City Council Regular Meeting

Star City Council Meeting Minutes April 18, 2006 The regular meeting of the Star City Council was held at the Star Fire Station at 7:00 pm. Mayor Nathan Mitchell called the meeting to order and all stood for the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll Call: Councilpersons Tammy McDaniel, Dustin Christopherson, Tom Erlebach and Chad Bell were all present. Approval of the Agenda: Bell moved to approve the agenda, Erlebach seconded the motion. All aye: motion ca1Tied. Consent Agenda: The Consent Agenda consisted of: Approval of March 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Minutes, Special Minutes of March 9, 2006 and Regular Meeting Minutes of March 21, 2006; Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law for the Hadley Property; Approval of March 2006 Bills, the Fair Housing Proclamation; and approval of the following Liquor/Beer & Wine Licenses: Star Mercantile, Sam's Saloon, Helena Marie's and the Smoking Vine. Bell moved to approve the Consent Agenda, McDaniel seconded the motion. All aye: motion carried. Public Input: ) Law Enforcement Report: Deputy Ken Ramage introduced Andy Sterks. Ramage stated that it was a very uneventful month in the City of Star regarding the Police Repmt. Someone did attempt to break into the Star Mere, but all are in the jail now. The Mayor read a thank you letter for Deputy Ramage's service to the community. Star Chamber of Commerce Presentation: Julia Fenwick, Star Chamber President discussed a commercial ad for the City of Star and Mule Days. Fenwick stated that there were approximately 6,000 people in attendance at last year's Mule Days Celebration, with 10,000 expected this year. Fenwick stated that last year's celebration went very well with donations to the Books for Israel and also a donation to the Seniors. The donation program this year is to the "Make A Wish Program". Fenwick discussed the Mule Days Program for this year. Fenwick is asking the City for $6,500 for this commercial ad. Public Input: Katy Slater, 2091 Sunny Lane, came to speak about a planning process and supporting ordinances. Slater stated that there is good energy in Star. She read information to the Council from a planning book. She stated there are proven strategies for preserving ruralness. We need to use everyone's energy. She discussed economic development structure. Slater stated the City is hiding behind the schools in what they can't do. Star should have a bike lane and connection to Boise. Slater wants Council to consider this. } Public Hearing: 1 ) Tucana Sky Preliminary Plat - The Mayor reviewed the public hearing requirements. The Mayor asked Council if there were any conflicts of interest or ex parte contact, hearing none the Mayor opened the meeting. Applicant, John Wyman, stated that he concurs with the Staff Report, and they are in compliance with the development agreement. The address of the prope1iy is 952 Can- Ada Road, it is a 19 lot gated community subdivision. The subdivision will be fenced entirely and the homes will range in the $290,000. Staff stated that there was a letter handed out from the Engineer to the Council. Public Testimony - no one signed up. The Mayor closed the public hearing and the Council deliberated. Bell moved to approve File# PP-06-03 the Preliminary Plat for Tucana Sky with 11 recommended conditions of approval, Christopherson seconded the motion. All aye: motion carried. Griener Property - Annexation & Zoning - The Mayor reminded the public of the procedures and asked for ex paiie contact or conflicts of interest. Hearing none the Mayor opened the public hearing. Applicant, Mike Greiner stated that they have met all the required conditions. They are ) within the Area of Impact and contiguous to the City limits. They are asking for approval. Christopherson stated that the staff report states that there are no development plans. Greiner stated that was correct. Bell stated that Greiner is requesting an R-4, but the contiguous piece was approved at an R3. Greiner stated that he would be okay with the Council zoning the prope1iy R-3. Staff had nothing further to repmi. Public - Richard Skerrat stated that he did not want to speak. Pam Slendorn did not want to speak. Mary Ann Saunders, 2230 Shriner Lane, asked if the applicant had conversed with neighbors? Eric Battey, 2420 N. Munger Road, stated that Greiner had applied with no development, and you are not planning to development, then why are you requesting to annex? Carla Montrose 1895 N. Springhollow Place asked if Greiner is willing to go to an R-3 because Hadley is an R-3. When Greiner develops does he have to come back before 2  The Mayor stated that the applicant would come back before the Council for development. Montrose asked if it will blend in with ten acre parcels. Heidi Skenat, 12464 W. Langtree Gulch Road stated that the vision of Council is not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the Mayor stated that we are following the plan. This parcel