2002 02-07 SpecialMeridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting February 7, 2002
The special meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 6:00 P.M. on Thursday February 7, 2002 by Chairman Keith
Borup.
Members Present: Keith Borup, Leslie Mathes, David Zaremba, Keven Shreeve,
and Jerry Centers.
Others Present: Larry Moore, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Bruce Freckleton, Tom Kuntz,
and Will Berg.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
___X___ David Zaremba ___X___ Jerry Centers
___X___ Leslie Mathes ____X__ Keven Shreeve
____X__ Chairman Keith Borup
Borup: Good evening Ladies and Gentlemen. We would like to call to order our
special meeting for the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. The agenda
on this meeting is going to be the first Public Hearing on the proposed parks and
recreation system and action plan is the full name. We would like to start with the
roll call, Commissioners in attendance.
Item 3. Public Hearing: Proposed Comprehensive Parks and Recreation
System and Action Plan:
Borup: I will mention this is a special meeting before our regular Planning and
Zoning meeting this evening with one item on the agenda and that’s the
Comprehensive Plan for the parks. We would like to start with again open this
meeting and start with a report from Mr. Kuntz, our Parks and Recreation
director. He’s going to give us an overview of the plan.
Kuntz: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Before I start, I wonder if I could get
pronunciation on our new commissioner’s name David, last name.
Zaremba: Zaremba.
Kuntz: Commissioner David.
Borup: Commissioner Centers has just arrived.
Zaremba: I do answer to David if that’s easier.
Kuntz: Thank you. First off I want to thank you for allowing us to take an hour of
your time tonight. I know how busy you Planning and Zoning Commissioners are
so, I’m going to t6ry to keep this as brief as possible. I’m going to give you a little
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 7, 2002
Page 2 of 17
bit of background information. In July of 1999, the City Council approved monies
for the parks department to hire a consultant to put together Meridian’s first parks
Comprehensive Plan. That plan was completed in July of 2000. Unfortunately the
plan did not give us the clear direction that staff and the Parks commission we
would receive from our first Comprehensive Plan. As a result of that, the Council
approved us hiring a second consultant who put together our action plan. That’s
kind of the meat and potatoes of what I would like to discuss tonight. The initial
Comprehensive System Plan really had some fairly generic information that
could be used in any city, any park USA. So, I’m not going to even reference that
plan tonight but I would certainly entertain any questions that you have from that
document. We are hoping to adopt both of the documents at one time. However,
as it states in the action plan, if there is, if there's inconsistencies that appear
between the two documents, the action plan will take precedence. I just wanted
to kind of clarify that. Also tonight, I handed out --. If there's anyone in the
audience who has an action plan. We do have our first draft of amendments,
addendum to that plan. I brought extra copies if anybody needs to pick one up
tonight. Those are some changes that the commission and staff are suggesting
at this point, especially in relationship to neighborhood parks. With that, I’ll do an
overview of the plan. Starting with the introduction on page 1-1. The plan is
actually divided up into five different chapters starting with the introduction,
chapter one. Two is the park and open space recommendation. Three is facility
recommendations. Four is administrative and management recommendations.
