’ll get started with that one and see how it goes then.
Item 5. Discussion concerning annexation and zoning application before plats
Corrie: Annexation and zoning applications before the plats?
Borup: This came up, I guess I kind of put that on just to again get Council’s feelings. As far as any project you know, a new subdivision, Commercial Project (inaudible) annexation
and zoning plat are all going to be sent to you at the same time. I think we passed that out quite awhile back. This was more of some of the other projects where someone just wants
to do an annexation and zoning without a plat or without a design for the project. We’ve done a couple of those in the last several months and they’re different feelings. I guess my
personal feeling is if it’s in an area where the zoning makes since, it’s probably not a bad thing to go ahead and do it. They’re part of the City -- got the control. If it’s in an
area where it maybe doesn’t make since then you want to see the plat.
Centers: You said if it’s in the City or you see (inaudible).
Borup: I’m saying if you have an area that’s surrounded by R-4 land when they’re coming in and they want to have it zoned R-4.
Centers: And annexed also?
Borup: And annexed, how do you go wrong? If they’re coming in wanting to do a C-G or something surrounded by an R-4 that’s a whole different matter but we just did the church –
Bird: Valley Shepherd.
Borup: -- yes out south of town. They did have a Concept Plan but they didn’t have a plat. They just did the zoning and annexation we did something else earlier, I can’t remember
what it was.
Bird: We’ve done a couple of them.
Borup: Yes, so that’s the kind of procedure we’ve got is Council agree with that that it still makes sense – I mean not a problem (inaudible) plead with those on that type of thing
as long as the zoning’s compatible with the –
Bird: Surrounding area?
Corrie: Bill?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council and Commission. One of the things you have to remember is, when you do the annexation and zoning without a specific development in mind
you lose the bargaining chip that the City has with regard to imposing conditions as part of the annexation. For example, we had the problem with Maple Grove RV, the Conditional Use
Permit on the sales lot issue. One of the problems was no City water, no City sewer, and the City water being most critical because of fire protection issues. That’s inside the City
limits, it was part of the VanAuker annexation and there was no Development Agreement required. There were no requirements that the developer install water and sewer. So once that’s
done and it’s annexed you lose that chip to require that developer to do something about that property that assists the City in the extension of services or assists the City with regard
to planning. You can’t then require as a condition of the annexation and zoning that there be some property for a pathway. You can’t then at that point say – because you don’t know
what they’re going to put in there, you don’t know how it works. That’s one of the main reasons for tying these annexation and zoning requests with the actual development. With Valley
Shepherd it was a little different because it was going to remain in one ownership. They did have the concept plan and the Development Agreement ties them down to that concept plan
pretty tight. So there was – that’s a little different than somebody saying I want to zone this 40-acre piece R-4 because I got R-4 all around it. We don’t know what the density is.
We don’t know what kind of common lots they might have, what kind of open space they might propose.
Borup: That doesn’t come up with the plat though?
Nichols: What you’re saying is – there may be some things that we want to say, hey Mr. Developer we want you to do this or we’re not going to take you in. In less we see –
Borup: I agree with (inaudible) and that was one of the concerns. The other point that came up then, will it catch and put those same requirements on with the plat, or you say you
don’t approve the plat?
Nichols: No, because at that point then you start getting into the taking issue. With annexation and zoning it’s kind of a qui-pro-quo. If you want to come in we want this from you.
If that’s too much and you don’t like it then you can pull out. We’ve had some people withdraw their applications because they didn’t like the conditions that were being imposed.
Borup: What guidelines do the staff have now then when applications come in like Valley Shepherd? I should have looked to see what the other one was. It was not very many acres.
I can’t remember what it was.
Stiles: What that Tranquility Pond?
Borup: Pardon?
Stiles: Tranquility Pond?
Borup: Was that an annexation?
Stiles: It was a rezone but you can also require the development (inaudible) rezone.
Borup: That must have been – yes that was the one it was. That made a lot of sense, the location and everything.