does not fit in with the Comp Plan. If her subdivision is contiguous could she come to the Council and request an R-4 development. How would this annexation not benefit the land owner. It's part of a subdivision. How would this not just benefit the land owner. Gail Alters, 4587 N Echo Summit stated she has a problem with overcrowded schools, rural roads that are crowded and she doesn't know how we can consider all these subdivisions. We are going to have problems. Did we hear the police; we have almost non existent crime. We will not have the life style that we are used to. Why doesn't the Council slow down and follow the Comp Plan - lived in Colorado with higher populations. Not a quality of life - takes a long time to get to work. Even with population we have now. The Council should slow down on growth and consider the integrity of Star. Juile Gozzola, 1710 Willowglen Place asked what the pricing is and what is it connecting to? She has no problem with R-4 and R-3 neighborhoods. Her sister bought into an R-4 neighborhood. She came here to be surrounded by like neighborhoods. We need some transitional zones - it's not happening now. We need to transition nicely and not be ) sunounded like her neighborhood. Council should consider it. This is a not like subdivision. Katy Slater, 2091 Sunny Lane, asked about the CC&R's with this property and if the Council does approve this, what benefit is it to the City- doesn't benefit anyone but owner. Greiner stated that he doesn't understand reference to pricing - it is not an application for development. He has a responsibility and a right as being contiguous to request an annexation as well as City has a right to approve it. Benefits to the City is an increased tax base and he wants to participate and this will open new developments and services. Why he wants to be in the City, the City will have more voters and allow us a more legitimate voice and to participate in the City government. He works for a company that puts in sewer systems. Greiner does not see where this benefits him unilaterally. He does understand the process. Does not know what application has to do with overcrowding at schools. Battey was at the public hearing last week - he heard what Greiner stated last week about being involved. His wife wants to be able to vote - it is not a detriment to a City. In regards to Montrose's question about R-3 zoning, Greiner is going with nature of things instead of bucking the system. He would have been foolish if he thought he wouldn't or his neighbors wouldn't develop some day. Saunders spoke to speaking with neighbors - informally not hard to do. Greiner was at an irrigation meeting and this annexation was discussed. \ 3  Erlebach stated that the property is pretty uniform. ) Christopherson asked about a conflict on annexation if the CC&R's said he couldn't. Yorgason stated that Greiner would be in trouble with his Homeowners Association. The City would not be involved in it. Greiner could come back and ask to be withdrawn if he wanted. City does not enforce what the CC&R's say. The Mayor closed the public hearing and Council deliberated. Bell doesn't see any problem with a little over eleven acres close to Hadley property fits in well and Greiner will still have to come before us if he wants to develop. It does give him the opportunity to be a part of Star and put a zoning designation to his property. Bell sees nothing prohibitive or detrimental to the City and we could move forward. Bell moved to approve File# AZ-06-06 Greiner Property with zoning designation being Residential R-3, McDaniel seconded the motion. Bell would like to comment on like properties. There will be places where we go less dense and will have to look at it. He is on Third Street and has two acres and was surround by larger, but now surrounded by R- 4. We need to keep certain growth closer in and outside with lower density. Ifwe don't, we'll look at 10-15 years down the road and we will have sprawl. He does think it is a good use of land. He wishes more would come to City and want to vote - we will still have open land. Christopherson stated that he agrees with Councilman Bell, he believes that this is a good ) benefit to the City and the residents of Star. Motion on table - All aye: motion carried. Schram/Johnson Annexation & Zoning-The Mayor reminded the public of the procedures and asked Council for any ex parte contact or conflicts of interest, hearing none, the Mayor opened the public hearing. Applicant, Jim Cecil, Pebblebrook Way, Garden City stated that they are locally based developers. They are fairly far along in the process; they have had a neighborhood meeting and agreed to most of what the neighbors requested. This will be a 2.5 units per acre subdivision and they have done a preliminary plat. The neighborhood comments were on the entrances and they will adjust them. The neighbors would like to see fencing. There is approximately 14.5% in open space with one large public open space by the pond. They have received good comments from the neighbors. The top half of the property is close to half acre lots; they have a system of trails and landscaping areas around the property. This will be a significant tax benefit to the City. Houses will be in the $400-460,000. Cecil passed out brochures on local developments, they build neighborhoods, and they are not production developers and try to add sense of community. Bell stated that staff has made applicants aware of the requested 15% in open space - but ) the plat reflects nothing outside that is not housing. Council is asking developers who 4  build over 100 housing units to set aside 15% to use outside of housing. Cecil stated that it is in the trail area. Bell stated that ordinances call for 5% on an R-3 development and Council wants an extra 15% above that. Cecil stated that he had not heard that. Bell stated that the other people there had. Ken-y Winn stated that they have been talking about the 15% and can't find a usage for this area. The Council would like to have commercial or retail, but the property doesn't behoove a mixed use. It is not conducive and they wouldn't want apartments, it could be schools or churches. Bell stated that they trying to set aside land. Winn stated that the schools and churches are not interested. He believes the best use is residential use and the most economical use. Winn stated that if Council can suggest things that will work, they will work with Council. The neighbors are concerned about parks and anything that would attract kids to their lands. They had considered parks. The neighbors want a trail system and to spend time walking in a nice quiet environment. It is open and you can ride a bike, that's what they are looking for. We want to be part of the community and not be at odds. Erlebach asked if the trail system would be paved or grass. Cecil stated that it would not be paved and horses would be prohibited. Neighbors don't want a school or park. They are fencing property. They have two open spaces on the property with an open pond area. There will be no playground equipment, the neighbors expressed they did not want it. The pond will stay and they will accentuate it. ) The Mayor asked if the house sites were included in the total lot count. Winn stated that the lot on the bottom of the plat is not included. Christopherson stated that he agrees with Councilman Bell on the 15%, they are short by about 5.5%. Christopherson agrees that commercial and retail probably won't fit, but the one thing that will fit is more open space. Cecil stated that he agreed and they are willing to do that. Winn stated that this is just a concept plan. Cecil stated that the original rumor was 600 homes - this is not correct. The Mayor stated that since the Greiner property is annexed and this piece is now contiguous -they don't need the Schram piece. Mr. Schram stated that they have an agreement. Bell stated that the Schram prope11y is part of the application. There are no connections into adjacent properties. Winn stated that they will stub roads to other properties. Bell asked if it would be a problem for the Schrams for the connectivity. Winn stated that it wouldn't, this is why this is a joint application. Bell asked if this will be something that will be okay with Schrams. Winn stated that it will be pait of the application. Staff had nothing further to add. Public - Candy Odiorne 12175 W. Band stated that she lives within 300 feet of prope1ty. They have talked about density with the neighbors, around it is ten acres. She thinks an 5  R-3 is too high. There is a house for every 2.5 acres, she has a problem with the traffic and schools. Everyone knows the problems. She has concerns about traffic in crossing Highway 16. She has kids in school that will go across that road to go to school. The Mayor stated that ITD has a program for this. Odiorne asked if they have improvements to Highway 16. The Mayor stated that 16 will be an expressway from Emmett, from the foothills with collector roads and at 44 and 16. Odiorne stated that density should be lower than R-3 particularly on the north side of the property. There are steep hills and a gulley. They say they will protect the pond, but there are three houses up in the gulley. There is a lot of wildlife there in the winter and she is mainly concerned. This would be privacy for some of the property. She doesn't want to loose the Schrams. This will be an intrusion; they need to buffer the property. Christopherson asked where Odiorne lives. She pointed out her property to Christopherson. Vanice Hoffer - did not want to speak. Richard Skerret - did not want to speak. Pam Slendorn - did not want to speak. Mary Ann Saunders, 2230 Schreiner Road, stated that she is concerned about the wildlife. Saunders stated that we should be concentrating property south of New Hope, this is north. She had a specific question for applicant, will you be fencing the entire property. The pond is being kept in tact. Her concerns are the wildlife issue, fencing and setbacks ) on sides. Robert Morrison, 10800 Feramorz Lane, stated that from his perspective, there has been a lot of behind the scene work and he is impressed with the work. He does not want Council to mess with the plan. He didn't get everything he wanted, but he is for this development - it has been a lot of hard work. He believes we should go ahead with. Clint Hinckley, 12728 W. Band, stated that when Thompsons sold their prope1iy it was a great opportunity for them. One of the reasons he sold is because the developer is very nice and Clint agrees. Sometime last week he thought about all the comments. He had a vision- not heavenly, main thing everything people are concerned- don't know how it fits with the puzzle. When he looked at this prope1iy there was a eureka moment - it is being under utilized. He has spoken to several of the neighbors on how it could fit within the prope1iy and maintain some densities, provide services people need and some amenities that would fit within this community. It could create a vision for Star. He is working on a power point presentation. The neighbors are concerned; they feel their life style is disappearing. You can maintain densities the way you develop, but you can also minimize impacts. Hinkley asked if we can we table this to have another neighborhood meeting - if we can table this issue and he can present this to the developer and neighbors. He believes it is in the best interest of the citizens. \ 6  The Mayor asked if it will change the zoning designation. Hinkley stated that they talked about commercial, maybe a light commercial being a benefit to the community. He has talked with committee members. McDaniels asked if Hinkley could give a brief overview. Hinkley stated that we would have to go to OZ to see it, he can't go over it now. Hinkley apologized to the developer; he would really like to see more developers like this. Hinkley will share the vision. Katy Slater, 2091 Sunny Lane, stated that she has three points: a forty minute discussion is inadequate for this type of development. She is concerned about wildlife and the impacts to those areas. She would encourage the developer to have protective rights for wetlands area. They should be required to contact Fish and Game and she is opposed to the density. Teny Opper, 3130 Can-Ada Road stated that she is against this annexation into City of Star because it's north of New Hope Road where there are larger parcels of land. Two developments by Sanderson are coming in with Orion and the Hadley property with over 600 homes. She asked the Council to let New Hope Road be your stopping point and let's see what happens with all the new homes before we add another 164 homes into the mix. If you want to keep part of Star rural we need to stop here. She agrees that these developers are the nicest ones they've met yet; they are very good about listening to neighbors. We went from 25 houses down to 14 houses that are 1-1.5 acres. She thinks the developers and builders have their plates full - they are going to be busy. If they ) have to go to the County to develop then let them. The County won't let them have this type of density. She wants us to slow down on annexing until we have a better idea of the already approved growth. Please say no to feeding frenzy by not annexing this property into the City. Richard Hudson, 3035 N. Hamlet Lane, stated that he doesn't live in the City, he lives east of property. They have met with developer and they want what is best for the City. He grew up outside of Chicago, to some it can be very nice. There is an aspect to ruralness - that's important here. He sees the dominos dropping. Interesting to hear about Mule Days, maybe in five to ten years from now we can consider having some other extinct animal celebration. Pam Leverett, 946 S. Main stated that her concern is access to the foothills. Someone doesn't want access to the foothills. Boise had a developer that wanted to build up the gulch - wants developer to take that into account. We need an access to the foothills. Kay Sisson 9643 N. Compton Court stated that she is new to Star. She asked when a development is annexed, is there a point that you know if sewer and water can be at capacity. The Mayor stated that we do have capacity, we monitor by building permits and sewer permits and how many more can we put on the system. The Mayor stated that the new sewer system brought on 1800 new connections, with 200-220 being used. The City is issuing about 30 building permits a month. We cunently have maybe 400-450 7 lots approved. The Mayor explained that the sewer system is easily expandable, money is a problem. Darrel Gozzola, 1710 Willowglen, stated that he is part of the comprehensive plan committee, his concern is that we see City going from bench to bench. This is the first parcel above New Hope - we are setting a standard here. He lives in R-2 neighborhood. He believes it's time to get down to R-2. These are great developers, but we are setting a standard - great compromise at R-37 This is a negotiating ploy, the citizens are not winning. The bench is great area. We need to set a standard above New Hope. Need to approve at an R-2. Brenda Weaver, 2620 N. Munger stated that she lives directly to the south of this development. New Hope Road is what everyone has been talking about. Sanderson stated that New Hope is the natural line for less dense. She wants New Hope to be where R-3 stops. Give people some choices, preserve wildlife, give R-3 people something beautiful to look at. New Hope should be the line we draw and deny R-3 zoning. Eric Battey, 2420 N. Munger, agrees with previous speakers, and we need to take anything Sanderson says with a grain of salt. The developers went above and beyond. We were talking about a moratorium last week. We all heard the talk now we'd like to see the action. Maybe a conditioned R-2 is not a far stretch. Time to put up or shut up. How are services getting there and would you plan to be at the May 2 meeting for an adjacent parcel public hearing? Gail Alters, 4587 Echo Summit stated that she agrees with what everyone has said. She volunteers at the school and it is discouraging, they children are below average in their reading ability. We need to stop the growth and get the kids an education. She wants to help. They need a City Council that listens. School rooms are too crowded. There are language barriers, teachers are frustrated, please help them. Overcrowding of 320 kids - we can't take anymore. The roads are impossible, generally two cars per household another 320 cars, probably more, not counting cars in Orion Park. She has heard Hinkley's proposal, the Council needs to stop and listen to the proposal and not have our kid's reading compromised. Don Odiorne, 12175 W. Band Drive, stated that he has questions. As he sees this plat and others are concerned about setbacks for New Hope, maybe we need a three lane road, possibly a four lane with the number of cars especially on the weekend. Question for the developer, why is there no access to a road for lot 8 and no provision for that setback and no sidewalk? It seems like we need a buffer zone and a vehicle for walking. Mayor this will be a three lane section road, similar to Floating Feather. Heidi Skerrat, 12464 W. Lanktree Gulch stated that she also agrees that developers are good. She is not against the development, but against it above New Hope. This is the best land that Star has to develop. According to the Comp Plan if we are going to get any rural transitional land use this would be the area for it. It should be one house per two acres. People living in subdivisions are here because of rural identity. She has lived in 8  Eagle and couldn't afford the land. She sees the road the community is going down and we will become transient. This sets the precedent for what goes up there. It's either now or never. Knows what Clint has to propose everyone will be happy. It's a good plan and it is worth being presented. Regina Hinckley, 12728 W. Band, agrees with everyone and would like to help bring the citizens together. There is more to this property. She hopes they are given the opportunity to show her husband's program. She asked the Council to please table the decision tonight until Hinkley's program is seen. The Mayor stated that there would be a ten minute break. Cecil thanked everyone for the nice comments. They have heard a lot of the same conversations in other small cities, like McCall and Sandpoint. A lot of comments fit into certain categories. The infrastructure is too big to discuss - planners should be able to look down the road and plan for infrastructure. We feel that there is a good plan in place with roads and schools. He stated that he feels like the plan is a good one. The have a vision for the property. We like to develop in areas where communities have a sense of self. There are very few large parcels of land that developers can swoop in to buy. The lines are not usually drawn on a road, it usually has to do with large parcels and small parcels, that's where density grows. They do neighborhood communities. There will be large pieces above New Hope and smaller parcels. There is a lot of vacant space. They are willing to listen to Hinkley. He suggested putting a condition that only 160 ) units can be built and zoning required. If zoning is R-3 and only 160 homes be built as a condition. They would like to listen to Hinkley and sponsor a meeting. Regarding the transitional land, he doesn't know if you can draw a line like that. Most of the land to the west won't be developed and the larger ones will have higher densities. A lot of questions can be addressed at preliminary plat. Open space and setbacks are discussed at preliminary plats. The setback at New Hope is 36 feet and will be more than that with nice sidewalks and he hopes the neighbors will continue that. They will buffer around the property which is typically done in our developments. All properties will be fenced. Mrs. Cecil, applicant stated that they do have a vision. She is a mother of six children and they will bring tax dollars for schools, they have talked about schools and we have talked about roads - we didn't just throw it together. She stated that we came to you and got input. What you see is what you're getting, we are not demanding things. Let us help and grow your community. She stated that the lady that moved to Eagle for a rural identity, this is less dense than that. Regarding the wildlife- they do plan on keeping the wildlife and the pond is not a wetlands. They would like to keep houses up in the bowl area. There is BLM access, direct access is in the very top right of the property - we have agreed with neighbors to not allow access. Erlebach asked about access for lot number eight. Cecil stated that it will be taken care of at preliminary plat. The neighbors asked to move the road, they will move the lot around to accommodate a road. Erlebach asked about setbacks. Cecil stated that it is 36 ) feet from center line with five foot wide sidewalks. 9 ) McDaniel stated she would like to see east and west connectivity. Cecil stated that they would provide that. Bell talked about open space and the need to take it up another 5%. Bell stated that a lot of people would like to see an R-2 development. He asked that instead of 5.5% more in open space can you make it more of an R-2 development? Cecil stated that ifwe can get to 5% more we need to take out more lots. Financially, it is a very big impact. McDaniel asked that if housing is in that price range, do those homes or lots sell with people with young people or retirement age? Cecil stated they are seeing the Hewlett Packard type companies coming to this area, these are primary home markets and people that want to escape the crap. Everyone is trying to get away from California by changing states and changing lifestyles. They are fairly even. In Star they are away from business access and are nearly empty nesters. Their data is an even split. Mayor: have you looked at geographical run of water and sewer? Winn stated that they had, there is a low water area in the middle, and the sewer will go through the Greiner property. Erlebach stated that citizens are concerned about wells. Winn stated that there will be no wells at this time, but did not rule them out. Erlebach asked about the landscaping on the trails. Winn stated that the trails will be heavily landscaped. Erlebach asked if they had ) enough irrigation water. Winn stated that they did. The Mayor stated that ITD has asked about traffic study. They have talked with ACHD - they have it in the budget. The Mayor stated that ITD has requested that the study was given to them at preliminary plat. The Mayor asked about Mr. Morrison's comments on down lighting. Winn stated that they don't do anything that isn't housed completely. They don't do overhead lighting, it is just waist high and the bulb never shows. The Mayor closed the public hearing and Council moved into deliberations. Erlebach stated that the plan looks great, but he is not in favor of it - he wants to see less density, it's close to the foothills and there needs to be more open access and connectivity to neighborhoods. The citizens have asked and we need to create open area. Erlebach is in favor of an R-1. McDaniel stated that we have a problem as the Comp Plan Map says medium density. Are we bound by that? The Mayor stated that it complies with documents, you can deny approve or table. Yorgason stated that there are a couple issues. There is an application in front of you and there are four ways to go - you can approve, approve with conditions, deny or table the application. The plan fits with Comp Plan Map, you can go to a higher ) density, but it would need a Comp Plan Amendment unless applicant agrees. In the 10  denial process you have to tell developers what they can do to get it approved. The ) annexation is discretionary, there are no standards and nothing to call out. The zoning has to meet Comp Plan Map. With the map the way it is, we are into a difficult situation. With a development agreement you can play with densities. We have Comp Plan Map and a specific application. Christopherson stated that the developer has held the neighborhood meeting, which was not required. They have listened to the concerns of people and made alterations to the plan. This development will be closer to an R-2 with the development agreement requiring another 5.5% open space to equal 20%. Bell stated that he is torn, the developer has done an exceptional job and he doesn't want to discourage building in our community. There is a lot of talk of precedence which is true to a certain degree, there is nothing that says we have to annex this property. We have to be careful to set the right precedence, he would like to see it at an R-2. If we did this with a development agreement and additional open space and no more lots than 164 then it would be 2.49. Bell would like to see the process to continue and developers to meet with everyone. Bell's opinion would be to approve this with open space, with a development agreement and limit the lots. Mayor suggested an additional neighborhood meeting as an option. Christopherson stated that another neighborhood meeting would be good and should be ) included in the development agreement. He doesn't believe the developer will have a problem with that. Mayor stated that we do need to be careful. There is a genuine desire to accommodate the property owners but does not want to set a precedence. Yorgason explained that a development agreement would require another public hearing and people could come into testify again. The Mayor explained the development agreement can only occur when we zone property. McDaniel moved to approve File #AZ-06-03/ AZ-06-04 the Schram/Johnson property with a development agreement and the zoning designation ofR-3 with the development agreement stating that open space will be at 20% minimum and no more than 162 lots and an additional neighborhood meeting held, Christopherson seconded the motion. Bell stated that there are compromises both ways, an R-2 requires no open space, with an R-3 at 5% plus the extra 15% open space, there will 20% open space. Bell stated that this is a good compromise. McDaniel, Christopherson, Bell - all aye; Erlebach - nay: motion carried. Development Impact Fee Ordinance -The Mayor reviewed the ordinance and declared the public hearing open. The Mayor stated that the ordinance was published with maximum amount - $1,995.83 multi-family and $2,137.85 for single family homes. 11 ) Public: Clint Hinckley, 12728 W. Band stated that he likes that we are charging the impact fees, we are seeing developments and not really seeing amenities. He is trying to develop a plan to connect paths. We have a limited amount of land. Hinkley thinks we should charge the maximum. If we have high density we need to accommodate City services. The cost will be added onto the buyer's price. He would ask Council to at least charge maximum amount so we have sufficient funds to do parks. Carla Montrose, 1869 Springhallow Way thinks impact fees are a very good idea. We need to connect walkways and bike paths and we need to think about open space. Council needs to look at buying plots. Big cities didn't put aside open space area. We need to look at open space. Parks are great - kids need parks. Star not as big as Eagle or Meridian. Impact fees would not have stopped her from buying home. Heidi Sken-at, 12464 W Lanktree Gulch agrees with Montrose. The Mayor stated that Council doesn't disagree, we don't have a lot of issue with everyone paying their fair share. This can become quite complex, and it can falsely inflate the price of housing. The Mayor talked about sewer and water rates. Our costs will be the highest in the valley. Bell stated that he would like to adopt the maximum amount so we don't have to go through process again. We have a lot of land coming to the City. We have 72 acres for a J City Park. It took how many years for Eagle to develop Men-ill Park? Capital costs will be staggering. We have the opportunity for a lot of nice things with that park. Impact fees can't be used for maintaining the parks. Public hearing closed. Neighborhood Meeting Ordinance - The Mayor opened the public. The Mayor reviewed the Ordinance. Public: Pam Slendorn, 2987 N. Hamlet asked if they are the same requirements as in State Code. Some of larger land parcels only requires four people to be notified. The Ordinance needs to notify people farther away. Kristen Battey, 2420 N. Munger Road, stated that she agrees with Slendorn and read it somewhere, it's normally generally 300 feet. Depending on the size of the parcel, if it's a big development it might only notify certain people. Dennis Stegenga, 290 S. Star Road, stated that if it were a perfect world, developers would do it on their own. It's not happening. The 300 feet notification on big parcels is not enough. Other cities that require neighborhood meetings, require the developers to turn sign up sheets into the City. We need to require a written roster. 12  Richard Tinsely, 10459 Achiellia, stated that they had a meeting a couple days ago. We ) could do a public announcement for that. The Mayor stated that we could. Brenda Weaver, 2620 N. Munger Road, stated that developers could send out notices for larger parcels. Yorgason stated that cities notice out to 300 feet, Ada County determines it by staff for larger lots. Clint Hinkley, 12728 W. Band, stated that he likes neighborhood meetings. Hinkley asked about developers that don't provide enough information. The Mayor stated that we haven't defined the requirements of the meetings and we can't regulate it. Hinkley asked about plat changes. The Mayor stated that it is not an absolute indicator of what they will bring to the City. We could adopt now with the written verification of attendance. Yorgason added which shall include a list of attendees of the meeting. Yorgason is more