Finally number five is our project funding which includes a six-year capitol
improvement plan. Again, the kind of meat and potatoes of where we go from
here. We need to have that six-year capitol improvement plan to be able to ask
Ada County to start collecting impact fees in our area of impact. Also, will be the
driving force for us asking for an increase in our impact fees. So, that six-year
capitol improvement which is in the back of this document is a real important part
of this entire plan. Our planning area is 4., or excuse me 40.5 square miles is
what this plan addresses. It is a 20-year plan. However it is intended to serve the
entire Meridian impact area and City limits at build out and we’re not sure when
that’s going to be. The plan on page 1.4 talks about what our estimates, our
consultants estimates are as far as total build out and build out in 2020 is near
80,000 population is what they’re suggesting we’re going to be at. From there we
move into chapter two which is parkland recommendations. It really talks about
the different varieties of park that make up a healthy park system, ranging from
mini-parks which are traditionally provided by private developers, neighborhood
parks, community parks, our large urban park which we have one we’re
developing this year, the 58 acre park. Then special use areas and open space
areas which would include pathways. The first map that you have in your action
plan is on page 2-2. That actually shows the existing parkland in the community
and school sites. So it is land that is owned by the City as well as Western Ada
Recreation District and the school district. I might summarize by saying that
currently we have 39.15 acres of developed parkland in Meridian and the impact
area. We have 93 acres of undeveloped parkland for a total of 132.15 acres. We
add to that the 26 and a half acres that Western Ada Recreation District owns.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 7, 2002
Page 3 of 17
So we have 158.65 acres of combination of developed and potentially developed
parkland in Meridian and the impact area. That’s on the first map on page 2.2, 2-
2, excuse me. I’ll keep moving along here. On 2-3, the key element is that the
parks proposed in this plan are designed to achieve several objectives. But the
top three are to provide community parks within a reasonable bicycling or
walking distance from most residents. Two is to provide land for specialized
facilities such as a potential indoor community facility, special playgrounds.
Number three utilizing linear parks, canals and watercourses for trails and
pathways that could hopefully link these parks together. Also on 2-3 is an
inventory of our existing parks as well as our future parks and they are denoted
by symbols C-1through C-24 noting community parks, which on the screen are
the large red asterisks. There are a total of nine of those. As well as
neighborhood parks which we currently own and need to develop as part of
agreement with developers who have deeded us the property with the
understanding that those would be developed. There are I believe three of those.
Eighth Street Park which we own now. Excuse me, there's four of them. Eighth
Street Park, Chateau Park, which we’re almost through developing, a park north
of Los Alamitos and then Autumn Faire Park, a 6.8 acre park. I will comment that
Autumn Faire Park is not included in this document and is included in the
addendum.
Centers: What about Bear Creek?
Kuntz: Bear Creek is actually shown up there. It's a community park because of
the size 18 acres.
Centers: Right.
Kuntz: So it is identified, I believe it's a green square because it's 90 percent
complete. With that I turn to page 2-7, which starts to talk about different types of
parks design and development policies, where they should be located, how
much street frontage they should have. This particular section on page 2-7 is the
one that is addressed most heavily in your addendum. The reason for that is, this
overall plan really focuses the City’s attention and financial resources to building
the nine community parks on our plan. We support neighborhood parks but given
the limited resources that we have available had to make a decision, which the
Parks Commission supports. There are some of those members here tonight in
the audience. We wanted to use our impact fees 100 percent to build this
community park system for a couple of reasons. One is the community parks
serve a larger population base surrounding them. Two is we’re able to actually
program more activities and events in community parks. Three is they are less
expensive to build and maintain acre per acre when you compare them to
neighborhood parks. We’re trying to reach, I guess a happy medium with the
developers to try and build incentive enough to have the developers actually put
the neighborhood parks, five to seven acres in size in as part of their
development in exchange for part of the open space requirement, especially
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 7, 2002
Page 4 of 17
when you’ve got a ten percent planned development. We’re hoping that we can
motivate them to put those in. one of the concerns the developers have voiced is
we put a five to seven acre park in, we don’t want the Homeowners Association
burdened with having to maintain them. Staff is taking the position, we don’t have
Council support yet but we hope we do, that the City would then maintain those
as public parks if they’re deeded to the City, which will be added to our overall
system. Let’s see. We added Autumn Faire. The rest of that chapter, chapter
two, really talks about the different community park sites, what size they should
be, what some of the different positive attributes are and then the chapter two
finishes up with some design standards on community parks. How much street
frontage there should be, what some of the amenities could be included in a
community park. I guess won't go into that anymore. Any questions on chapter
two?
Centers: I have one question Tom.
Kuntz: Okay.
Centers: You mentioned nine community parks, correct?