Stiles: But in the case of Valley Shepherd they did have a Development Agreement that said you can do this, this, this, and this and that’s it so that they can’t just sell the whole
property now for a residential subdivision.
Borup: That was a concern. It had to, for what it was – but this points out like the control has probably been when applications come into you and you say that’s not going to fly?
Stiles: We’ve told them if they want to come in with just an annexation application that we won’t recommend approval and that they haven’t received very favorable responses from the
Council with no plan.
Borup: I’m not proposing to do anything different. I guess the question is -- the way it’s gone so far it looks like it’s been working fine. There’s been a few and – but those have
been to seem fairly logical.
Anderson: I kind of like to see the plat along with it as much as possible.
Borup: I think we’re all in agreement with that on subdivisions and anything like that, but it seems to make sense for the church. They said they wanted some assurance before they
went ahead with their committee.
Corrie: Of course like Shari said, there was the Development Agreement, which is pretty well binding him anyway.
Anderson: We’ve got them tied in.
Borup: That was what most of the time was spent on I think was a lot of those new (inaudible).
Item 6. Discussion concerning recommendations vs. findings of fact and conclusions of law (review / approval / time frame).
Corrie: Concerning recommendations verse findings of fact and conclusions of law (review/approval/time frame).
Borup: I don’t know if all of that’s been settled completely. I think some of that was – that kind of brought up a – (inaudible) did a memo awhile back on whether all of the Planning
and Zoning – I’ve got your memo somewhere, he may want to expand on that. Whether everything got put into recommendation – was discussed – we have not had – we do not review those.
We haven’t been, we were for awhile though (inaudible) copy of them. I guess the idea – this was on here. Is everything getting covered that should be? Should they be reviewed?
A few years ago the findings were coming out of Planning and Zoning, then I just told the City Council to reject, deny, yes to adopt it, or make any amendments (inaudible). I don’t
know we’ve wandered whether –
Corrie: Are you wandering whether your recommendation (sic) was in the minutes for us to understand?
Borup: Yes that’s part of it and whether this is still the best procedure to go with, if it needs to be discussed anymore to make things a little better.
Corrie: Go ahead Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I know there’s been questions sometimes, on the part of the City Council when we read the Findings of Facts rather is that really what the Planning and Zoning recommended.
Tammy told us that you guys weren’t approving those findings so we have a question sometimes in our mind rather that’s really (inaudible).
Borup: If it isn’t what’s the procedure?
Anderson: Then it should be going back to the attorney I guess for correction in my mind.
Berg: Comment Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Will?
Berg: Thank you, members of the Council, the process changed a few years back. The old process was the Planning and Zoning actually approved their findings before they were passed
up to City Council. It was recommended a few years ago to try to speed up the process since the Planning and Zoning was meeting once a month that the findings didn’t get delayed another
month to get their approval before they were passed on to City Council. It was changed that the Planning and Zoning made recommendations only. They didn’t prepare their findings, they
just made recommendations. To those recommendations were prepared by the attorney and just passed with the Public Hearing or with ever the application to the City Council. The concerns
that the Planning and Zoning Commission had, not to take anything away from whatever they said, but they were concerned that they didn’t get to review those recommendations even though
they were only recommendations. If they had all of their concerns or their high points maybe one Commissioners high point was more important than somebody else’s and it wasn’t spelled
out specifically in the motion that they would like to review those recommendations. Then we’ve had some discussions that I was involved in. If they’re going to review recommendations,
why don’t they just prepare findings again and review the findings and pass on more of a document that the City Council could either approve after the Public Hearing, or amend or have
the attorney change them all together? Since we’re having two Planning and Zoning meetings now, the process to me, of course and more work for the attorney doesn’t seem to be as much
as a month turn around for Planning and Zoning to review their own recommendations or findings. They can still get them to the City Council (inaudible) but better format of them reviewing
it and actually be more their recommendations or finding. The idea of change was to get it done faster. What the Planning and Zonings concern is to get it done more thoroughly so that
you have a document that is truly from the Commission.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, members of the Commission. First, I want to say that our office is always interested in putting out an accurate product and I believe that
we’ve done that. At least in the almost a year, next week it will be a year since I’ve been attending City Council meetings on a regular basis. I think in the stuff that I’ve seen
that’s come through has been an accurate representation. There are a lot of different issues that I think that everybody’s well aware of. One is we’ve tried very diligently to get
those recommendations from our office to City Hall in time to be in the Council packet ahead of the meeting at which the item will be considered. We’ve asked staff, we’ve asked the
applicant to put in a position statement, any other recommendations which they do not agree with or that they believe were not part
of the motion. Staff is – Planning Staff is horribly burdened and so it’s difficult for them to issue those position statements. A lot of the developers don’t issue position statements.