inclined to do it the way Ada County does which may require additional notice. Christopherson stated that Section 2, the last sentence is in conflict with section 5. We need to replace the word "hearing" with "meeting". ) The Mayor closed the public hearing. New Business: Irrigation Agreement Discussion - Yorgason has two issues: Two liability issues - main concern City fully liable when city guests or invitees cause problems to the pump - ICRMP has not seen this and Section 2 should state for delivery of water - not payment of water. The Mayor asked that we draft changes and get rid of issues and bring back to authorize it. Residential Buffer - There is a proposed amendment to buffer zone - Everyone agreed that they like Slendorn' s version better. Publish at the one-acre to ten acre limits. Put in for landscape review at the City. Schedule a public hearing. Parkstone Subdivision Conservation Easement Approval - This easement is in regards to the Heron rookery at the back of Parkstone Subdivision. It is located at the southeast corner of the Parkstone property. Bell stated that this won't hurt us -we'll design walking path around it. Bell moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the Conservation Easement, for Heron rookery, Christopherson seconded the motion. Roll Call: McDaniel, Christopherson, Erlebach and Bell - all aye: motion carried. Parking in the Central Business District - Staff discussed that there are property owners ) that wanted parking either on the side or in front of their buildings in the Central Business 13  District. Bell stated that we do need to refine things, but we need to tell him no, put parking behind. Council talked about an option for landscape buffer - if the building doesn't use entire frontage - the entire parking lot needs to be buffered. No parking in front of building and if you don't use entire frontage, parking has to be screened. Ordinances & Resolutions: Ordinance No. 150 Development Impact Fee - McDaniel moved 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 Ordinance No. 150 be considered after reading once by title only, Christopherson seconded the motion. Roll Call: McDaniel, Christopherson, Erlebach and Bell - all aye: motion carried. Christopherson moved to approve Ordinance No. 150 an Ordinance of the City of Star, Idaho, creating development impact fees, providing for definitions; creating an application process; providing for the collection of fees; establishing standards and procedures for a development impact fee; providing for the determination of development impact fees; providing for refunds of impact fees paid; defining cred9its; allowing for the dedication of land; providing impact fee service areas and trust accounts; regulating impact fee expenditures; defining park and recreation impact fees; establishing administrative costs; providing for extraordinary impacts; allowing payment of bonding; describing the effect of the fee on zoning and subdivision regulations; providing for vested rights; regulating appeals of administrative decisions; providing that other powers ) an rights will not be affected; providing for severability and providing an effective date, McDaniel seconded the motion. Roll Call: McDaniel, Christopherson, Erlebach and Bell - all aye: motion carried. Ordinance No. 151 Neighborhood Meetings - McDaniel moved 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 Ordinance No. 151 be considered after reading once by title only, Bell seconded the motion. Roll Call: McDaniel, Christopherson, Erlebach and Bell - all aye: motion carried. Erlebach moved to approve Ordinance No. 151 an Ordinance of the City of Star, Idaho, requiring neighborhood meetings for certain land use applications; material specifications; providing for notice; providing the purpose of the neighborhood meetings; providing meeting standards; establishing the timing of the meetings; requiring written verification; and providing for an effective date, Bell seconded the motion. Christopherson specified the strikings and additions of the words hearing and meeting and Section 6 striking roster. The additional review was added to the Ordinance. Roll Call: McDaniel, Christopherson, Erlebach and Bell - all aye: motion carried. Reports: Staff - Staff had nothing to report. 14  Council - Bell attended a Valley Ride Meeting Christopherson attended Thursday EDC and discussed signs. McDaniel stated that she is concerned about Boise River. There is a meeting tomorrow night regarding flooding. The Mayor stated that there the Comp Plan Review Committee met last week. Executive Session: Bell moved to go into Executive Session under ICS 67-2345(l)(f) Pending Litigation, Erlebach seconded the motion. Roll Call: McDaniel, Christopherson, Erlebach and Bell - all aye: motion carried. The regular session was reconvened. Adjournment: Erlebach moved to adjourn the meting, Bell seconded the motion. All aye: motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 pm. Approved: ) � Nathan Mitchell, Mayor ) 15