Kuntz: Yes sir.
Centers: You have 11 on your map here. You have 11 red asterisks.
Kuntz: If you’ll subtract the red asterisk in the lower right hand corner N-22 is
considered a neighborhood park. So, we’re deleting that from the number.
Centers: Bottom right?
Kuntz: Lower right hand, right above Thousand Springs.
Centers: Right.
Kuntz: So, we can delete that and then C-13 which is right in the middle of out
system, what we’re hoping for there is to partner with the school district on the
Meridian Middle School site to upgrade that, the irrigation system. Friends of
Meridian Parks has actually donates some money to the school district to
upgrade that system and turn it into kind of a quasi-community park where we
may be responsible for the maintenance keeping it at a little higher level in
exchange for the community using it evenings, weekends, that type of thing. So,
true community future parks, we count nine. The very end of chapter two talks
about large urban parks which we have one of right now. Then 2.6, open space
area talks about our open space especially in regards to trails and pathways.
Chapter three talks about recommendations geared towards facilities. Actually
four of those specifically, pathways and trails, the potential for a future
community facility center, sports fields and then a specialized recreation facility.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 7, 2002
Page 5 of 17
There is an inventory in that chapter three, 3.4 dealing with pathways, especially
ones that we’d like to see in the near future and then some design standards as
far as width, clearance and those type of issues. On page 2-, or excuse me 3-5
is our last colored map, which shows our three main pathways that follow Five
Mile Creek, Nine Mile Creek, and I believe Ten Mile Creek. On the map on the
screen they’re showing in, two of them are shown kind of a yellow. One is in a
bright green. The other things that are shown on that map, which are perimeter
loop, is what we call our string of pearls. That’s intended to be a pathway system
incorporating sidewalks, inter-subdivision pathways, off street pathways. Really a
combination but really is intended to provide the community a way to get from
one community park to another on foot, or bike, or rollerblades so they don’t
have to use automobiles. The last area in chapter three talks about specialized
recreation facilities. One being a Skate Park which we are hoping to build, break
ground for this spring and get it built this summer. Group picnic areas, an
adventure playground which is a large multi-age playground designed especially
for the handicapped. That will be located in our 58-acre park. It will include a
zero depth water feature, which will have different spray heads, no standing
water. It will all run off into a holding tank or into a large lake that we plan to build
in that large park. Then a large picnic shelter that will hold up to 300 people
again, targeted for the large 58 acre park. Then our wish list includes an indoor
ice rink, which we actually have some private foundations who are discussing
that issue as we speak. The last chapter, or excuse me chapter four talks about
different management recommendations, how many staff we should have based
upon the number of acres that we are maintaining. On 4-3, it talks about impact
fees and it talks about the cost to actually build this plan as you see it. With a
community center it is almost $42 million. Without the community center it is
approximately 37.5 million and that’s to build the entire system as you see it
before you. Chapter five addresses the financing, excuse me, first it starts with
our project priorities on 5-1. Those are acquisition of parkland, development of
our large regional park, community park, development of new parks,
development of sports field, upgrade existing parks, development of trails,
development of specialized facilities, which we talked a moment ago. Then
development of a future community center. Those are not in any priority order.
Then on 5.3 which is at the bottom of page 5-2 talks about different funding
options. With that, on 5-5, is our six-year capitol improvement plan. With that I
will stand for questions.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners?
Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Tom, on page 4.3 you state that current impact fees
are $530.00 per single family home and $407 per multi-family unit. I think you
should be a little more clear there. Is that an eight-unit apartment complex? Is
that $407.00 per unit? SO, eight times 407? Or is it --? I guess you understand
my question.
Kuntz: I do understand it. I don’t know if I have the answer for it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 7, 2002
Page 6 of 17
Center: Really?
Kuntz: Yes sir.
Borup: Doesn’t that refer to --?
Zaremba: (inaudible) per individual unit within the multiple units.
Kuntz: That would be my assumption.