My only conclusion from that is that means most of the time I would say probably 99.5 percent of the time we get them right. Dave does or whoever else is taking that meeting gets them
right. We also generally don’t have the minutes from the Planning and Zoning meeting before those recommendations have to be in front of this Council. Will’s working on getting that
part of it improved. Dave has worked, I think at trying to get -- when the motion is made that it’s more specific, that he paraphrases it back and makes sure he understands it and these
different issues so that the motion reflects what the discussion and the decision is. We’ve done some things to improve the process. I don’t have a problem if Dave prepares the recommendations
and it goes to you and you critique them, you make changes and whatever before it comes to this Council but the Council needs to understand it’s going to slow the process. That’s okay
if that’s what the Council’s decision is, is to slow the process up in order to have a better product. I know the developers are interested in a faster process. That doesn’t mean it’s
a better process but there’s always this balance that has to be achieved and so we’ll do whatever the Council directs us to do on that. The other thing is that the Ordinance that you
are operating under at the time, you’re preparing the findings of fact said recommendations as I understand it. It didn’t say the Commission prepares findings of fact. This change
has brought about in order to bring in the compliance with what the Ordinance says. Just as part of the historical background, somehow that got into preparing findings but technically
they were just recommendations.
Corrie: Bill could we have a recommendation from the legal staff of what the Planning and Zoning could do with their own CUP’s and things like that? Others once it (inaudible) the
Councils has to do actions on. Is their anything else besides CUP’s that the Planning and Zoning could do without the Council only hearing appeals?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, to make sure I understand what you’re asking. I think what you’re asking me to do, or our department to do is to come up -- with these certain things. ABC through
whatever has to be preformed by the Council. Error go anything else can be done by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Is that what I’m hearing?
Corrie: That would be my recommendation of the Council. Of course it’s up to them what they want to hear and what they don’t want to hear. It looked to me like it would be a lot easier
if they had it in front of them what they could do. What they have to do and then they can make up their own mind in what they want to give to the Planning and Zoning or if they want
to give anything away. That would eliminate a lot of these findings of facts coming from them then to us. Am I wrong in that?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, I think what we can do is we can look at the Local Land Use Planning Act. We can review those different things we look at and say, absent City Ordinance to the
contrary. Here’s what’s on the City Council’s plate and here’s what can be on the Planning and Zoning Commissions plate, we can do that.
Corrie: I think we’re going to review this for six months the way I understood it and see how it works. Then you can have that time to see what we can and can’t do. Then if it’s not
working then the Council can look at it, and make a decision at that point. We want to try this new format for awhile and see if it’s working out, it may be that we don’t have any problems
with it.
Borup: This got on the agenda, not from a specific problem, it was just – this is a form to discuss, that one we got all parties here. Determined, I – what Mr. Nichols said, we’ve
made more effort on our (inaudible) to sometimes it can get rather extended and discussion get mixed up in the middle of the motion. We try to go back and report those and try to make
them more clearly (inaudible). That was a problem, probably not that far in the past but – it came out more just to make sure that the bases are being covered and we thought this was
the form to discuss that. Not that there’s any specific problems.
Corrie: Okay, Ms. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I do know that you were reviewing them at one time.
