City Council Regular Meeting

CITY OF STAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 2, 2006 A regular meeting of the Star City Council was called to order by Mayor Nathan Mitchell at 7:10 pm at the Star Elementary School and all stood for the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll Call: Councilpersons Tammy McDaniel, Dustin Christopherson, Tom Erlebach were present. Councilman Bell was absent. Approval of the Agenda: Christopherson moved to amend the agenda to change the order of the public hearings, 6B. Plummer Subdivision first then hearing 6A. Corinthian Homes, McDaniel seconded the motion. All aye: motion carried. Consent Agenda: Christopherson moved to approve the Consent Agenda, McDaniel seconded the motion. The Consent Agenda consisted of Approval of April 11, 2006 and April 12, 2006 Special Meeting Minutes, Claims Against the City for April 2006, Star Camp Day Proclamation, and Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law for Greiner Property Annexation & Zoning, Schram/Johnson Property Annexation & Zoning, and Tucana Sky Subdivision Preliminary Plat. All aye: motion carried. Public Input: Equestrian Trail Presentation – Clint Hinckley – Mr. Hinckley stated he would like to present his vision to the Council and the public to see what their input would be. He feels the City is in need of a vision. Councilman Bell joined the Council Meeting at 7:15 pm. In regards to why an equestrian theme: 1) no animal better suited, 2) fits better with surrounding area, 3) it would fulfill Comp Plan rural integrity, 4) encompasses a wide range of income, and 5) fits with Star’s history and could give Star an identity. It would include a community pasture, indoor arena, trails and riding arena, and a community stable that could combine with an indoor arena. Proposal would require property owners willing to provide easements for trails and creating owner fees to support structures and a community horse for the use of those who do not have one; as well as being available for rent. An equestrian trail would create an identity for Star, put Star on the map, attract business and would support existing businesses, increase property value and keep the beauty of Star open to everyone. Question from audience asked if he had talked to any irrigation districts regarding easement. Hinckley stated no, legalities would need to be worked out. Kristin Battey stated she would be willing to provide an easement. 1 Hinckley stated he is before them asking if the community wants this. Developers have indicated they are willing to look at this on the condition he can gather a show of support within the next thirty days. He asked the audience to please sign the petition of support. Public – Regina Hinckley, 12728 W. Band Drive, read into the record her letter of comments regarding their attendance at the School Board Meeting on April 25, 2006. Highlights included the need for two elementary, one middle school and one high school in this area. They would like the City to help them in negotiating with developers to either donate school sites or to sell the land to the District at their original cost. The City has its strongest negotiating powers before annexation not at preliminary plat. The School Board desires a more in depth communication with the City and did acknowledge they were receiving information from the City on proposed subdivisions. Hinckley reviewed school attendance numbers and noted if we were on the 2007 bond we could possibly have a school built in 2008. She submitted her letter to Council. Mary Ann Saunders, 2230 Schreiner Lane, asked if the Mayor had assigned the document Katy Slater presented to the Council two weeks ago to anyone and wondered what would be done with it. The Mayor stated the document is at City Hall for anyone to review; he has read it and has not assigned it to anyone. It speaks about public involvement in processes and we can do this through committees. Saunders asked if they will hear what some of those will be. The Mayor replied they can be written up. Saunders asked how the projection of population in the Comp Plan came about. The Mayor explained that from the uses on the comp plan map it was multiplied by 2.4 people per household. Saunders asked, for her clarification, if he meant designations first then calculate the numbers; the Mayor replied that was correct. Lynette Gable, 23260 Blessinger, stated that at the moratorium meeting it was stated no moratorium was needed because the Council had a choice whether or not to annex. Her question was what would make them turn it down and what can citizens do to get it turned down. From her meeting with the Mayor she felt her opinion doesn’t matter as he stated there was nothing she could do. Bell stated there has to be a good legal reason or peril for them not to approve an annexation request. The Mayor stated he did not tell her she had no rights and couldn’t do anything. In short they can say no, if they don’t want to annex. But as an Idaho property owner they have a right under the law to do what they want on their property. Gable asked if there was anything the public could do to stop annexation. The Mayor replied the Council were the only ones who can stop an annexation. Gables second question was whether changing the zoning and amending the Star Comp Plan affects surrounding properties. The Mayor clarified changing the zoning only affects the annexed property, not any other property. Eric Battey, 2420 N. Munger, stated that when it comes down to laws and public hearings the Council becomes judges and they must be impartial and objective. He felt Christopherson and Erlebach have tried to be. He asked everyone to be objective, subjective, and to follow the rules. 