Centers: Yes.
Kuntz: That would be my assumption.
Borup: That is a definition?
Centers: I think it should be more clear --.
Zaremba: -- how the wording isn't clear.
Centers: Right. Per unit in an apartment complex or something to that --.
Kuntz: Sure. Or a duplex. It would be –
Centers: Per unit, $814.00.
Kuntz: Okay. Thank you.
Centers: Page 5-3, you mentioned park impact fees in the paragraph number
six, Meridian has this mechanism in place but the rate is quite low and does not
accurately reflect the true costs. But you don’t say what it should be. What do
you think it should be?
Borup: Back on the previous, 4.3, doesn’t that answer the question?
Kuntz: Yes sir.
Centers: You read yours too.
Borup: Back on the same page --?
Centers: No, that’s where it is now.
Borup: No, it's saying 1500.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 7, 2002
Page 7 of 17
Kuntz: Commissioner Centers, on 4-3, the calculations that we ran, if we
wanted to bring our park system up to five acres per thousand population. True
costs to buy the land and build the parks today for all the new people that we
move in is $1500.00 per household. The political reality is we’re at 529. So, our
plan is to go to the City Council and request an increase of $200.00, 729, which
if you look at the true costs is about 50 percent of what it really costs us to buy
land and build parks.
Centers: You give the various funding sources or possibilities. Have you tried
any of those? My highlighter note was the HUD block grant. Have you tried any
of those others?
Kuntz: No sir.
Centers: I had a note on No. 11 on page 5-3, that sounds interesting. That was
my note, joint public private partnerships.
Kuntz: Commissioner Centers, actually the partnership is probably one of our
Council’s highest priorities as far as the Parks Department goes because it's
been tried successfully in other communities adjacent to us. That is the City
purchases the land and then the non-profit agencies come in and develop the
sites, baseball.
Centers: So, are we pursuing that?
Kuntz: Yes sir, definitely.
Centers: But you mention the HUD grant. Are you going to pursue that?
Kuntz: We are certainly going to pursue grants. I don’t want to specifically say
we’re going to pursue HUD grants but we’re going to look at all these funding
options because we don’t have an overabundance of funds to build this plan.
We’ve got to look for money where we can find it.
Centers: One of the complaints that I’ve heard is there are pros and cons where
you know you increase the impact fees which they may be low. Then of course
that’s not borne by the developer. He passes it on to the homebuyer. If you keep
tacking fees on, then the price is going to be at a level where the number of
buyers decrease and you have homes that don’t sell. Then it adds to inflation
and properties don’t go on the tax roll. One thought that came to my mind was,
now I don’t know if it's possible, you know the homeowner ends up paying for it
anyway. In the price or whatever. We put the recycle fee on the trash and water
bills. Can't we put a park impact fee on the trash and water bill? The people that
are using the parks when then pay for it. Apartment dwellers, the landlord
wouldn’t be saddled. The tenants that are using the parks would pay for them. I
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 7, 2002
Page 8 of 17
don’t know a number that hit my head was five bucks. I don’t know how many of
those bills go out. How many water bills go out?
Kuntz: Many.
Centers: Yes. Then you could decrease it when you get to the point where you
have all of the acquisition in place and you’re just maintaining. If you want to
develop a park in Thousand Springs, excuse me for pointing at you Keven,
because I know he lives there. You start there. I don’t know that’s an idea I had
and I’m not --. You know I know the developers of course, obviously are going to
be against higher impact fees. I mean, that’s a given. The builders, but you can
see their side of it.
Kuntz: Sure.
Centers: It drives the prices up. They’re not going to pay it. The homebuyer is
going to pay it. So, I don’t know if you could legally do that. Let the homebuyer
and the tenants pay for their fair share to use the parks.
Kuntz: Commissioner Centers, it certainly an interesting concept. I’m sure legal
counsel would have something to say about it. Another concept that has been
brought to our attention by one of our Council members is used houses that are
resold. There's no impact fee on that. I checked with our legal counsel and there
are specific rules that govern impact fees and those types of fees. I certainly
hear what you’re saying is there’s got to be a more equitable way to distribute
the cost to build these parks. I understand that.
Centers: The people that are using them should pay for them.
Kuntz: I understand that.
Centers: I don’t think anyone would disagree with that. But it's how you get them
to pay for it and make them feel amenable to it. I think that’s all of my notes at
this time.
Zaremba: I’m going to step in and be a little bit contrary to that. I would like to
weigh in on the side of impact fees. I thought this was a startling eye opening
representation of the short fall. I agree with much of what Commissioner Centers
has said. But I also agree with impact fees and raising them. Even though it
raises the price of a home and possibly makes both construction and home
selling a little bit more difficult. If we’re hitting all fronts and trying to find all ways
of financing. If we catch up to the right number of acres of park per thousand
residents, then any new parks after that are only needed because of new
residents. I don’t have any difficulty with the concept of thinking that the people
who are moving here should pay their own way on the facilities they need. I
spread that philosophy to police and parks and schools and everything. I realize
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 7, 2002
Page 9 of 17
we have some sizable impact fees but the facilities are not needed if we didn’t
have those new residents. I’m not being totally contrary to Commissioner
Centers but I would like to weigh in, in favor of impact fees and raising them if it's
necessary.
Kuntz: Commissioner David. Initially when we computed the impact fees, we did
it not taking into consideration the current population. Actually it came out to
about $2500.00 per lot. So, working with the Planning and Zoning department,
Steve Siddoway, we re-calculated making sure that the existing population of
36,000 that we built that system, five acres per thousand, brought them to a level
where they should be at, five acres per thousand without burdening any new
residents. So, that $1500.00 per lot is based upon brand new people moving in
tomorrow.
Borup: Anyone else?
Zaremba: I have some general comments that I would like to add.
Borup: Go ahead.
Zaremba: I appreciate all the work that went into both of these documents. I did
slog all the way through the Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System Plan.
I agree that there was a need for the action plan. The action plan in my opinion
tells a good story about where we are, where it's projected that we need to go,
what will be the pains for getting there and to me the action plan, as you say
probably will be the document that will go forward. You know Comprehensive
Plans get revised every five years even though they’re 20-year plans so I’m sure
it will be the document that will live. That said, there are a couple of things that I
would like to see added to it, either now or in the revision five years from now.
Some thought possibly, you list parks that are within the City limits of Meridian
that are owned by Western Ada Recreation. I would like to see some thought of
what it would cost to either acquire those or make some trade so that the City of
Meridian owns all the parks within it's boundary. Some discussion whether that’s
even possible or you get a flat no from Western Ada. I don’t know but some
comment on that. A second thing that I would like to see added, there was one
sentence in the big document that mentioned the golf course. I don’t see it
mentioned in the action plan. The City of course owns the golf course and by my
reasoning even though it's a special use, the same logic that includes the
swimming pool we don’t own, I would think the golf course should be included.
That being said I would also like to see a long range plan for Parks and
Recreation to actually administer that contract and be the one that either three
years from now or 30 years from now, depending on what happens is involved in
the bids for managing the golf course or taking it over. Some thought on what is
going to happen to the City’s golf course and how can Parks and Recreation sort
of supervise. The third thing that I would add, and this was mentioned again, I
believe in the big document. Just a short list of the commercial recreation
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 7, 2002
Page 10 of 17
facilities that already exist in the City. Off the top of my head I can think of
bowling, motor speedway, water park, the Boondocks things, two fitness clubs. I
think it would be interesting to list those and I notice that there was one comment
from somebody that said we shouldn’t be competing with a commercial one. But I
think like you’re talking about the Skate Park and ice skating rink, there may be
ways that we could partner with commercial enterprises, maybe they put their
name on the skating rink but it's still a City park. Things like that, just some
comments in general. Thank you very much for the whole document.
Kuntz: Commissioner David, just one comment.
Zaremba: Yes?
Kuntz: First off thank you. Those are all excellent suggestions. We have
actually had some discussion and pursued some of these. But I think the Parks
Commission needs to be acknowledged for the amount of work that they’ve done
on these two plans because they’ve stuck with staff.
Zaremba: This looks like a tremendous effort and it's working out very nicely.
Borup: Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Most of the, I think
some that I had have been answered. Just a quick comment on the impact fees.
I don’t think anybody likes to increase any fees of any kind but it's got to be
where it's probably a little bit of a way of life. I think most of the industry has
learned to be able to live with it if it's, I guess in moderation and within the
guidelines. I assume that that’s one of the aspects that need to be looked at, are
they in compliance with the state statutes on impact fees and such. I would
assume that’s just automatic given. One of the things that I have been a
proponent of and interested in is a trail system. One question I had on that is the
right-of-way. You have it proposed right-of-way of 30 to 35 feet, is that --? Where
did that figure come --? That’s the size of a private road. (inaudible) two lane
street going down that much of a right-of-way. Is that how much is really
necessary? I guess my concern there if it's too much, are we going to fail to get
the right-of-way that’s necessary for the trails. What thought was given into that?
Kuntz: Chairman Borup, a couple of thoughts. One is we actually have a
citizen’s committee that’s been working on a trail plan that’s not included in this
at this point. We don’t have their final documents yet.
Borup: I’m going to turn to page 3.4, for any of the other Commissioners.
Kuntz: Two is many of these specifications have come from other cities that
have found these criteria to be satisfactory for their path.
Borup: I’m sure they’re satisfactory. I was wondering if they’re necessary.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 7, 2002
Page 11 of 17
Kuntz: Well, the standard that we’re trying to adhere to with Planning and
Zoning as development comes in now, is major pathways are a ten-foot wide
hard surface. We would like a minimum of ten feet on either side of that
clearance just so we don’t create a tunnel effect or a potential crime situation,
those types of things. Luckily our Planning and Zoning Ordinances along
pathways call for a low fence or a fence that can be seen through. But to answer
your question specifically, we think 30 feet is a good distance to have for a
pathway that goes any length. Are we negotiable on that? Definitely.
Borup: So, these are set as guidelines? I would assume then that the main
thing is the visual impact and the tunnel effect?
Kuntz: Yes sir.
Borup: So, the surrounding character is what's going to make a big difference?
Kuntz: You bet.
Borup: If you’ve got it open, you know a water system or something on one side
that can't be obstructed, then you don’t have any --?
Kuntz: Yes sir.
Borup: Okay. I mean I would rather see a 20-foot right-of-way and get a pathway
in then not have any at all.
Kuntz: We would too. There's a development that I don’t know if it has come
before you yet, a business development, we met with them, with Planning and
Zoning staff and it varies from 30 feet down to 20 feet in certain areas. We put all
that on one side because we have a canal bank on one side and we really don’t
need that. But you know these are guidelines but we certainly –
Borup: Okay.
Kuntz: -- want to exercise some good judgement and flexibility as we’re dealing
with the developers because right now they’re providing our pathway system.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. I don’t know --. Do you have anything else? We would
like to get to the public testimony.
Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions real fast. Just a comment
on you block grants. I don’t believe that you can get those for 100 percent of the
project costs. Aren’t they just up to a maximum of 500,000?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 7, 2002
Page 12 of 17
Kuntz: Commissioner Shreeve, I have never worked on a block grant to be
honest with you. So I don’t know. Most grants there is some kind of match, either
financial or in kind contributions. But I can't answer that question.
Shreeve: Yes and I believe block grants only go up to a maximum of 500,000.
So, just as a point of clarification for reference purposes.
Kuntz: Thank you.