Borup: Shari was on behalf of the Commission.
De Weerd: Or Sally?
Borup: Sally, I mean.
De Weerd: I know it’s a problem putting together these recommendations without the tape, the transcription. I think Sally did catch a couple of things. I know when I was Planning
and Zoning I really wanted to know what was going to Council. The informal way that you had it worked did it not Sally?
Norton: Just with me reviewing them?
Corrie: Did it work pretty well (sic)?
Norton: Well yes. I reviewed them but then it was I had thought as compared to what was written for instance. There was, regardless maybe on Planning and Zoning I just would like
to read what we said before it goes onto City Council. I think as a public entity that there's more credibility in the Planning and Zoning Commission if they read what they pass before
it goes onto City Council. City
Council and the public would be assured that what was passed on to City Council that was approved by the Planning and Zoning not just one person reading the findings.
Corrie: Jerry?
Centers: Sally, maybe it would help, if for instance you could re-read the motion and repeat it. If there’s any disagreement it could be covered at that time.
Swartley: We talked about taping the tapes and getting (sic) a copy of the tape (inaudible) that way. That way we wouldn’t have to sit around waiting forever for the transcripts.
Which it might take even more time than flipping through fast forward and rewind button but we’ll try anyway.
Norton: If it was re-read entirely I think that would unclear of maybe everybody’s mind what exactly was said.
Centers: At that time because I don’t have a problem with it, transcribing it. I don’t think you know when you take the w out (inaudible).
Borup: I don’t know the problems been in the motion itself –
Stiles: Yes, I think it is in the motion.
Borup: -- it’s just maybe some of the testimony and comments. Hasn’t that been along our lines?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Borup: It had been some in the motion itself. Probably not lately I’m assuming. We’ve tried to be more careful.
Corrie: Anything else? I think we got pretty much Bill’s side of it and (inaudible).
De Weerd: I think what you feel comfortable with doing, do it.
Corrie: You’re making a recommendation to us, we want to make sure it’s right. Whatever you want to do.
Borup: Back before when we used to review the whole thing it was probably – Will may remember better. I can’t remember more than a couple times a year where we ever changed them, corrected.
This was not that common of a thing to make a change or correction. We were calling the findings, I guess technically it should have been recommendations –
Bird: Recommendations.
Borup: -- (inaudible) conclusions of law. Maybe it’s not that critical of a thing.
Bird: I’m like the Mayor, I think we should give this six-months. I have noticed the last year or so where there’s been too many – Shari hasn’t had too many problems and neither has
the developers on stuff like that. They would pick up on it if the recommendations weren’t done right.
Borup: That’s where I was curious how many have come from the developers. They should be the one that should be the control. They’re the ones that have the most at stake and if something’s
not right, they don’t read it then that’s kind of their problem.
Corrie: That’s one of things that we’re going to be doing here is to ask the developer is there anything different than what we have here that you see. If there isn’t than they’ve
bought the farm. Put the burden on them to read their own materials that are coming out of there.
Bird: They know what the motion recommendation was.
De Weerd: Yes, but if you miss something that they didn’t want on there to begin with, they’re not going to point it out to you.
Bird: I agree there.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Borup: That’s where the staff would have to (inaudible).
Anderson: Yes, it’s been reviewed by the applicant and the staff so it’s been reviewed by both sides.
Corrie: Like I say it’s not a perfect world but I think we – about 99.5 percent (inaudible).
Bird: I’m with you mayor, I think it’s been pretty good the last year or two.
Item 7. Discussion of Future Topics
Corrie: Item 7, discussion of future topics that you would like – personally I would like to see these happen about once every two months to keep us together and (inaudible) focus
with each other all of the time. If you have questions rather than waiting a year or six months down the road until it becomes a problem.
Borup: I don’t know if that got passed onto you and there maybe other – we discuss every fifth Tuesday, which is about three times a year?
Corrie: Yes, and I think that’s what –
Bird: Yes that’s fine with us.
