City Council Regular Meeting

Star City Council Meeting May 16, 2006 The regular meeting of the Star City Council was held on May 16, 2006 at the Star Elementary School. The Mayor called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm and all stood for the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll Call: Council persons Tammy McDaniel, Dustin Christopherson, Tom Erlebach and Chad Bell were all present. Approval of the Agenda: Christopherson moved to amend the agenda adding item 4-B Entry Sign Discussion and moving Public Input to 4-C, Erlebach seconded the motion. All aye: motion carried. Consent Agenda: The Consent Agenda consisted of: Approval of the April 18, 2006 Regular Meeting Minutes and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the Plummer Subdivision Preliminary and Final Plats. Bell moved to approve the Consent Agenda, McDaniel seconded the motion. All aye: motion carried. Public Input: Law Enforcement Report - The written rep01i will be handed out to Council. ) Public In,P_ut - Mary Anne Saunders - 2230 Schreiner Road read her statement for the record and asked that it become a permanent part of the record. (See attached letter.) Eric Battey, 2420 N. Munger Road, discussed the meeting last month regarding the moratorium and Council deciding that it is not in the best interest in Star and that growth can be controlled through annexation. Battey asked how annexing outside of Star is in the best interest of Star. The Mayor explained that no annexation has occurred. Bell stated that the annexation is contingent on a development agreement. Bell believes this was a great opportunity and maybe the best opportunity ever presented to Star. We can negotiate the development. Battey cited ordinances regarding not being able to provide services. Battey believes the City owes schools to residents. Battey stated that they understand the school situation. Clint Hinkley, 12728 W. Band, stated that a new equestrian idea has come up. A gentleman owning an indoor arena is willing to donate an equestrian center. He needs to have it off his property by July 1. Trucks to move the center have been donated by Merrill Eggs and Mr. Wheelock is willing to donate a crane. Hinkley doesn't want to move the building more than once. He suggested that possibly Corinthian Homes could be an equestrian center. Hinkley stated that Jill Hettinger has been talking with Corinthian Homes and it could be included in the development agreement. Mr. Grant Lee is the man donating the center and the contact information is on the paperwork. 1 ) Katy Slater, 2091 Sunny Lane, discussed the requirements of the Star Comprehensive Plan and a cost benefit for every final plat. Slater volunteered to write the ordinance with the help of the City. Beth Zahm, 11947 W. Streamview Drive, discussed two of the citizens for Smart Growth that are planning to recall three Council people and the Mayor. She is against the recall. Ted Arugini, 9668 W Pembridge stated that people are coming from everywhere - he came from Seattle. He now lives in Star and has every right to be here. Gary Moore, 11335 W. Andromeda, apologized for his temper at the last meeting. He has served his country for 28 years and he is not happy to see what is happening to Star. He suggested a committee be formed and involve the subdivisions so we can help the City beautify Star. Gale Alters, 4587 N. Echo Summit Lane, stated that she was frustrated with the City Council. She went to the school board meeting and they said they would show you where the growth would be. We need to slow down growth - we need the growth, but at a slower pace. Jill Hettinger 6177 Somerset Lane, stated that she is very frustrated and lost a lot of sleep. She has read Comprehensive Plan and believes we need a recreational focus. Hettinger ) discussed the rural character of Star and that the Comp Plan supp01ts private prope1ty rights. The City needs to ensure that developers will not violate private prope1ty rights. We need to be concerned about wildlife. The Comp Plan says the Council will support the Rivers to Ridge plan. Entry Sign Discussion - Rob Pederson presented designs for the entry signs to Star. Designs were shown. Christopherson stated that the designs will be at City Hall. The public is asked to vote for their favorite sign. The winning sign will be announced at Mule Days. There will be a box for voting. Christopherson will get a ".pdf' file to download on the City's web site. Pubic Hearings: Fuller Prope1ty Annexation and Zoning - The Mayor explained the process of the public hearing, there would be 15 minutes given to the applicant, three minutes to the public and five minutes for rebuttal. The Mayor asked Council for any ex parte contact or conflicts of interest, hearing none, the Mayor opened the public hearing. AJ Bonner, 6066 Tonkin Drive, Boise, is a representative for Fuller prope1ty application. Bonner reviewed who would be speaking on the subject. Bonner introduced Justin Peterson as the family member; Warren Brick works for the Petersons; Chad Colberg 2  leads the operation and Kevin Harris is from Briggs Engineering and is the engineer of ) the project. Justin Peterson stated that he is pmi of the Peterson Development. They do residential developments, but this is the first time in Star. The Fuller property was brought to them and the community represented a great community with high growth potential. They felt that the development was a great potential for Star and the market value would be high. Peterson stated that his father was in charge of the company and he is the next generation. They are not builders themselves but will choose quality builders from within the State. Kevin Harris, Briggs Engineering, stated that the application speaks for itself. The Mayor asked about making sure sewer and water services can go throughout the development with no flat sites. HmTis stated that they had reviewed it. Bonner stated that this is a development that respects the rights of the community and the developer. Bonner stated that he believes they have met their obligation. The staff report talks about five questions the Council must ask. The first is does this comply with Comprehensive Plan, it does. It asks about a consistent/compatible zone, no special or privileged treatment, will not be detrimental to public health and welfare - as far as the law is concerned - no known detriments to public health and welfare, supplying greater tax base - it meets all of these. This application meets the law. Bonner stated that this zoning and annexation meet the requirements. ) Councilman Bell asked if they are open to limiting this to a certain number of lots and asked about the 20% open space. Bonner stated that they are willing to work with City. To make the park more compatible it will take away some of the other open space. The development comes in at a 2.5 units per acre with a total of 324 residential units. He feels that 15.4% in open space is more usable and would like it to stay with that. Councilman Christopherson asked how the neighborhood meeting went. Harris stated that everyone was happy; they created larger buffering lots and moved the park. They essentially took out every other lot on the borders. Harris stated that there are three walking paths with open space and interconnections. Colberg has talked with Hinkley about the equestrian center and they were willing to do the walking paths, but most of the neighbors are not willing to do that. Colberg stated that they are not interested in providing an equestrian center on their property. Councilman Erlebach asked about the neighborhood meeting. All he has heard is that everyone wants to see Rl and R2, apparently they are hearing different things. Colberg stated that most of the people at the meeting live close to the affected prope1iy were happy. They want to be good neighbors. Erlebach asked what the advantage of R-3 development was as opposed to an R-2. The Comp Plan speaks to different lot sizes. Colberg stated that there is a direct impact of the one acre sites along with financing on the buyers, they can't afford the larger lot sizes. Colberg stated that the market is not ) here in Star for larger lots. 3 l Christopherson stated that we have a report in the packet from ACHD and there are quite a few items to be addressed. Harris stated that he has talked with ACHD. A traffic study was taken to ACHD and he was told they had not had time to write a staff report. Staff- There was a typo on the third page it says "residential R-4" it is supposed to say "residential R-3". Ray Mickelson, 2519 Weaver, Boise stated that he just wanted to clarify that the development first came in and they were requesting an R-4 designation, the development is now an R-3. They lost 62 lots by accommodating the neighbors. Public - Clint Hinckley, 12728 W. Band has not had any discussions with Mr. Peterson, he has spoken mainly with Colberg about the equestrian center. Hinkley stated that there is a large interest in the equestrian center. Hinkley would like the developer to provide an easement and maybe an easement from the Stewart Land Group. This can always be a trail for walking if not for horses. We need to connect trails/paths throughout town. The developers have been easy to deal with. The neighborhood meetings have been very good. Bell asked Hinkley if he wanted to see an easement along the west side of the property. Hinkley stated that yes he would. Hinkley is meeting with the people at Monument ) Ridge. This is the best access point. We want to make sure we have a connecting trail. Councilwoman McDaniel asked if they would form an association to take care of the easement. Hinkley stated that they would, but there were a lot of legalities. Hinkley stated that they are just looking for interest now. We could provide a very good trail system. If not equestrian we could just have trails/paths. Legal Counsel, Chris Yorgason stated that we need to keep the testimony on the topic. Richard Hudson, 3035 N. Hamlet Lane, stated that he is not a resident of Star. He pointed out where he lives. Hudson stated that everything he wanted to talk about revolved around the plat. He stated that he met with the Peterson people twice they are great people - they took some unwarranted abuse, but they demonstrated courage. They came back and had larger lots, trees and vinyl fences. This property is designated as R-4, but is not being annexed at that and growth is inevitable. They are wonderful people. He believes that growth is happening too fast with too many houses. He believes he is the most impacted home owner here. The Mayor asked Hudson if he was comfo1iable with the number of lots. Hudson stated that he could not object to that. Katy Slater, 2971 Sunny Lane, stated that staff should be writing ordinances, she offered to write an ordinance, but will need help. We should invite the conversation about the schools they are too crowded. Regarding the equestrian idea, there are comprehensive plans and then there needs to be a master plan. As far as the City Council and it is staffs 4  responsibility to tell the developers. It needs to be laid out by the staff, it's like we're ) playing volley ball and everything is getting approved with no plan. We will end up with garbage and the City will end up like a trashy city. Jill Hettinger, 6177 Somerset Lane, stated that she just wanted to say that she appreciates the questions Tom Erlebach asks. The question about the comparisons on R-1 lots, the City ends up with more money in the end. Heidi Skerret, 12464 W. Lanktree Gulch, asked to adopt an ordinance for initiative referendum. The land we are looking at tonight does not fit into our Comprehensive Plan. We don't have to zone it as it appears on the land use map. Page 1 population growth - it speaks to overcrowding of land and the way we are developing. The Comp Plan speaks to ensuring future land use, enhancing prope1iy values. This is how they have maintained the home values in Eagle. Rural transitional lands are to have two acre parcels - that is what we should be getting. Four hundred members of Smart Growth disagree with this zoning. Kathy Hutton, 10824 W. New Hope Road, is a long time resident of Star and lives next to the Hudson property. She has no problem with the City annexing this property. Hutton stated that they appreciate the developers listening to their concerns. We are in approval of this annexation and zoning. DaiTel Gazzola, 1710 N. Willow Glen, stated he would like to see an R-2 and the 20% ) open space. He stated that the bigger lots won't go for a million dollars. Their open area is hodge-podge with no paths. Another 5% in open space is about five acres. We could put a school up there. Amy Church, 6080 Purple Sage, wondered if developers were asked if they wanted to donate any of their land to the school district. The Mayor stated that he spoke with Wendell Bingham, of the Meridian School District, who stated that they do not want a school on that piece of property. Applicant rebuttal - Bonner wanted to speak to the gentleman's concern on the 20%. The Johnson property kept the same number of lots but made the lots smaller with more open space. Bonner believes that the 15% is more compatible. Secondly, are the citizen concerns for zoning and annexation - this designation is what's shown on your map. By the map, you are telling the developer what you can do - this is medium density and this is what the developer is asking for with 2.5 houses. This developer has worked with the members of the community and appreciates their comments. They have gone the distance. Who is going to be responsible for the liability of this equestrian trail? Zoning and annexation requirements have been met as far as the law. Bell stated that the developer was requested to provide 15% over and above the required 5% amount of open space. The point was made clear from the staii, we can do parks or we can do trails. Bell asked if that was understood. Bonner didn't understand - we have 5  15% of quality open space. In all due respect, are you going to allow them to develop smaller lots and do you want to look at value of open space? Colberg stated that at neighborhood meeting, they want more usable open space. The entry to the park has parking on one side. There can be parking inside the five acres if needed. The Mayor stated that he liked the location of park. With not having a master plan for parks - he would like to see a path to the foothill area. Harris stated that we could put in some paths, but it was not his call. The Mayor asked that if they are looking at a development agreement, would the developer be willing to add a path to the public land and to the prope1iy to the west. Peterson stated that there were a number of items that could be possibly shared burdens. We're open to it and will work with the trail interests of the City. The Mayor asked about the timeframe for the park and property. Peterson stated that they don't want to wait to put in a park until the end of the development, but would propose tying it into phasing. Reimbursement will need to be coordinated in the development agreement. They will work with the City. They expect to push di1i, best case scenario this fall - the worst case 2007. McDaniel asked what the expected build out date is. Peterson stated that it is market ) driven, maybe three or four or even seven years. Peterson stated that regarding what they tell buyers regarding schools is they defer to the school district. There are no worse schools than that in the State of Utah. It is a balance - he hopes the schools anticipate the growth and maintain quality in the school district. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Bell is concerned that we have a good development agreement with no more than 2.5 houses per acre and have trails and walk-ability through our community. He would like a walk way up to the BLM land. He is willing to back off 20% if the trail is developed. We need to enter into a development agreement. The school district is not interested in this piece of prope1iy. He would like to see annexation and zoning with a development agreement. The Mayor asked Legal Counsel about Saunders' access to public records. Yorgason stated that there were two issues, notice and an oppo1iunity to come testify; we have only heard one side of the story. The worst case is we have another public hearing if we have a notice a defect. Without knowing more, Yorgason can't tell what the problems are. Christopherson stated that he's glad to hear there were two neighborhood meetings and that the developer made some concessions and are willing to do a development agreement. He has one concern, that New Hope Road be upgraded to a collector road he 6 believes from the comments made by the developer and that the ACHD staff report that it was hurried. Christopherson has no problem with this annexation. Erlebach stated that he does not want anything higher than an R-2 above New Hope Road. We should keep the 20% and we need some subdivisions that are one house per acre - we have enough rooftops. The rooftops need to be closer to State Street. He is not in favor of2.5, we need a buffer area. McDaniel stated that she believes with the 2.5 units per acre that if we put in the trails it will be very close to an R-2 and that will cover the extra 5%. She thinks that with a development agreement and the process with the developer, this could be an amenity to the city - she is in favor of the annexation and zoning with a development agreement. Christopherson stated that the most prudent thing to do is to table this until they can receive a staff report from ACHD. The Mayor stated that if you are concerned about the collector road status, you can condition your motion with it being a collector road across the front of the Johnson property. Christopherson would be okay with that condition. Bell stated that he would like to see the 20% with the trail in usable open space. The Mayor stated that the collector status road can be done. We need to have a trail system, we need to limit open space and address the timing of dedication of the park and improvements of the park and what the city and developer are responsible are for. Erlebach stated that if we don't start buffering the foothills when are we going too? We need to offer something more than a five foot setback. He would like to see bigger lots. Bell stated that all the yellow on the map is low density and there is quite a bit. It gives a nice mixed community going from small lots to bigger lots. Bell stated that the Comprehensive Plan needs to grow with the city. We need to think about the low density areas and think about what we're going to do with it. Christopherson stated that the developer talked about the timing of improvements of the park and when the park will be done. He would like to see dedication of the park at the end of phase one final plat. The Mayor stated that the development agreement will require another public hearing. Christopherson moved to approve File #AZ-06-05 Fuller Property annexation and zoning with a development agreement with New Hope Road being developed as a collector road, a trail system in the subdivision developed from the park to the BLM prope1iy and around the outside of the development and a connection to the Johnson property to the west, to limit the number of homes to 2.5 per acre, 323 lots and to have 20% in open space and dedication of the park at final plat approval. McDaniel seconded the motion. 7  Bell stated that we need to have a condition of how it comes to us and be specific about ) water. McDaniel, Christopherson, Bell - all aye: Erlebach - nay. Motion carried. Cranston Property - Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, Annexation & Zoning: The Mayor asked Council for any ex paiie contact or conflicts of interest, hearing none, the Mayor opened the public hearing. The Mayor announced that this prope1iy is to the southeast on Plummer Road. Wendy Kirkpatrick, Landmark Engineering, discussed the three applications and showed everyone where the property was located. Kirkpatrick stated that on the Comp Plan the property is designated as low density - single family units. The property was originally purchased in the 1900's by the Cranstons. There needs to be an upgraded Comp Plan Map designated for this prope1iy. Roads were local roads and have now been re- classified as collectors. Additionally, the prope1iy used to be the end of the City limits. We think it is appropriate to give it a medium density. They are asking for an R-3 zoning classification. Significant changes have come in with Steven Springs and Streamview developments and there is a commercial development with a regional commercial hub toward Highway 16. It is within a mile of the downtown area. They are working on a development in South Boise that they are requesting an R-5 zoning designation. There are three applications and they believe they are bringing in a quality development and they will meet open space requirements. ') McDaniel asked where they are requesting to come in at five units per acre in Boise. Kirkpatrick stated that it was in south Boise. Staff - Staff did not have any additions to the rep01i. Public - Marilyn McDonald, 10385 W. Floating Feather Road. Her prope1iy is directly to the west of this property, and fronts her prope1iy by 50%. McDonald stated that they did have a neighborhood meeting and the developers were good about changing things. She was promised a map and never received it. She wants Council to have developers treat them properly. She stated that traffic is a huge concern and we need to leave it zoned R- 2. Clint Hinckley, 12728 W Band, asked if the property was going to have low density. Hinkley stated that the school is a big sledgehammer and any time you go from low density to a higher density you immediately impact schools. We will be changing impacts on schools again - we do have low density in the comprehensive plan. The school district is going off growth of two years ago - they need better communications. He believes the application should be keep the low density. Jerry Sitton, 9462 Pembridge, stated that the area is definitely rural, he drives it everyday. He wants to know who will pay for the roads; this needs to be addressed. The road is really narrow and dangerous; there is no stop sign or stop light. 8 } Michael ,187 N. Comp Vista Lane, stated that he looks over the Rosti property. He has a one acre lot across the road. He stated that there are several acre lots in this area. There is a new house by the cemetery - to say that this is a transition area is only if they put subdivisions in. Star will change - we know about the Meridian impact and Eagle influence it's so expensive a person is priced out of buying a house - neither is right. He agrees with Councilman Bell, he said it best - we have room for both. He has a vested interest - Star in general needs to be a mixture - not everyone is a millionaire and we need some open spaces. He'd like to see it stay that way. Ted Arugini, 9668 W Pembridge, stated that to make a comparison to south Boise is ludicrous. They don't have lambs in south Boise or brand new colts or Golden Eagles. We already have Steven Springs and Kastera behind Steven Springs all on little Plummer Road. We've also got beautiful apaiiment houses - eight units with four units. There was a meeting a couple weeks ago and they are adding some more condos. Plummer Road is small, the only other access is Highway 16. The Mayor explained that the condos discussed at the last meeting were not residential, they are commercial. Darrel Gazzola, 1710 N. Willow Glen Place, stated that he has been here for seven months and this is the first R-2 development it is not a coincidence. What we are asking here is our chance to do something. There is only a ce1iain amount of low density. We ) need diversity. Developers can't say they are being shafted with this zoning designation. Jerrad Ram, 5229 Hidden Springs Drive, asked the Council to consider all three requests tonight, even if Comp Plan Map Amendment is not approved. He is contiguous and is the developer of the prope1iy to the no1ih. Heidi Skerrett, 12464 W Lanktree Gulch, stated that this prope1iy is the yellow and that according to our plan is low density up to two units per acre. According to our Comp Plan the Council does not have to follow it. Where are the lower density parcels. The Mayor stated that there is low density west of town shown as pink on the map. Skenett would like this developed like to like - we need to take in to consideration the other peoples land. This does not fall in line with protecting prope1iy rights. She opposes this annexation. ------ stated that he has only two comments: R2 is too high, this should be two acre lots or more and Mr. Cranston did not want this subdivision. He is concerned about the collector roads. The Mayor explained the road building process. Floating Feather is going to be re aligned and Plummer Road will only happen with a re-alignment. ----- stated that Plummer Road cannot handle 240 houses, it can't even handle 160 house. Steven Lord, 800 W State Street, stated that he represents Amy Church and Heidi Skerrett. He stated that he would challenge that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment can 9  be done, it wasn't noticed properly and the staff report was not made available. Citizens ) are unable to hear the testimony and it should be denied because of due process. Citizens weren't able to make proper arrangements or declare testimony. It is not a precedent. This item was not properly noticed on the agenda and should not be heard. He �sked the Council to deny the application. Katy Slater, 2091 Sunny Lane, ask that the Council have a microphone for the Council, attorney and the public. No one can hear. Amy Church, 6080 Purple Sage Road, stated that she agrees with other people, we have a lot of small subdivisions. It would be nice to have a larger acre sub. Applicant - Clint Boyle, Landmark Engineering, 1040 N. Ninth Street, Nampa, Idaho stated that he has heard lots of testimony. They did talk to the people within 300 feet, he was a little surprised at people popping up that didn't attend the meeting. Boyle stated that they will address the roads and other issues with the neighbors. This comes down to how developments are put together. Things are changing between Star and Eagle - it is in a transition zone. Boyle is comfo1iable with tabling this application to come back with a plan. They would come back with a land plan and a development agreement, along with more meetings with the neighbors if that is okay with Council. The Mayor asked why are you requesting this and now willing to come back later. Boyle stated that there are more requests that have been presented. They did take into ) consideration the additional commentary they heard at the neighborhood meeting, such as street changes, buffers etc. They will be working through issues regarding the ACHD Tech Review meeting to address issues. ACHD requires roads to be built. Bell asked if they are definitely asking for R-3 or are they willing to stay at a lower density. Boyle doesn't know, he has looked at surrounding densities. Immediately north of this project, they are requesting an R-4 density - it is somewhat of a transition. The Mayor asked Boyle if the Comprehensive Map Amendment was denied, would you still want to be annexed. Boyle stated that he would want time to consider it - he would consider it. The Mayor declared the public hearing closed. Christopherson thinks that the land use map is shown as low density and there's not much of a reason to change it. We went through multiple meetings over a long period of time and made changes to what the public wanted. He is not in favor of Comp Map Change. McDaniel stated that she is excited about an R-2 density application, we've only had medium density up until now and her punching bag is getting small. She is not under the influence to change the land use map. The land use map shows a good balance. We should stick with it until the review of Comp Plan is studied and tweaked as necessary. ) She is not in favor of this. 10 .) Bell concurs; he is not in favor of a higher density. We put plan together, everyone won't like it. This would be a hard argument to make. This is designated as low density and we shouldn't move from that. He believes we should deny this application to amend Comp Plan Map and deny the application. Bell moved to deny File #CPA-AZ-06-03 Comp Map Amendment, Annexation & Zoning, it was seconded by Erlebach. All aye: motion carried. Castillo Subdivision - Because the previous annexation application was denied, this application is not contiguous to the City and cannot be considered. Ordinance No. 155 Neighborhood Meeting - The Mayor explained that this was a revision and summarized the ordinance. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Public - Jill Hettinger, 6177 Somerset Lane, asked to add a statement that people across county boundaries be notified. The Mayor stated that it has been included to add the surrounding areas. Carla Motley, 480 N. Bullen Place, asked about the lead time for notification, she would like to see it increased. She received notice the day before the meeting. The Mayor explained the time frames when a meeting could occur that notice for the neighborhood meeting must be made at least five days before the meeting. ) Heidi Skerratt, 12464 W. Lanktree Gulch, asked why we are just implementing a neighborhood meeting if it is an Idaho Statute requirement. There are notice requirements. Yorgason stated that he is not aware of a statute that requires a meeting to be held with neighbors. Skerrat stated that it is her understanding that it is something we should have had. The Mayor declared the public hearing closed. Christopherson 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. 155 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. 155 of the City of Star, Idaho, requiring neighborhood meetings for certain land use applications; material specifications; 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, Christopherson seconded the motion. Roll Call: McDaniel, Christopherson, Erlebach, and Bell - motion carried. 11  The Mayor discussed tabling the Zoning Text Amendment to June 6th and re-notice. Christopherson moved to table items SE Zoning Text Amendment, 6A Discussion on Planning & Zoning Commission and 6B Discussion on the Design Review Committee to the June 6th meeting, McDaniel seconded the motion. All aye: motion carried. Adjournment: Christopherson moved to adjourn the meeting, Bell seconded the motion. All aye: motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 pm. Respp�tfully submitted: Approved: � Nathan Mitchell, Mayor ) ) 12