HomeMy WebLinkAboutAIRPARK VILLAGE - ANNEXATION & ZONING - 16-05 - CORRESPONDENCE - CITY COUNCIL;ed Shepard Questions on Feb 7 Cou, Vleeting Agenda Page 2
encircling all of the Airpark area, and thus close to triggering another required annexation. I now know how
much people appreciate being annexed, so maybe the consequences of this vote should be pointed out a
little more clearly.
8. #28, Grove Sewer. I would be interested in a somewhat more detailed explanation of the determination
of suitable service fees and administrative charges described at the bottom of blue page 2. 1 am not
saying the charges shown are unreasonable, but I don't understand the reasoning used.
Hope this contributes to solving, rather than causing, problems. Ben
CC: Darin Atteberry; Don Bachman; Gregory Byrne; Marty Heffernan; Mike Smith; Ron
Phillips; Sarah Kane; Steve Roy; Tom Vosburg; Wanda Krajicek
Ted Shepard - Questions on Feb 7 Coin Meeting Agenda
Page 1 1
From: Diane Jones
To: Chuck Seest; Craig Foreman; Elizabeth Stroh; Jean Helburg; Jim Hibbard; John
Lang; John Stokes; Mark Sears; Roger Buffington; Sheri Wamhoff; Ted Shepard; Terri Bryant
Date: 02/05/2006 3:59:00 PM
Subject: Questions on Feb 7 Council Meeting Agenda
Folks:
Attached is a set of questions from Council Member Manvel for particular items on this Tuesday's agenda.
Can you please respond and send your responses back to Darin w/copies to me, Wanda, and Sarah
Kane.
Thanks,
Diane
Darin - I have been reading my tome for Tuesday and had a few routine questions and remarks. I hope to
avoid pulling items off of the consent calendar (which seems more interesting than sometimes) so we will
have sufficient time for the discussion items.
1. #9, Comcast Postponement. This is pretty cryptic. Will we be getting a read -before memo that expands
it, or are we just supposed to OK this without knowing what is going on?
2. #11 A-B, Water Slide. I am curious where such a slide will go and what it will look like. If it is possible to
post a picture and/or plan on the web, or add to our read -ahead, I would appreciate it.
3. #13, Taft Hill improvement. Because of the recent questions I raised about utilities on North Taft, I
wonder what provisions (if any) have been made to underground power when South Taft is widened.
4.#14, Oak Street Plaza. I was disappointed to not receive a copy of the plan for the park improvements.
Rummaging through my DDA files I found one from almost a year ago. One doubt I have is about the
wisdom of including a small patch of turf grass (as shown in the plan I found) in a rather shady, heavily -
used area. Seems like a maintenance problem to me. Council should have an opportunity to look at the
most recent version of this plan before we vote this money.
5. #15, Natural Areas Rules. All these changes make sense to me, but I would note that the blue summary
pages mislabel a change to 23-193(d)1 as a change to 23-193(c)1, and fail to mention changes shown in
23-193(d)4 and 5, as well as a change in 23-194.
6. #24, Sewer Line. Many details provided here about this project, including the mitigation of damage and
the compensation to the Natural Areas program, are welcome. The materials provided to help us picture
the project are poorly chosen, however. The overview map is good, as is the location sketch (AB, Inc), but
I have struggled without success to relate the more detailed location sketches to the AB sketch, and the
surveyors descriptions are a waste of paper. I know it is hard to read the minds of council in preparing our
packets, but I would really appreciate it if those preparing the materials for each item could always look at
what they have prepared and estimate how useful they will be for real people to read. Some documents
are legally required, and that may be the case here, but if that is not the case I hope better judgement will
prevail in the future. Having said that, let me add that I am spoiled because the USUAL quality of our
materials is EXCELLENT. I just hope that can be the standard even more often in the future.
7. #26, Airpark Village Annexation. I don't expect this to be controversial, but I was a little disappointed to
get so little information here. Thank you for the map. We last considered this on May 3, and we had more
information then. Looking at the colored map from that meeting, I conclude that the city areas in contact
with the site are the LMN portion to the north east (Dry Creek Subdivision?) and the little piece of I
touching on the west side. I would estimate that together they are about 20% of the boundary. Is that
about right? I hope that as we do this annexation we understand we are coming very close indeed to