Corrie: -- Council is saying that that would be good on the fifth Tuesday we could have a Joint meeting –
Borup: Four times a year.
Corrie: -- whatever it is.
Borup: I guess likewise, if there’s nothing to put on the agenda then there’s no need to have a meeting.
Corrie: There’s one in May, then there’s one in July and then it doesn’t happen again until October.
Borup: We may have exhausted all of the topics for awhile.
Corrie: That would give us – and if there’s anything you want to discuss we could –
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Borup: We don’t want to all just be one sided here. I think we’re always looking for direction from the Council too.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, a discussion of future topics – one of those could be – I know going to the two meetings a month, Planning and Zoning, has stated and I’m here to remind you, that
they would be willing to start looking at updating some ordinances. I guess maybe at our next meeting we could identify those ordinances and find out what they might be underway and
if they need time in helping with prioritizing or that sort of thing that that might be a timely issue.
Borup: That would be real good. Staff already has an ongoing list and it needs to have some prioritization on it to really (inaudible). I’m sure that’s what they would probably like
too.
De Weerd: I do know too, at our last Joint Meeting we discussed the sewer plans and priority areas that the City’s looking at growth along the white, the south slough, and then the
area south of the freeway. Again, always want to keep those priority areas in front of us as applications come in from all angles of town. See if anything comes up that needs to be
discussed in that regard or if priority areas change. There’s a lot that could come up in the next four months.
Borup: I think that would be a really – I would really appreciate a report like that and maybe beyond that just philosophy. Where the City would like to see things go. I think what
we’re hearing now, where the market place is trying to take it. It sounds like not necessarily where the City wants it to go but there are some pros and cons to that too.
Corrie: We’re going to have to give you some directions on that one.
Borup: I think the staff – that’s where it all starts.
Corrie: Shari?
Stiles: We have some situations coming up in our area of impact that apparently the staff at Ada County has advised applicants how to go around the City. To go ahead and request annexation
knowing that the City will deny it and now they’re going – they’ve held pre-application meetings with the County and are proposing their own sewer districts, urban development, commercial
office, residential, and full-blown huge projects.
De Weerd: Shari does the Comprehensive Plan allow independents that are districts within our area of impact?
Stiles: It doesn’t address it.
Bird: It doesn’t address it.
De Weerd: Well we better put in there.
Stiles: Well with some new Supreme Court decisions, our Comprehensive Plan doesn’t necessarily mean anything. The County is the one that has to approve a plat. If their staff is –
I don’t know what to do whether it’s something that we need to talk to the Commissioners about, whether it will be considered exparte communication if -- we can’t get too specific because
these are applications that are being submitted to the County. They have every intention of developing pretty much every square inch of our impact area regardless of what the City wants.
Regardless of – I know that our last meeting with County Commissioners, I asked them point blank, are you going to approve urban development in our impact area? They said no. I don’t
know if that’s changed or what, but if their staff is telling people how to do this then I think the County Commissioners need to be informed of that. If that’s not something that they’re
in favor of then they need to jump in the middle of their staff and let them know that that’s ridiculous. Otherwise we might as well bring in all of our Urban Service Planning Area
and say we’re not planning for any of it, take it.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I know Boise has in their Comprehensive Plan the discouragement of Independent Sewer Districts. They have also in the last
number of years, had a really good relationship with the Commissioners themselves as far as them not approving those. I don’t know what the staff is up to but it sounds like in talking
to their Planning Director that Boise doesn’t have those problems anymore.
Borup: Boise extends their sewer out they don’t –
Bird: Yes, Boise just extends their sewer out.
De Weerd: Not in all regards.
Corrie: The last area of Impact meeting we had with them they were stopping in their sewer going west so it would be ours. This Independent Sewer District could be something that we
better talk with the County Commissioners about real quick.
Borup: That’s what I meant by kind of the philosophy of how the City – I’m real concerned about the City losing control of that. That’s a danger by just denying everything then it’s
out of our hands almost completely.
Stiles: How big is leasing it?
Bird: They get their own Sewer District it’s (inaudible).
Borup: That’s what I mean by the philosophy.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Stiles: Our Comprehensive Plan does say that urban development may occur if municipal services are extended to it. What the Ada County staff is telling these applicants is that they
will consider their own Sewer District to be municipal services and they will recommend approval.
Corrie: Yes, United Water will be right in there with them.
Bird: You can believe that.
Stiles: There’s one application that’s for 80 acres and that would be south of Kentucky Ridge. There’s the other application that’s coming before you that’s over 300 acres between
McMillian and Chinden.
Borup: That’s why I think it would be good to have some discussion to see how we want to go, I mean find what everyone is – my personal is --
Stiles: It hasn’t gone to Council yet.
Borup: -- I would like to see the City take control of that.
Stiles: But it still goes to Council.
Borup: -- or this is going to be what’s happening? They’re all going to be county subdivisions, if we deny everything than we lost that control?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I guess in your discussions then with the County Commissioners, if they would entertain approving something like that I guess the next discussion we should have
is do we annex amend and just designate it all real low density? Then when they come in with their – that’s the only other solution I guess that –
Stiles: It’s not even contiguous.
Bird: I was going to say you can’t get to it Tammy.
Corrie: We can’t go that –
De Weerd: Then how can they even apply to the City?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: I have to find out from the County Commissioners where they are standing on this thing real quick.
Stiles: I guess with not being too specific.
Corrie: We’re not being specific here but – we’re being specific in – we’re going way out there. My discussions with them, I can be specific as I need to okay, anything else?
Bird: I have nothing.
Corrie: Anything else Keith, Sally, or Jerry?
Borup: We’ll bring it up to see –
Corrie: I’ll get with you as soon as I get with them.
Borup: (Inaudible) six month thing all at once here.
Corrie: This is the one right now is priority to get with the County Commissioner and see where they’re coming from.
Borup: I think so for future stuff. For what we discussed tonight it sounds like a new Old Town Ordinance.
Corrie: That yes.
Borup: (Inaudible) I guess it would be wouldn’t it?
Corrie: It’s Item 4, Old Town Committee, Old Town Ordinance, anything else from Council?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I had a question of Tammy. Whatever happened with that City logo, where are we at on that?
De Weerd: I gave the feedback that we’ve gotten to the different departments and I was waiting for it to be on some agenda sometime.
Bird: What agenda? I’m like Rob, I thought they were supposed to come back and present to us again.
De Weerd: They presented it to you and then it went out to the departments.
Bird: We didn’t know where it was going. I just thought they were coming back Tammy, I didn’t know what was going on.
Anderson: I thought they were going to re (inaudible).
Bird: That’s what I kind of left on was the – we would give them the money and they were coming back here to us. I didn’t know Tammy, has all the department heads got it then?
Corrie: This on the logo?
De Weerd: We’ve gotten comments from several departments, engineering, accounting and parks.
Corrie: Most of the departments don’t like them. Most – too busy but –
Unidentified Speaker: We sent some comments about it.
De Weerd: Yes, they were very favorable.
Unidentified Speaker: But we haven’t heard anything since then.
Bird: Mayor, with your permission could we put it on the first meeting under department and have Tammy report back to us on what’s (inaudible) under department reports?
Corrie: The 6th?
Bird: Yes.
Corrie: Yes, fine.
Anderson: My other question was for Keith. Are we going to do reappointment of the Council people this year?
Bird: Yes we’ll do a reappointment, I’ll get with you by the sixth we’ll have it done like I told you when we elected last night. I’ll get the 6th, I’ll talk to each one of you between
now and the sixth.
Corrie: Do you want to put that one there?
Bird: Yes, and under department.
Corrie: Anything else? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion to close the Meridian City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission Joint Workshop.
Bird: So moved.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to adjourn the City Council and Planning and Zoning Joint Workshop at 9:30 all those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:32 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK