City Council Regular Meeting

Star Council Meeting April 20, 2004 7:00pm Call to Order: Mayor Nathan Mitchell called the meeting to order and all stood for the Pledge of the Allegiance. Roll Call: Tammy McDaniel, Dustin Christopherson, Tom Erlebach, Chad Bell Approval of Agenda: Christopherson moved, Erlebach seconded. All aye: motion carried. Consent Agenda: Bell moved to approve the Consent Agenda consisting of: Approval of April 6, 2004 Meeting Minutes, Approval of Joint Star/Eagle Meeting Minutes of March 29, 2004, Approval of Area of Impact Public Hearing Minutes of March 29, 2004, Liquor License Renewal for Sam's Saloon, Dustin seconded the motion. All aye: motion carried. Ordinances & Resolutions: Estrella Annexation & Zoning Ordinance - It was moved by Bell and seconded by Christopherson that pursuant to Idaho code, Section 50-902 the rule requiring an ordinance to be read on three different days, with one reading to be in full, be dispensed with and that the Estrella Annexation and Zoning Ordinance be considered after reading once by title only. Roll Call: McDaniel, Christopherson, Erlebach, Bell - all aye: motion carried. Bell moved to approve the Estrella Annexation & Zone Ordinance, an Ordinance annexing to the City of Star property located in the unincorporated area of Ada County, Idaho, and contiguous to the City of Star, establishing the zoning classification of the annexed property as mixed use (MU) of approximately ten (10) acres; directing that certified copies of this Ordinance be filed as provided by law; providing for related matters; and providing an effective date, Dustin seconded the motion. Roll Call: McDaniel, Christopherson, Erlebach, Bell - all aye: motion carried. Area of Impact Ordinance - Zoning Administrator, Craig Eckles stated that these ordinances need to be tabled until the next meeting. Bell moved to table the AOI Ordinances until May 4, 2004, McDaniel seconded the motion. All aye: motion carried. Public Hearings: Public Hearings deferred: Rockbridge Rezone and Moyle Annex/Zone/DA. The applicant for Rockbridge is unable to be at the meeting, he wants the application deferred to May 41\ 2004. Mr. Moyle has requested defe1rnl due to several  unforeseen circumstances and has asked that the application be deferred to June 1, 2004. Christopherson moved to defer the public hearing for the Moyle request to June 1st and rezone for Rockbridge to May 4, Bell seconded the motion. Rockbridge is a Rezone and Comprehensive Amendment. All aye: motion carried. Meadowbrook Phase II PUD Public Hearing: The Mayor reviewed procedures for the public hearing process, he then asked the Council for any ex parte or conflict of interest. Hearing none, the Mayor opened the public hearing. Clint Boyle, Landmark Engineering, 104 9th Ave. S., Nampa, Idaho - requests Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development of 34 lots on a little over 10 acres. Three lots are over the R-3 density. Landscape plans handed out show common area and amenities within the common area. This is the same developer as Meadowbrook I, both will use park. Visual corridors are addressed on Meadow Valley Way. The PUD has lots that are clustered around park with a minimum size of 8,000 sq feet. The project is proposing to use ACHD drainage plan with a landscape look along roads. The applicant has no problems or questions with the staff report, they agree with ten conditions. Applicant is in agreement with the Engineer comments - most items will be addressed in design plans. Only one of note - #7, the system needs to be constructed with the subdivision improvements to facilitate establishment of ) turf prior to construction on individual lots. Mayor asked Council for questions - Erlebach asked about the sidewalk dead- ending. Boyle stated that it does connect - the map doesn't show it very well. Mayor asked for Staff report. Eckles stated that we have received ACHD comments and they will have to comply. Eckles discussed the four foot sidewalk which ACHD has final approval. We have received no written comments. Engineer, Ross Erickson stated that comment #7 is to prevent homeowners from putting dirt in swales. The Mayor asked for anyone in favor to speak - no one gave testimony. The Mayor asked for anyone to speak that is neutral to the application. Kevin Wheelock, 1482 N. Star Road, Star, Idaho, asked about the stub road from the back of his property - he was told there was no room for stub road. There is a problem with the fencing along south side of CraneRidge. It was taken down and is still not put back up. Regarding the drainage swales - he would prefer frontage road with sidewalk. He is opposed to lots smaller than 8,000 square feet. Gail Glasgow, 259 N Mira Avenue, Star, Idaho, asked why this is a PUD application and not a subdivision. Applicants seem to thumb their noses at our  ordinances to decrease lot sizes. A PUD is to gain something for the community. The City of Star gains nothing. Regarding the drainage swales - 8 ft wide - whose seeding? Worried about different types of grasses in front of houses. The Mayor asked the Applicant for any rebuttal comments. Boyle discussed opposition to lots smaller than 8,000 square feet. Meadowbrook I has 8,500 sq foot lots and is also a PUD - the two are consistent. Regarding the swales adjacent to streets it is a nice means of cleaning up storm water and still providing sidewalk separate from the street. The swale sections are approved by ACHD - one of their standards. The fencing on the south side of CraneRidge is not part of this project. Regarding the stub road to the back of the property, again, Mr. Wheelock is looking to put in two lots and hasn't put any access to back of property. The reason for the PUD application is this development provides amenities that go above and beyond R3 development - require 5%, this coming in with 10% open space. More open space for better facilities and it is very close to R3 requirements on lots sizes. The applicant believes this meets PUD requirements. Have significant encroachment on side. Applicant requests approval. The Council deliberated. Bell asked about a common lot on backside - it is not a park? (Meadowhills Ave.) Boyle stated that there is a pond and grass area, it could have a picnic table or bench. The Mayor asked if the pond is for irrigation. Boyle stated that it was. ) Christopherson stated that his main concern was that the application came in as PUD, was it ever considered straight R3. Boyle stated that based on R3, it would exceed the density at 34 lots. Christopherson stated that lots could be taken out and a park area put in. The Mayor stated that this application exceeds density by four lots. McDaniel asked if the trade off is the nice common area for a few smaller lots. The Mayor stated the common area is for a few more lots. Christopherson asked why the PUD? The purpose is to get a variety of different housing types - these are basically the same, regular residential sizing. Boyle stated that there are three different points in the PUD - visual corridors, amenities, and streetscapes - all are part of the ordinance. Visual corridor visible from streets, amenities, basketball court, pathways, streetscapes allow for detached sidewalks. Clustering around open space- smallest lots are around park area. Bell this can still be done with 30 lots and still have parks. The applicant asked for R3 and we granted and now you want a PUD. The number oflots bothers him, there is no reason for 34 lots exceeding the zoning. In the lay out of the land it can still be done. Boyle stated that there are more lots, its how you play the numbers. With R3 zone - one park will be eliminated. Clint - there are more amenities. Bell stated that we already have lots and could re-engineer and still have parks and 30 lots. Boyle stated that Meadowbrook I was approved as a PUD. Bell doesn't understand 34 lots when we can do it with 30 lots and keep amenities. Boyle stated that it goes back to the Ordinance and the criteria - that's what we looked at and that's what we did. There has been a lot of effort and they have tried to meet the intent behind the PUD and is asking for additional lots. Erlebach stated that the citizens of Star would like bigger lots. He asked if there was any reason why we can't have 30 lots and the two parks? Boyle asked if they were basically asking for 30 lots and two parks - the parks are expensive items. Boyle doesn't know if he can commit to that. The Mayor stated that he understands smaller lots and clustering. The developer is asking for smaller lots - the proposed open space in the park the Council likes. What do parks bring to the community - what is your intent? Boyle stated that if that's what it takes to tip the scale with the Council. The Mayor - what is the intention? Boyle stated that the park is intended for Meadowbrook I & II use. He doesn't know if there would be a problem with everyone using it - but it would be maintained by homeowners. It would basically serve the two subdivisions. Meadowbrook I does not have amenities. The Mayor closed the public hearing, and asked the Council to approve, approve with conditions, table or deny the application. Bell feels we are giving too much for what we are getting. He likes amenities, just doesn't see giving up lot size and number of lots. Doesn't see why amenities and 30 lots can't be done. Bell would deny this application. Christopherson tends to agree, what purpose is intended, the City not gaining much, he would approve with an R3 and keep amenities. The Mayor asked Eckles to speak. Eckles stated that the Council can approve something less than what is here - we can hold to 30 lots, lots would be in different configurations. Bell stated that we approve the 30 lots and it would be in compliance with R3 zone. He has the option to come back without the amenities Christopherson asked Legal Counsel if we can still approve as R3 even though the application is a PUD. Legal Counsel, Chris Yorgason stated that if it stays as a PUD, the density could increase but it could still be approved with the amenities. It doesn't have to be a straight R3 subdivision. Mayor reopened public hearing and asked the applicant to speak. Boyle stated that the developer would like to move forward. He cannot guarantee the amenities - if PUD is denied they would like to move forward with R-3 development. Lot sizes are increased, roads are the same. Regarding all amenities, Boyle can't make the commitment. Boyle would like to meet with the Developer, he may not have a problem having the park area, there may be a problem with all the amenities in park. Bell stated that if the Developer would give up some small lots around park and keep as PUD, doesn't have problem with mixed sizes. Bell feels we're giving up to much - he likes the amenities. Boyle asked for consideration of a split of 32 lots? The Mayor stated that there are trade outs. Boyle stated that the amenities add up. Erlebach stated that he would like to stay at 30 lots. Boyle likes Bell's idea of clustering around the park and larger lots elsewhere. Public Input - Kevin Wheelock, 1481 NStar Road, Star, Idaho stated that the swales and grassing still haven't been addressed along with the perimeter fencing. Boyle stated that the swales and maintenance are spelled out by ACHD - the homeowners will provide the maintenance. The CC&R's will state that the grass is all the same. Fencing - individual homeowners will fence their own properties. The Mayor closed the public hearing. McDaniel stated that in her opinion we should stick with PUD and 30 lots, tradeoff won't benefit City of Star. Property values will probably be better. Christopherson stated that we should keep the development at 30 lots but leave flexibility to be diverse and not hold to lot size required by R3. Bell stated that ACHD mandates the swales - applicants must approve drainage and etc., through ACHD. This application has been approved by ACHD. This is really not an issue, our ordinances say if ACHD approves, we will approve. Bell moved to approve this PUD with the 9 conditions of approval, adding a tenth that this not exceed 30 lots and the smallest minimum lot size be 8,000 square feet. Eckles asked if the Council is accepting this with amenities? Bell stated that the motion is to accept as PUD as presented with parks. Erlebach seconded the motion. The Mayor suggested looking at two or three extra lots and the park be a City Park. Maybe a park dedicated to the City.  Eckles suggested possibly, or the park is developed with amenities with 32 lots and park dedicated to City, or 30 lots and private park. Erlebach stated that the City doesn't need to be responsible for park. Bell stated that the square footage of park is 20,000 - ½ acre. This is not a real good City park. The amenities are great - he would like his motion to stand. Mayor restated the motion. All aye: motion carries. Fenix Property Preliminary Plat: The Mayor reviewed procedures for the public hearing process, he then asked the Council for any ex parte or conflict of interest. Hearing none, the Mayor opened the public hearing. Clint Boyle, Landmark Engineering, 104 9th Avenue South, Nampa, Idaho stated that this is a request for straight standard subdivision with R-2 zoning. All lots exceed lot size requirements, it has a mixture of ½ to 2 acre parcels. Boyle has reviewed the staff report and the engineer's comments and is okay with both. The same swale section type will be installed on Wild Mustang Place. Other developments have set a standard with vertical curb and gutter. Staff report - no written comments. The ACHD report is included. The engineer has no comment. ) The Mayor asked for Public Input for anyone that is neutral to this application. Dennis Stegenga, 290 S Star Road, Star Idaho, Stegenga is neutral, he stated that everyone hasn't seen plat and the public has not been given any information. Need to have developer show maps of applications. Gail Glasgow, 259 N Mira, Star, Idaho - Comment - Meadowbrook presented as PUD, we can learn from mistakes and can applaud Council. The ACHD drainage swales are fifty (50) foot swales which only leaves twenty-six (26) feet of street section. Our ordinance calls for parking on both sides of street. Anita Fenix, 11535 W. Floating Feather Road, Star, Idaho stated that rather than develop into little lots, made bigger lots with smaller lots in the middle. She stated that Boyle has the layout of the subdivision. ACHD has commented that the swales will work. Molly Burger, 248 N Aspen Lakes Way, Star, Idaho, stated that she is a new resident and thanked Council for their vision. She likes larger lots and appreciates the Council sticking to Comprehensive Plan. Adam Lyman, 532 N Tauras Way, Star, Idaho stated that regarding the drainage swales (he has designed a couple) the drainage goes over more land, it works better and lasts longer. Kevin Wheelock, 1480 NStar Road, Star, Idaho stated that we think this is going to be great. The Mayor stated that our ordinances do not require maps. Boyle stated that regarding the street section - both projects have incorporated wider road sections with sidewalks in the easements. The total distance is 64 feet. Applicant believes this development will be beneficial to Star, it is a larger lot subdivision and applicant requests approval. Mayor closed the public hearing. Bell all questions answered, likes design, likes bigger lots and likes cul-de-sac. Bell recommend approval. Tammy moved to approve the preliminary plat for the Fenix property along with the nine conditions of approval, Christopherson seconded the motion. All aye: motion carried. Estrella Phase II Preliminary Plat: The Mayor reviewed procedures for the public hearing process, he then asked the Council for any ex parte or conflict of interest. Hearing none, the Mayor opened the public hearing. Kent Brown, 1800 W. Overland, Boise, Idaho stated that the first thing you've seen is Estrella I, the developer will do same project as Estrella I with condo plat. Regarding lot 4, they don't have use for it, but storage unit people may want to buy the four acre parcel. We would provide cross access easement - so all lots would have access. The developer is in agreement with the conditions of approval. Bell asked if they are extending same type of building on to the next two lots or all the way to Plummer. Brown stated that they are building on just the next two lots - don't have use for other, maybe a bank could go in on the comer, but that would be a different application. Bell asked if it would be two more buildings? Brown stated that it will be one building per lot - five offices total. The Mayor asked for Staff Reports. Eckles received no written comments. The Engineer had no additional comments. Joe Russell, 10567 W. Gloxinia, Star, Idaho stated that he likes what he sees. Brown stated that he appreciates Mr. Russell's comment. The applicant is in agreement with the Engineer's comments and requests approval. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Christopherson stated that this application is in compliance with our ordinances and is a great asset to City and recommended we approve. Bell agreed, it is a nice amenity. Bell moved to approve Estrella Subdivision II with the stated seven conditions of approval, McDaniel seconded the motion. All aye: motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: Fire Department Request: The Fire Department is requesting an upgrade sound system and monitors for the meeting room. Monitors will cover all information, pay for all of it because we had talked about paying for half of the new tables. Bell asked if the monitors will be permanent fixtures. Mayor stated that they can be moved ifwe move. He doesn't know ifwe need monitors. McDaniel agreed. Christopherson would like to see one monitor. A citizen asked if it would be available for the community? The Council stated that it would be. Bell moved to approve the equipment as requested by the Fire District excluding the monitors. Erlebach seconded the motion. All aye: motion carries. Web Page Discussion: Christopher stated that we need to look at a web site design, ours is not a professional design - no selling points - some ordinances can be viewed. The site does not connect with user. Christopherson recommends redesign current web site. There are problems with the City computers - no backup system - no central place for data - listed recommendations. Discussion was held on cost ofre-designing of the computers - web site cost $1200-$5,000. The Mayor stated that the computers have been cleaned up a lot and some security issues addressed. Bell stated that we need to get a better web page. Christopherson was asked to get a minimum of three proposals which address redesign and maintenance. The Mayor explained the Budget Profit and Loss Statement breakdown. We have put a non building budget and building budgets together - this City can run without the building section of the budget. Adjournment: Bell moved to adjourn the meeting, Christopherson seconded the motion. All aye: motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 pm.  Respectfully submitted: Approved: � Nathan Mitchell, Mayor )