Mother’s Day was sunny and beautiful, and the new Kroc Center officially opened this past weekend. Any comments, questions, ideas?
May 11, 2009
Open Session, Monday
20 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I see the Planning Commission will be meeting tomorrow night to rubber stamp this:
Comment by Bill — May 11, 2009 @ 1:44 pm
I’m sure that the phone calls have already been made, Bill.
Comment by Dan — May 11, 2009 @ 2:27 pm
A question, Mary: If you were still on P&Z, would you approve it?
Comment by Dan — May 11, 2009 @ 2:27 pm
Dan and Mary, I’m curious about this.
Is not the sole purpose of the annexation and zoning request going to the P & Z to determine if the land use request is compatible with the comp plan? Or, is it also an opportunity for P & Z members to comment on the merits of the proposal? Thanks.
Comment by JohnA — May 11, 2009 @ 3:24 pm
JohnA, P&Z is a recommendation board in this situation. They tell city council whether or not they agree that the land should become part of the city and list any concerns they have about the property. They also approve or deny the zoning that has been requested.
I have not read the packet of information, but generally speaking, yes, I would approve the two mill sites for annexation into the city IF they can prove they’ve been cleaned up to the level expected of all other properties granted annexation. They are little “islands” of the county sitting there, surrounded by city.
As to the zoning, it might better serve the public’s comfort level to have mixed zones with some commercial and some limited zoning with a Special Use permit for educational purposes. Mill River was given only limited areas of C-17, so as to control possible tall commercial development right on the river.
The annexation negotiations, in terms of money/cost/fees are done behind closed doors by the city legal team. P&Z never knows anything about the fees or the LCDC. The city council is the final word on all of it.
Comment by mary — May 11, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
As you know JohnA, I am no longer on the P&Z, so I can state my opinion here!
Comment by mary — May 11, 2009 @ 3:42 pm
Thanks, Mary, for your explanation. Of course I welcome your opinion here and not just because it is your site. I see this place as an excellent opportunity, if monitored right, to be a fair and fact-filled exchange of information from those in the community who have been of service to it.
Again, thanks for clarifying for me the roll of the P & Z in this process.
Comment by JohnA — May 11, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
Thanks, Mary. I also agree that it makes sense for the city to annex the property. I like your idea about enforcing height limits near the river.
Theoretical question for you: One of side affects of growth that will come with this annexation is increased traffic flow. Traffic is beginning to be a nightmare at certain times on Northwest Blvd. Where in the process would a suggestion (or requirement) be made that annexation include, say, new freeway access ramps or a bridge to the south side of the river? Is it up the developer to present those contingencies, or does that come from P&Z, the council, or city staff?
Comment by Dan — May 11, 2009 @ 4:59 pm
I agree with your opinion, Mary.
I would include adhering to the Shoreline Protection Ordinance (17.08.205-250)
I agree that the property should be annexed and zoning should be limited to C-17.
DEQ must sign off on the environmental issues as some of the areas appear to be located in aquifer recharge areas. Oversight by DEQ must be mandatory to avoid filling areas on the cheap.
The city has not always been forthcoming when annexation agreements are concerned. It is my hope that this will change with this annexation.
The city has a history of refusing to acknowledge traffic concerns whether they be in commercial or residential locations. Although traffic on Northwest Boulevard has been a concern, especially after the development schematic presented by NIC, the city has yet to address the issue. The usual, “The roads can handle the increased traffic” excuse from the city has no validity. The city must take responsibility for the possible impacts brought on by the increased traffic and address it immediately. Perhaps we would be better off had the city let the State continue with the responsibility of Northwest Boulevard.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — May 11, 2009 @ 5:54 pm
Mary,
I did look at the Planning Commission packet. Here’s the map included for this agenda item. Unfortunately, the area we would have expected to be labeled “education corridor” is labeled “development opportunity (Mill)”.
I was particularly taken aback by both the police and fire departments’ inputs reading, “No comment.” Then again, they’ve no doubt been ordered to keep their mouths shut. It seems to me that the Commissioners ought to ask both the police and fire department for an estimate of the effects this annexation, when approved, will have on their departments. But of course as you found out, if a Commissioner dares ask relevant questions, if you go off-script, you’re kicked off the Planning Commission.
Comment by Bill — May 11, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
Development opportunity – for whom? I might have to look at the staff report and comment. The lack of comments from the police and fire departments is inexcusable. Bill, those departments never offered comments. I was told later that the subdivisions with cul-de-sacs and a couple of entrances and exits added to the response time for emergency vehicles – something that was never brought forward by staff at hearings or in reports. Could a few minutes make a difference in an emergency?
Comment by Susie Snedaker — May 11, 2009 @ 9:08 pm
OMG! Major OOPS for someone on the staff!
I also noticed that wastewater treatment area, which we paid for with a bond, is listed as erroneously belonging to the University of Idaho. These people need to keep their wishes in the bag until they can sneak them through in the consent calendar.
Comment by Dan — May 11, 2009 @ 10:11 pm
…until they can sneak them through in the consent calendar.
Not to worry — meeting minutes can be an exercise in creative writing.
Comment by Bill — May 12, 2009 @ 6:13 am
Dan, I remember well within a day or two of the public release of the master plan brochure of the so called education corridor, you correctly labeled the glossy offering as a commercial development plan. In true Bernise speak it is now referred to as the “development opportunity (Mill)”.
As usual, you’re spot on target
Comment by Gary Ingram — May 12, 2009 @ 8:13 am
Good morning Stebbijo! You recently asked for my take on the practice of Judicial Committees. Bottom line, any reforms desired would have to be done by order of the Supreme Court. The appropriate venue for going public with concerns about these committees would be during an election campaign for Supreme Court justices. It would certainly make for an unusually interesting discussion and could become a major campaign issue.
As you know, the Idaho Constitution gives the Supreme Court sole jurisdiction over the development of policy governing the operation of that court. The legislature can only get involved on policy below the Supreme Court, such as establishing inferior courts or establishing mandatory minimum sentencing.
The Open Meeting Law does not regulate the conduct of the Judicial Committees. In fact, the Open Meeting Law specifically eliminates the courts as a defined “public Agency” so as to exclude it from its provisions. This was done to insure the separation of powers ordained in the State Constitution among the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government.
Comment by Gary Ingram — May 12, 2009 @ 9:02 am
Great conversation going here! Susie, you are exactly right about the traffic issues. Dan asked when, during the review process, the city looks at the traffic impacts and, surprisingly, they usually wait until after a project has been approved, then they figure out how to deal with increased traffic. Susie was on P&Z for 11 years, I was there for 6, and most of us constantly fought for attention to traffic issues at an earlier level. We often wanted traffic studies, which were rarely provided. We wanted more input from the fire and police and schools on the impacts they would foresee if a certain major development was approved. But they would almost always report back, “No comment”.
Comment by mary — May 12, 2009 @ 9:20 am
Bill, the map in the P&Z info packet, that you linked to, is very interesting. Not only did Dan pick out the glaring “Development Opportunities”, which I see in many spots, even under the Hwy 95 bridge, but there’s also a note that there’s “inadequate parking” on the Dike Road. Read between the lines: we will build a parking garage. Did you realize that, according to the map, the public can use the riverfront area in front of the wastewater treatment plant? Anyone for a picnic?
Comment by mary — May 12, 2009 @ 9:28 am
Mary, I believe that stretch of waterfront was known as the Hennesey (sp?) parcel. I never did ascertain the price the city paid, but I am sure it was not cheap.
NIC claims that it had long coveted the Stimson Mill site yet they have yet to master plan the property. And they should have applied for a PUD rather than C17. After all, University of Idaho master planned the Harbor Center site years ago. I wonder if they permit the public to review the drawings.
The mayor promised to show the citizens the master plan schematics of the education properties created at a forum in Oregon at which she spoke. Has anyone either seen or heard of those plans?
Comment by Susie Snedaker — May 12, 2009 @ 11:05 am
Susie, if viewing the drawings of the Harbor Center master plan is an issue, there is always the Public Records Act which will open file drawer.
Comment by Gary Ingram — May 12, 2009 @ 11:29 am
Thanks Gary,
I understand that the OML does not have any jurisdiction over the judicial committees, but the problem is there is no real public oversight to the formation of these rules, unlike the state of Washington. Before you know it – they have changed court processes to REMOVE the use of the Idaho Court Rules of Evidence in some hearings – based on the assumption that the the court processes would be less intimidating to the public. Well, no one asked me what I thought of that and I do have an opinion. 🙂 If the process gets screwed up, then you have also waived liability. Pity the poor sucker who doesn’t know what is going on. This type of crap is a WIN WIN for an Idaho court that does not want to work and feels like throwing the baby out with the bath water. It also removes liability from an expert witness who can lie through their teeth and ignore the rules of evidence because they are probably getting paid enough money to do so.
Recently, I asked for the Fairness and Equality committee meetings. The last one is from year 2000, but we have and order from that committee in 2006. So what’s the deal?
Also, this separation of powers confuses me, since I don’t think we really have it going on. If the rules are soley up to the Judicial Branch, why are they addressing Idaho statutes in their rules? They are referencing the Public Records Law into their Rule 32 – judicial records. At this rate, it looks like they are legislating at the bench and getting away with it.
Also, it is simply AMAZING how many judges do not know or even pay attention to privacy/disclosure issues associated with their own rule 32. They don’t read, I guess. Recently, I had to inform a judge about that rule so they would do something right. At this rate, Governor Otter’s alcohol records are probably open to the public and Patricia’s Kempthorne’s medication trials due to sitiuational depression. Personally, I think all judge’s medical records need to be open to the public, including all the committee members. They don’t need privacy – they are all public servants anyway.
Yes, I am ticked off! 😉
Comment by Stebbijo — May 12, 2009 @ 1:27 pm