“I don’t want any hillside development”, said councilman Woody McEvers, as quoted in the Press today. Sure the people of CdA may not want development on the hillsides, but the city council has to be very careful about the way they handle the subject. It’s not as simple as just saying “No”.
Today’s article, by Lucy Dukes, available at www.cdapress.com, tells of the meeting yesterday where council members Mike Kennedy, Al Hassel and Woody McEvers recommended against annexation for land near Best Hills Meadow. The council can deny land coming into the city through annexation. But for property already inside the city, you cannot deny the use of someone’s land if they follow the rules set forth in the zoning ordinances. You can’t just say, “we don’t like it”. They own the property and have a right to use their land within the limits of the law. The important thing is to make sure the laws (ordinances) are clear, strong and reflect the values of the community. This is an area that our city council neglected for way too many years, and many of our current land use problems are the result of old, weak ordinances.
February 26, 2008
Hillside Development?
10 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Doesn’t Mayor Bloem live in the Best Hills area?
Comment by Dan — February 26, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
The Public Works meetings are now televised on channel 19 from the library.
I watched the tail-end of this meeting. There are varied and significant issues with developing the pristine Best Hill area. Annexation into Coeur d’Alene sure seems like a logical extension at some point, regardless of the ultimate development.
The three councilmen all made it abundantly clear: they do not want houses on the hillsides – Period. I found Mike Kennedy’s remarks interesting, as he proudly stated that based on the type of meeting; he could say anything about it and vote any way he wanted – based on… anything. That may be true… it just sounded odd. Mr. Kennedy opined that there was no support from the citizens to build houses on the hillside, so there will be no annexation at this time. OK. Fair enough, I guess. There was a lot more to it than just the hillside.
I don’t recall any public hearings with citizens showing up en masse to support a new development (build it and they will come). It’s usually the upset NIMBY neighbors (I don’t use that term in a derogatory way). The commissioners and council members must weigh all factors and make the difficult decisions.
No wine before its time! This one will come back, eventually!
Comment by Damn Yankee — February 26, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
Dan, I have no idea where the Mayor lives, and she’s not listed in the phone book, but I do know that Brad Jordan from LCDC, who’s also the new Chairman of P&Z, as well as Dave Patzer from LCDC both live in the Best Hills/Nettleton Gulch area.
DY–Having annexation requests go to the Public Works Committee first is new. They used to go to P&Z first, then to the council. Not sure why the change, but any councilperson should be careful of their comments, even at a low level hearing, because their words could come back to bite them later.
Comment by mary — February 27, 2008 @ 8:19 am
Coeur d’Alene implemented this change recently. The reason was to save time and money. Developers were spending thousands of dollars in plans and development costs, city staff was spending many hours on the proposals and then the project/annexation would be denied. This way, the PW committee can give a quicker preliminary review to let the applicant know if there is likely interest in the annexation, or not. If it looks feasible, then it would go forward like before. If not… it’s over and everybody saves time and money. Or do they? I understand other cities use this process, as well. Is this fair to the rejected applicant?
Comment by Damn Yankee — February 27, 2008 @ 8:46 am
Mary,
It seems to me that it is prejudicial to have the Public Works Committee (Council members) make a preliminary examination of a proposal. The proposal may ultimately come before the full Council in a quasi-judicial proceeding. There is a serious danger that comments made in both the PWC and in P&Z may leave the applicant with the impression that the City is going to approve his proposal in the end. We saw that kind of inappropriate and probably unlawful suggestion given by Commissioners Messina and Rasor to applicant Stan Huffaker in the October 9, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. Though the Planning Commission finally rejected Huffaker’s proposal, it seems likely it will be appealed to the Council. Assume Huffaker had made his proposal first to PWC. Further assume it had been approved by PWC but then disapproved by the Planning Commission. How fair would the de novo hearing in front of the Council be if two three members of the Council had already approved the project? Equally important, would the opponents who successfully argued against the project perceive the Council hearing to be fair if two or three Council members had already expressed approval in the PWC?
Comment by Bill — February 27, 2008 @ 9:31 am
I agree, Bill. It does seem odd. But I don’t think Annexations are quasi-judicial, so maybe that’s the thinking behind allowing council members to weigh in on a project at an early level even if it may come back to them later on the council. It is still important, I think, that they keep their remarks professional. Comments against all hillside developments, as came from Mike Kennedy and Woody, don’t seem very appropriate.
Comment by mary — February 27, 2008 @ 9:47 am
Dan, Mayor Bloem does live in Best Hills – as did former Mayor Steve Judy.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — February 29, 2008 @ 8:58 am
Not to be snarky, but I believe the physical hill is called “Best Hill” and the nearby subdivsion is called “Best Hill Meadows”. Just one hill! Now back to your regular scheduled programming… 😉
Comment by Damn Yankee — February 29, 2008 @ 11:44 am
Thanks, DY, we all need to keep each other informed!
Comment by mary — February 29, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
DY, I apologize for my error. Thank you for adding the correction.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — March 1, 2008 @ 8:54 am