2 Gary Moore reserved the right to speak later. Gail Alters, 4587 N. Echo Summit, stated she was proud to be a citizen of Star and Idaho. She went to the School Board Meeting Tuesday and was disappointed. The School District has identified school sites they would like and she asked the Council to work with developers to donate or sell back to the School District property at the price they bought it. The citizens have put the Council in place to look after their interests. In the Comp Plan it states we should have school sites in place; we need to have schools in the plans. The Mayor informed Alters the meeting with the School District was part of developing a plan. They have the information and had it before we adopted the plan. Jill Hettinger, 6177 Somerset Lane, asked how the Council plans to deal with two school districts and what if someone sits on a boundary. The Mayor explained annexation does not change provider services boundaries and they would not be changing school district lines. Hettinger asked what the conditions of forced annexation were. Chris Yorgason, legal counsel, explained that Section 50-222 explained the three kinds of annexation. At this time, this City does not do forced annexation. Hettinger asked if they became surrounded would they then be forced to annex. Mayor Mitchell explained there are several lots in town not yet annexed into to the City. This Council will not consider forcing anyone to annex; but he couldn’t guarantee what future Councils would do. Hettinger asked if Middleton residents would become users of the Ada County Library. The Mayor stated they hadn’t explored options with the library. Generally if you don’t pay into it you are not guaranteed services. Hettinger asked about City services, everything seems to be exclusive. The Mayor shared that they are looking at the YMCA to explore putting in a pool for Emmett, Star, and Middleton. There is a 45 acre park going in on the Dudley property that will be open to the public. Hettinger asked if there was a race between Middleton and Star to push out the boundaries. The Mayor stated no, they had discussions with Middleton a year ago about possible limits, with Blessinger being a cut off point. Darrel Gazzola, 1710 N. Willow Glen Place, said he understood from two weeks ago that annexation is very open. The Mayor explained that when a landowner makes application the Council must act on it. There would be a legal battle if they were to try to act differently from what they apply for and they did not agree to the changes. Gazzola talked about the multi-colored Mexican restaurant and stated he understood the developer agreed to change the colors. He feels it is time to set guidelines. Amy Church, 6080 Purple Sage Road, stated she would love to see an equestrian community and would be willing to give up some of her property for it. She had talked 3 to Kastera Homes and they were doing one in Nampa and Eagle because there was a need. Church stated she had talked with the Director and a member of the steering committee for Blueprint for Good Growth and they felt this annexation wouldn’t fit in with their plan because of transportation. She feels we need a design review committee so something like the Mexican restaurant can be stopped from happening again. Randy Thompson, 11474 New Hope Road, asked if any five and ten acre properties have offered to donate property to the school. The Mayor stated no. ??, 617 Stump Lane, wanted to know what right the City had to annex in another County that will impact his taxes. Roads should be taken into consideration. ??, 2194 Lansing Lane, wondered if it was the Council’s intention to design the face of the town or to allow citizens to help. He would hate to have Star look ugly between Eagle and Middleton. Councilman Bell stated it is their intention to make a nice looking community. They are working hard because they love this community and they are working with other agencies. The City has secured more park space now than Eagle currently has. Developers build the roads and the Highway District maintains them. If citizens can get ACHD to come out and build roads ahead of development that would be great. They are looking at design review and they do value opinions from the public. New Business: Star Economic Development Committee Presentation – Ken Firmage, on behalf of the Star Economic Committee, made a request to the Council for funding of $1550.00 for two professional conceptual drawings costing $700.00 and final building plans costing $850.00 for landmark entry signs to the City. They plan to put the two conceptual drawings at City Hall for the public to vote on. They are working with Gem Community to go after a grant for procuring land, build the signs, and for landscaping. Some grants require matching funds which they will be coming to the City for. Erlebach asked if the $1550.00 included the 20% matching funds. Firmage stated the grant was for land acquisition and construction of the signs, not sign design, so the $1550.00 did not include matching funds. Christopherson asked how firm was the quote. Firmage replied they were firm. McDaniel inquired if they would be putting out a circular. Firmage stated yes. Christopherson moved to approve expenditure of $1550.00 for design plans for landmark entrance signs to the City, Erlebach seconded the motion. All aye: motion carried. Star Chamber of Commerce Donation Request Discussion – The Mayor brought the Council’s attention to the packet of information in front of them regarding the Chamber of Commerce donation request and asked if there were any questions. 4 Christopherson pointed out that last year the City had given the Chamber $15,000.00 to take over Mule Days with the understanding that that would be all that would be given. He thought they would keep funds to continue sponsoring Mule Days. Julia Fenwick, President for the Star Chamber of Commerce, explained the requested amount is matching membership marketing dollars. They are marketing the City as well as Mule Days. The marketing video is set to air fifty times starting May 24, 2006. Mule Days will continue paying for itself. Christopherson stated he had viewed the video and it was well done. He felt the message was made to come to Mule Days and didn’t see the ad benefiting the City much. Fenwick stated the commercial was designed to promote a positive atmosphere for Star. It starts out black and white for old town and goes into color for more modern. Erlebach thinks all will benefit from the ad and commended Fenwick for doing a good job. He is in support of the request. Bell said his only problem with the request was in asking for it only four weeks before Mule Days, there is no line item in the budget for it. He feels the City should be in the loop sooner. Felt it was made clear the City would not be continuing to put money into Mule Days. Fenwick pointed out the ad could be adjusted and feels it is a good marketing tool. Other businesses are contributing as well as the Chamber. McDaniel stated she felt last year’s Mule Days was a success and can only go up; would hate to go backwards. Feels they should approve expenditure for this year. McDaniel moved to approve expenditure of $6500.00 to the Star Chamber of Commerce, Erlebach seconded the motion. Erlebach requested the motion stipulate if they request funds next year there is to be at least three months notification. McDaniel amended her motion to include stipulation. Bell stated he didn’t feel three months was enough time, request needs to be in by July so it can be budgeted for the next year. If the City is partnering for advertising it needs to have more participation. It was not the City’s intent to keep budgeting for Mule Days. Aye - McDaniel and Erlebach, Opposed - Christopherson and Bell: motion tied. Mayor Mitchell voted affirmative: motion carried. Public Hearings: The Mayor reviewed the procedures for public hearings. Plummer Subdivision – Preliminary & Final Plats – The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked the Council if they had any conflicts of interest or ex parte contact, hearing none the Mayor asked the applicant to speak. Applicant – Larry Tiernan, 5593 Cattail Way, Boise, thanked the Council for switching his application on the agenda. This application is a simple lot split of a one acre parcel in the Estrella No. 2 Subdivision, which was anticipated in the original CC & R’s for Estrella No. 2. The preliminary and final plat applications are in accordance with the City’s and ACHD guidelines. There will be 6,000 square feet of commercial condominium space on the front lot and at this time there is no specific use designated for 5 the back lot. Plans for the condominium lot will be submitted later for approval. They are subject to the CC & R’s for Estrella No. 2 Subdivision. Staff had no additional comments. Mayor Mitchell asked for public input. Darrel Gazzola, 1710 N. Willow Glen Place, asked what they were putting in. Mayor Mitchell explained the front lot would have four commercial condominium units totaling 6,000 square feet. There is nothing specific for the back lot. Bell stated that because it was provided for in the original phase two and it is in compliance he felt these applications should be approved. Bell moved to approve File #PP-06-05 and FP-06-05, Preliminary and Final Plat for Plummer Subdivision with the thirteen recommended conditions of approval, Christopherson seconded the motion. All aye: motion carried. The Mayor declared the public hearing closed. Corinthian Homes – Annexation & Zoning - The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked the Council if they had any conflicts of interest or exparte contact, hearing none the Mayor asked the applicant to speak. Applicant – Van Elg, with The Land Group, Inc., 462 E. Shore Drive, Eagle stated he and others involved in this project are from Idaho. For now they are calling this project Corinthian Homes East Canyon. The subject property is comprised of twenty-two parcels for a total of 507 acres. It is adjacent to property in Star, therefore qualifies for annexation. They realized higher density would be controversial, and lower density is not economical to develop, so they are asking for a zoning designation of Multiple Use (MU) to allow for mixed uses. ITD wants a collector street and feels there will be a need for a streetlight at the intersection, which will allow for a good commercial area. The concept map is only a guide, as well as the development agreement. If the application is approved with a development agreement it will allow them to proceed with the purchase and a reasonable development. They realize the development agreement needs to be altered based on decisions made tonight. Their intent is to create a well thought out and attractive community with a variety of patterns in housing – no rubber stamping. The developer will be required to make street improvements, build roads, and will have to foot the bill. It is unclear at this point if they will build roads to Canyon County or ACHD standards. They understand from talking with Tim Richards with Canyon County Highway District that Canyon County may be willing to adopt ACHD standards for the development of this property. Everyone must realize no homes will be built for at least a year and a half and build out will take many years depending on the market. Large developments are different from piece meal developments and allow a combination of many resources. They can design in a school system allowing for facilities and amenities. They plan on holding several meetings, involving many entities, to work out concerns with various agencies. They plan to build a community that is lasting and sustainable. Higher density developments allow for City services to be brought in instead of installing individual septic systems. There is sewer and water capacity; although there 6 may be a need to drill another well. They have been assured by the sewer and water district that they can provide services to them. Approval tonight will allow them to proceed with plans. Elg introduced Dave Roylance, Project Engineer. Dave Roylance, Roylance and Associates, 391 W. State Street, Eagle, explained the project will have at least five different products and prices. They plan on having condo and townhouses, smaller homes from $250,000 up to estate lots ranging up to $600,000, a possible school site, walking paths, and other amenities. They recognize the need for good schools and feels it adds to a development. They have been talking with the School District. He compared the project to Lexington Hills in Eagle and Rockbridge in Star. They are working with ITD and ACHD and will be making contributions to the roads by widening, building new roads, adding signals, and building acceleration and deceleration lanes. Roylance pointed out it is selfish to say I have my piece of Idaho and then lock the door to others. He feels they are bringing a good project that will bring value to the community. Bill Gigray, Attorney for Canyon Highway District No. 4, 5900 E. Franklin Road, Nampa stated he was here because this is a new venture for Star considering annexing into Canyon County and he wanted to talk about some legal aspects to put into the Ordinance. Star has always been under Ada County jurisdiction while in Canyon County the cities can have highway jurisdiction. Canyon Highway District is willing to work with ACHD to have the same standards. They are requesting the City to include specific language in the annexation ordinance, “The City of Star does not have a functioning street department and the exclusive general supervisory authority over all public streets and public rights of way within the area of this annexation which are within Canyon County, State of Idaho (excepting those under the jurisdiction of the Idaho Transportation Department) shall remain and be under the jurisdiction of the Canyon Highway District No. 4.” He is asking because jurisdiction stays with the Highway District and because of taxes which would go to a Highway District. Erlebach asked if they agreed to this is there a time line. Gigray stated it could be renegotiated if the City wanted to look at doing a road and highway district. Christopherson asked if the Highway District had impact fees and if he knew of any city not having a highway district. Gigray stated they do not have impact fees and most cities do have districts. Christopherson asked what the cost difference would be if they took on ACHD standards since there was no impact fee. Gigray stated they would request developers to do off site improvements; they have no ordinance authority to implement impact fees. Tim Richards, 15435 Highway 44, Caldwell, representing Canyon Highway District No. 4, stated they did meet regarding the different highway standards. The Highway District Commission is willing to work toward ACHD standards, which are stricter. It is important that the development agreement address an impact study and they would like the opportunity to review it as they will be responsible for the roads. They do need more detailed information to address entrances. Justin Walker, Engineer for the City, asked if 7 they would do plan review and monitor road construction. Richards stated yes; they currently do if cities don’t have their own road district. John McEvoy, Canyon County Highway District No. 4 Commissioner, 15435 Highway 44, Caldwell, stated he was here to assure the Council they are on board and aware of what’s coming. The developer will have to meet their standards before they will approve and sign off, otherwise no access permits will be issued. They are willing to adopt Ada County Standards within the entire area. Mayor Mitchell stated they appreciated their commitment. Mayor Mitchell asked for public input. Clint Hinckley, 1278 N. Band, pointed out in talking about schools the greatest potential is before annexation; it is not unreasonable to ask developers to donate. He sees there will be a big traffic jam on New Hope and Can Ada Roads. Feels multiple use is a fancy term for conditional use. He understands a larger parcel allows for more than smaller parcels. He doesn’t see how everything can be covered tonight. Hinckley feels there needs to be neighborhood meetings and notices need to go to more than just people within 300 feet. He is concerned about wells and wondered if a water study had been done regarding the aquifer. He is concerned it may be cost prohibitive to drill a new well and to bring City services. Lynette Gable, 23260 Blessinger Road, first question was she understood the Mayor had several private meetings with Corinthian Homes and wondered if this wasn’t a conflict of interest and where were the checks and balances of private meetings. Her second question dealt with wondering what the developers plan for the land was and what does it bring to Canyon City. Her third concern was in regards to a petition her and her neighbors signed to the County to limit land parcels to five acres. She asked the Council to deny this application and not ruin her quality of life. If the Council does approve annexation tonight she asked them to have the developer address four concern she has 1) would they leave the 69 foot easement south of her property and not allow others access to Blessinger from it, 2) would they be willing to construct a ten foot berm or ten foot fence around her property, 3) would they be willing to transition her home with single level homes, in the higher price range, and 4) would they be willing to make streetlights below roof lines. Mayor Mitchell explained he had not had any private meetings with any applicants. He has held pre-application meetings with applicants. These staff level discussions include the applicant, Zoning Administrator Cathy Ward, himself and anyone else they wish to bring. These meetings are available to any applicant. Marian Kerr, 6413 Foothill Road, stated she has 46 acres they have been farming for 26 years. This application will affect their lives. She discussed a wreck on Highway 44 and the redirecting of traffic. Highway 44 needs to be widened and needs turn lanes. She pointed out Foothill Road is not a road but is a prescriptive right-of-way. She knows they are annexing for sewer service. She pointed out there is a line on Lansing from 8 Middleton so they don’t need to annex into Star. It is tough trying to blend two cities; it breaks up cohesiveness of community. Kerr is concerned with law enforcement, who they will call. She expressed concern for farming and aerial spraying, and irrigation and well drilling and the nitrates in the water. She asked if they will go to Canyon County or the City for conditional use permits. She wondered if this was right as Middleton is going before the County to extend its Area of Impact to Can Ada Road. Kerr asked that they iron out concerns ahead of time and at this time she says no to annexation. James Montrose signed up to speak but was no longer in attendance. Matt Newton, 25370 Volendam Street, Caldwell, is a Trustee with the Middleton School District. They had met with Corinthian Homes regarding a school site and they were receptive and gave a verbal commitment to look at school sites. Ryan Cutler chose not to speak. Julia Fenwick, 6344 Foothills Road, commended the agencies for working together. It appears to be a well thought out project and in the best interest of the community. She would expect the City to have a review and design committee in place by the time they start developing and building. Yorgason stated public hearings are more on zoning as there are not certain standards for annexation but there are for zoning and preliminary plat. If they meet the standards they have the right to be approved. Fenwick stated she is in favor of zoning changes for this land; feels it will be better than having a patchwork. Jill Hettinger chose not to speak. Tom Longstreet, 22492 Blessinger, stated he is in favor of annexing but not in favor of the zoning. The City needs to be aggressive because Middleton is aiming for Can Ada Road. He is concerned about property values impacted by the number of homes. Would like to see nothing smaller than three homes per acre which he feels is a mid range home. Longstreet would like to see Star grow to Blessinger. He is concerned with the number of condos on each side of the school and would like to see the number reduced. Gail Alters, 4587 N. Echo Summit Place, stated the City needs to get the Comp Plan in order and Ordinances in order to protect them. She asked the Council to think about taxation issues and what the legal ramifications are. She asked if businesses were to be just on Highway 44. Alters wondered if developers would consider donating land or selling it back to the School District at cost for a school site. She would like to know how much open space is planned. Alters asked the Council to take more time for planning and research before considering this property for annexation. Al Dauven, 22020 Blessinger, stated his property abuts this development and he is concerned because his irrigation comes through the middle of this property. There should be consideration to surrounding property owners. He would like houses to be set back from property lines as homeowners throw grass clippings over the fence and are unaware of how this affects some animals. He would like to see roads put on the outside of the 9 development. To protect the surrounding people he would like to see a 70 foot-wide berm and fencing put in place. A contingency plan needs to be put in place now. Heidi Skerratt, 12464 W. Lanktree Gulch, stated she went through the Zoning Ordinance to see what MU allows and it has different uses permitted. Some things are allowed with a conditional use permit, such as, bars, night clubs, pawn shops, recreational use parks and small engine repair shops. A golf course driving range would not be allowed. Feels this is not a very restrictive classification and it would not be good to approve when they don’t know what is going in. It does not give a percentage on how much housing is allowed. Mayor Mitchell pointed out the map shows different types of uses they plan to use. Skerratt asked if they will be required to stick with those percentages. The Mayor informed her the development agreement will state what is allowed and what is restricted. Skerratt stated she didn’t feel it supported the Comp Plan to let MU dictate what goes in; it could allow for things they’ll not be happy with. She feels other’s property rights should be protected and they shouldn’t be pushed out. She would not like to see the property annex and zoned MU as the land around is zoned RT. She sees more residential and limited offices on Highway 44, although some light industry might be acceptable along the 44 area. Would like to see this tabled until Middleton has put in for their Area of Impact. She feels this is just a land grab; we should be doing what is best for both communities. Andy Beitia, 6630 Schmidt, stated he is not opposed as if they had ground they would want to do something with it. He feels they need a more definite plan as people are wondering what they are planning to do. He feels the application needs to be tabled and the developer does a plot plan. He is concerned with the amount of density and feels there needs to be more diversification. He stated there are some benefits to having upper end residences although they use up more tax dollars than they contribute. Maybe the sellers could be approached on what they want to donate back to the community. Beitia asked this to be tabled until we know what developers are willing to commit to. Dave Silbernagel, 23254 Blessinger Road, stated there is a 60 foot strip for easement to his property and he would like to see it left out of the annexation. Julie Gazzola, 1710 N. Willow Glen Place, asked if they are annexed would they have to follow the new rules coming or the current rules. Mayor Mitchell explained anything platted would be in regard to what’s in place at time of submitting. Gazzola stated she agreed with the previous gentleman in there needs to be diversity, including R1 and R2. Dave Quenzer, 6263 Price Lane, expressed it is good to hear everyone is concerned with rural atmosphere, but it was lost 25 years ago. These people have property rights to sell when and to whomever they wish. Darrel Gazzola, 1710 N. Willow Glen Place, pointed out he is concerned with the bubble map. He is not seeing any R2; there need to be a sense of diversity. If annexed there needs to be a variety of density and diversity. 10 Teri Opper, 3130 N. Can Ada Road, lives on a five acre parcel that will overlook Orion Park and she understand it is being bought by Corinthian Homes. She doesn’t understand how anyone can absorb everything this late in the night and feels it would be best to table this application. Amy Church, 6080 Purple Sage Road, asked the developers what the size of larger lots and the estate lots will be and how much open space there will be; and how do these compare to Lexington Hill. Will there be any streams or ponds in the development. She questioned if this fits into Stars vision and would like to know how many homes are proposed in the subdivision. She is concerned there is nothing in writing before this is annexed and zoned. Regina Hinckley, 12728 W. Band, stated the Middleton School District has had two school sites donated so she doesn’t feel it is unreasonable to have Corinthian Homes donate a site. Lexington Hills didn’t allow condo’s and wondered how allowing them here will affect this development. Hinckley stated they had collected 49 signatures on a petition opposing this annexation. Karen Dell, 2689 N. Brandon Road, stated she had concerns regarding this annexation. She thought she had bought in an area zoned for ten acre parcels only. She doesn’t see any transition lots. Dell stated she would be willing to give easements for the equestrian trail. She moved here for the rural atmosphere. The developer needs to give more of an idea of what their proposing before this is approved. She thinks the community can solve problems before we have them. The applicant was asked if he would like to rebut the testimony. Van Elg stated he appreciated those who stuck around. He realized this is a complicated matter and they will be back with conceptual plans many times. The City will have a binding development agreement and if they default they will lose their entitlement to develop. They are asking for approval so they can move ahead in a reasonable manner. Star Sewer and Water District is planning on a community well which will be much deeper than any of the wells on anyone’s private property. They can address the 60 foot easement on Blessinger. Streetlights, berms, and hedging will come in thru the final plat process. ITD will tell them where they can put ingress and egress. In regards to the sewer lines from Middleton, they have no plans to provide services east of Blessinger. During the public meetings they can address the possibility of horses in the development of the estate lots. In reference to bars allowed in a MU zoning, in the development agreement there would be a clause not allowing certain uses and it will preclude bars. The development agreement states what will be allowed and what they don’t want. They are willing to place restriction on themselves and with the land that are binding for many years. There will be a minimum of 5 – 10% open space, parks, and a school site. They are planning on a variety in types of homes and in commercial development. They are looking for a WOW factor and for everything to blend. 11 Dave Roylance stated the five acres school site probably is light and they will do what the School District wants. The bubble plan map is only conceptual. They are not prepared to donate the land but they also are not looking to make a profit on it. They will do any aquifer test studies required and wells will meet municipal standards. He feels there will be no hydraulics between the deep aquifer and shallow aquifers; old wells have grandfather rights. Issues with multiple highway districts and irrigation will have to be worked out. Annexing and zoning is the first step in this process. They prefer working with Star because they are closer and they feel this development will have more impact on Star. They are planning on holding neighborhood and community meetings to develop a plan but they need to know which City they will be working with. With MU zoning they have the opportunity to be somewhat self sustaining. Lexington Hills has 3/4 to 2-3 acre lots. Irrigation rights will have to be preserved. They will have to build to the market, which usually means starting with the smaller homes and moving to the larger ones. Roads will be curved to slow traffic and they plan to have cul-de-sacs for more privacy. Christopherson stated he feels the agreement is vague and exhibits B & C and the plan are not there. He asked if they will be developed following meetings with neighbors. Roylance stated yes that was the process they envisioned. The document in front of them shows a framework of the development agreement; they will work with neighbors, staff and the developer to complete it. Mayor Mitchell asked legal counsel, in recognizing the process for the development agreement just addressed, what would be the best process in regards to annexing and zoning with the development agreement not complete. Yorgason stated they had three choices 1) not making a decision tonight to allow time to work out the details, 2) deny application, 3) approve annexation and zoning with the condition of a development agreement and no Ordinance would be adopted until the development agreement was approved. The third option would let them know who they are dealing with. A development agreement is tied to zoning at time of adopting an annexation and zoning ordinance. Mayor Mitchell stated there were six things he wanted addressed before approval of a development agreement. They included 1) open space,2) set back for different usages, 3) a chart specifying uses, 4) how they address a school site, 5) specific density on a plot of ground, and 6) addressing transitioning to the outside world. Roylance stated these were good issues to have addressed and it is good to have a city jurisdiction down to work with. They are bringing in a planner to lay out sites. McDaniel asked about the time frame for bringing in a revised development agreement to the Council. Roylance stated they hoped within two to three months, following meeting with everyone. Christopherson asked how he saw the process proceeding from here, such as do they want the specifics of the development agreement to come through the Council. Roylance indicated he saw this being a multi-step process that will be market driven. After the 12 drawings are ready they will meet with the neighbors for input and then will make some adjustments. The attorney’s will need to work together and they will be working with City planning staff. Then they will be bringing it back to the Council for approval. They Mayor closed the public hearing and Council moved into deliberation. Bell stated the Mayor’s list of concerns matched his list and they need to be nailed down before approving the development agreement, which will include what they want. He likes the idea of a large development, it can be made into a nice community and he feels it will be a great addition to the community. He reiterated this is not a land grab on the City’s part; the developers and property owners know what they want to do. He is excited about the variety of elements and feels they should move forward with the annexation and zoning. Christopherson commented that one comment always made is they never listen and he wants the audience to know they do listen. A lot of their concerns are the same as his and he feels they can be dealt with. One of the main concerns is having facilities in place to support growth and there is a plan in place to support growth and provide financial support. He feels there definitely needs to be a school site and appreciates the developer looking in that direction. He is excited about a large development and seeing everything fit. He feels they should move forward with MU zoning. McDaniel stated she has mixed feelings. The fact remains you need people and financial support to build roads and schools. She believes with a MU designation they will have more control over development. McDaniel feels they should approve with MU zoning, adding condition requiring them to hold neighborhood meetings and revisiting the development agreement. Mayor Mitchell stated they are not rushing into anything, this is a reasonable request. He stated he attended a workshop along with Christopherson dealing with governments’ role in a free market. This opportunity gives them a chance to build what people coming want. Bell asked legal counsel for guidance on making a motion with the conditions discussed. Yorgason explained they could make the motion contingent on the development agreement coming back before the Council for approval and he recommended they include the language Canyon County requested. Bell moved to approve File #AZ-06-08, Corinthian Land Investments LLC, annexing and zoning the property MU contingent on a development agreement with the City and adding the language to the Ordinance that Canyon County Highway District No. 4 requested, McDaniel seconded the motion. All aye: motion carried. Ordinances & Resolutions: 13 Ordinance No. 152 Greiner Annexation & Zoning – 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. 152 be considered after reading once by title only, Bell seconded the motion. Roll Call: McDaniel, Christopherson, Erlebach and Bell – all aye: motion carried. Bell moved to approve Ordinance No. 152, an Ordinance annexing to the City of Star certain real 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 residential R-3; directing that certified copies of this Ordinance be filed as provided by law; providing for related matters; and providing an effective date, Erlebach seconded the motion. Roll Call: McDaniel, Christopherson, Erlebach and Bell – all aye: motion carried. Adjournment: McDaniel moved to adjourn the meeting, Erlebach seconded the motion. All aye: motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:55 pm. Respectfully submitted: Approved: ______________________________ ______________________________ Kathleen Hutton Nathan Mitchell, Mayor 14