Shreeve: I don’t think you can get 100 percent block grant. Relating to the paths,
of course I served on that committee over a year ago for a short time. The
comment I have is of course you know the intent is to have the development put
in a lot of the paths or at least work with them towards that end. Obviously
there's going to be some places that will probably likely need to just simply be
purchased or otherwise worked out. I guess either I might have missed it or what
is the plan for those in between spots, I guess as far as connecting from
development to development, you know where there's existing development that
of course there's a path that’s shown there? What has ever transpired with that?
Kuntz: Commissioner Shreeve. We’re hoping that once we get the pathway
plan from the committee, which I understand is on it's way. Those areas would
be identified. We’ll need to then prioritize those areas, put a cost estimate on
those area, on either easements or acquisition or those types of things and then
construction costs. Similar to what we did at the Five Mile Creek Pathway that
connects Linder and Meridian Road along the Five Mile Creek. Then we’ll need
to start biting off chunks of that and putting them together. The way it's working
right now, the developers have been super about providing those as part of their
infrastructure. I think because they see the values of being able to move
pedestrians around.
Shreeve: Are the impact fees, you know we’ve been talking about or just the
overall costs. I guess that’s some kind of a projection of what those will be
although we don’t know the specifics of areas, but you tried to incorporate that as
far as overall costs of getting the pathways in between developments?
Kuntz: In our six-year plan right now, I want to go to that before I make this
statement. There is approximately $95,000.00 budgeted for extending the Five
Mile Creek Pathway. That money could either be through impact fees or a
general fund or a grants or donations. So, we’ve started to identify the need to
have some funds dedicated to making that happen. One of the things we’re
hoping to accomplish or next year at the latest is to put a pedestrian bridge
across Five Mile Creek connecting the current Five Mile Creek Pathway with
Eighth Street Park. Right now there's a two by six plank going across there at an
irrigation check structure which is used very heavily but it's probably not the best
way of getting across there. So, to answer your question, we’ve tried to identify
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 7, 2002
Page 13 of 17
that in the six-year plan but we would like to continue to rely on the developers to
provide those pathways as much as possible.
Shreeve: Okay.
Centers: One last thing Mr. Chairman. I think we learned from experience on
your red asterisks for the community parks. If the public is going to see this you
want to be with your comments note that they could be moved within a half mile
radius and it's not that specific spot. Are you aware of that?
Kuntz: Thank you Commissioner Centers. I will go as far to say within a mile
radius.
Centers: Yes. You want to note that in your verbiage and --.
Kuntz: We’ve had several calls already.
Centers: People buy a house thinking there's going to be a park right there.
Borup: That’s something that you might add to the map.
Zaremba: Put it in the fine print on every map. Yes.
Kuntz: That’s an excellent suggestion.
Borup: Okay. Time is getting short so we do want to get to all the public
testimony hopefully. So, do we have anyone here to testify on this plan? If you
want to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record.
Wilder: Janet Wilder at 3340 north Ten Mile Road.
Borup: Okay, go ahead.
Wilder: My comment is that I would like to ask that either C-1 or C-2 park might
be moved to the corner of Ten Mile and Ustick where two of the pathways, the
proposed pathways would go right around it. I know this; everyone knows this as
a controversial piece of land there and it kind of whatever the Council decides to
do with it. I kind of wanted to go on record that we would like to have a park there
if it was agreeable with everyone.
Borup: Okay.
Wilder: Okay?
Centers: Mrs. Wilder?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 7, 2002
Page 14 of 17
Wilder: Yes?
Centers: You’re referring to this one right here? Move it down this way?
Wilder: Move it to the corner of Ten Mile and Ustick on the northwest corner.
Centers: Ten-Mile and Ustick would be right there.
Wilder: Right there.
Centers: Yes.
Wilder: Either the C-1 or the C-2.
Centers: Okay.
Wilder: Okay?
Centers: Thank you.
Wilder: Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone else? Does Mr. Beckwith still want to testify?
(inaudible discussion from audience)
Beckwith: Yes my name is Ken Beckwith. I live at 2866 West Park Stone Street.
This young lady stole a lot of my thunder. I wholeheartedly support the park
being put back at Ustick and Ten Mile. The suggestion that Commissioner Sellers
said about adding a fee to the water bill, I would much prefer to pay $5.00 a
month during the time that I actually live in my house than to have it tacked onto
my mortgage payment for 30 years. I think it's an excellent idea. Thank you.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Anybody from the Parks
Commission have any comments they would like to make?
*** End of Side One ***
(inaudible discussion amongst Commissioners)
Borup: Does anybody got a suggestion for the recommendation you would like
us to make? Okay, seeing none other, did you have any final comments Mr.
Kuntz?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 7, 2002
Page 15 of 17
Kuntz: Mr. Chairman, I do have one question of Commissioner centers. Your
intent on the trash and water bills, was that for Citywide impact wide or --?
Centers: Sure. All the people that use the parks.
Kuntz: Thank you.
Centers: Then one other note that I had to prove that I read this document. Page
3-1 where you talk about the servicing of the trails and pathways. I would be
highly against bark chips that’s mentioned. In fact in some of the hearings where
we talked with developers, I’ve encouraged asphalt so that it's more usable and
the weeds don’t grow. I even think sand or gravel is bad news. It becomes weeds
and you know --.
Kuntz: Commissioner Centers, I believe the intent of those was that there was
paths that were more going to be used in the County impact area, equestrian
type of paths but the staff would agree with you wholeheartedly that hard
surfaces --. Thank you.
Centers: So, you agree with that? Because we had one situation where we
could have required the asphalt but you had recommended gravel and we went
along with the Parks Department’s recommendation.
Kuntz: We’ve changed that recommendation since.
Centers: Okay thank you. The developers are willing to put in the asphalt.
Borup: Okay, Commissioners. I think we’re done with testimony.
Shreeve: Mr. Chairman I make the motion that we close the Public Hearing of the
proposed Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System Action Plan.
Zaremba: I second that.
Borup: Motion is second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Do we need any discussion? Are we ready to make a recommendation?
We have the plan with a page of amendments that has been submitted. I don’t
know if any of the Commissioners had any other comments that they wanted to
add. Commissioner Centers does.
Centers: One final thing. I would like to see more options pursued like the HUD
grants and you know you list 14, 15 ways to bring in money. Lets go after some
of them rather than say I want to increase the impact fee because that’s the easy
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 7, 2002
Page 16 of 17
way to do it. Don’t get me wrong, I think the impact fee probably should be
increased but there's others ways to raise the money. Lets go after them rather
than just put them down on a piece of paper and say these are ways we could do
it. Let’s do it. That’s my –
Borup: That’s what I like about this plan. It lets us know what there is and that is
going to need to be many sources. One of course by itself is not going to do it.
Centers: Right.
Borup: I think that’s what you’re tried to show here, hopefully. That was more of
a comment, not something you wanted to add to the document?
Centers: No, they’re already in the document.
Borup: Yes. Just whatever encouragement we can give the Parks department to
follow through on some of those specific areas then. Anyone else? Does
anybody else have anything else that needed to be added?
Zaremba: Just to put on the record, our thanks to Director Kuntz, and the Parks
Commissioners for clearly the effort that has gone in to this and the good thinking
that has gone into it and their continued good work.
Shreeve: And all the volunteers that have put in long hours.
Borup: Right. Okay.
Zaremba: Do we need a motion to forward this to the City Council?
Borup: Yes. I believe we do.
Zaremba: So moved.
Centers: Include the amendments.
Zaremba: Including the page of amendments that was provided.
Borup: Okay. I have a motion.
Shreeve: Second.
Borup: And a second. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 7, 2002
Page 17 of 17
Borup: Thank you. Yes we do need a motion to adjourn the special meeting also.
Would someone like to make that motion?
Centers: Yes I would move we adjourn this special meeting.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion is second to adjourn the special meeting. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:53 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK