City Council Regular Meeting

Star City Council Meeting Minutes November 20, 2018 The regular meeting of the Star City Council was held on November 20, 2018 at Star City Hall, 10769 W. State Street, Star, Idaho. Mayor Charlten Bell called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm and all stood for the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll Call: Councilmen David Hershey, Michael Keyes, Trevor Chadwick present. Councilman Kevin Nielsen absent. Approval of the Agenda: Chadwick moved to approve the agenda, Hershey seconded the motion. Keyes asked to amend Item 4G Patricia Pounds should be Patricia “Rounds”. All ayes: motion carried. Consent Agenda: Chadwick moved to approve the Consent Agenda consisting of: Regular Meeting Minutes of October 2, 2018; Special Meeting Minutes of October 23, 2018 and October 30, 2018; Workshop Notes of November 1, 2018; Reunion Subdivision Final Plat, Phase II; Claims against the City for October 2018; appointment of Patricia Rounds and Jennifer Weeks to the Beautification & Community Relations Committee; Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law for S. Crystal Springs Development and American Star Subdivision; Keyes seconded the motion. Keyes requested to corrections: October 2, 2018 Minutes under public comment it states he said gravel operation is in Canyon County and should say “Ada County”, and on October 23, 2018 Minutes on page 17 second paragraph the word based should be “baked”. All ayes: motion carried. Old/New Business: Public Hearing - River Birch Golf Course Annexation & Zoning: Mayor Bell announced the public hearing for the River Birch Golf Course would not be heard due to insufficient posting on property and asked for a motion to table. Keyes moved to table the River Birch Golf Course Annexation & Zoning to December 18, 2018, Hershey seconded the motion. All ayes: motion carried. Public Hearing – Star RV Resort Comp Plan Map Amendment, Rezone, CUP: The Mayor explained the public hearing process, starting with a presentation by the applicant or representative, Council may then ask questions, followed by staff comments, then public testimony which will be limited to three minutes, and then applicant’s rebuttal. The Mayor will then close the public hearing for Council deliberations. The Mayor asked Council if they had any ex-parte contact or conflicts of interest. Chadwick stated he will recuse himself as he had met with the applicant regarding the pathway to the Star Middle School. Keyes stated he had posted on the Neighborhood social media site on a topic different than this hearing and the public responded with posts regarding this application, but he did not respond to those comments. Mayor Bell opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak. Applicant – Joe Pachner, KM Engineering, 9233 W. State Street, Boise, stated he is representing the owners and the applicants, the Weltons, and explained he is before them for approval of an -1- RV Resort with a comprehensive plan map amendment, a rezone, and a conditional use permit on approximately a ten-acre site off Broken Arrow in Star. To the north of them is the new middle school, to the southeast is the cemetery and to the west is a private farm. They are looking to change the Comprehensive Plan Map from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use and rezone from Residential R-3 to a Mixed-Use designation and a Conditional Use Permit for the RV Park. They are looking to have 79 RV stalls, a dump station, full hook-ups, tent camping, a clubhouse and over flow parking. Pachner showed a site map of the master plan and pointed out the tent camping area and open space/game zone; they plan to turn the existing barn into an activity center with showers for tent campers; they will have a pool area; part of the existing residence will be expanded to have showers and a laundry facility on site; there will be a dog park; they plan to retain existing trees; trash receptacles in one central location; they will have an RV dump station with propane tanks; existing fencing to the north and east will remain and they will fence the irrigation ditch along the south boundary and plant additional trees; an irrigation pressure pump station will be put in; and the west side will have a twenty-five foot buffer with additional trees; there will be 79 RV stalls and each stall will have two parking spots; and they are planning for overflow parking of 21 spaces. Pachner noted the property is currently single-family residential with farming. With the installation of utilities to the Middle School came the opportunity for the RV Resort. Applicant intends to provide an upscale RV Resort and use of existing home as a combination clubhouse/residential home for the caretaker of the resort. He has reviewed the staff report and agreed with the detailed analysis for the comp plan and rezoning and with staff recommendations in the report. One minor thing has changed, the twenty-five-foot buffer on the west side resulted in a modification to the layout causing them to reduce from 82 stalls to 79 stalls. Grading and drainage will meet all of the City’s requirements. In order to minimize impact to the City’s Star Sewer and Water District’s* utilities, the public utilities for sewer and water utilities will only be extended along Broken Arrow; for extensions into the park they will be considered private and maintained by the RV Resort. They have coordinated with the Foothill Irrigation Company and will be installing a pressurized irrigation system. They will be contracting with the irrigation company for when they do their maintenance program to remove excess materials from their lateral on the southern border. They have reviewed ACHD’s requirements, the requirement for the private drive and will comply, and they have determined that there were no improvements required to the adjacent streets. The Star Fire Department has posted their requirements and they have no issues with any of them. They have reviewed and accepted Keller Engineering requirements for on-site engineering. One item on the staff report under recommendations is trash deposal for each twenty spaces, in place of doing that they are looking at one centrally located dumpster and having pickup on a weekly basis. Residents will bag their garbage and set it in front of their stall and staff will come by and pick up on a weekly basis and put into the trash receptacle. It keeps the site a lot cleaner and makes it easier for the trash trucks to get in and out of the site. Pachner noted they are meeting all of ACHD’s requirements. Keyes stated typically for mixed use he would expect more than one use and asked if they were proposing the residence for the on-site staff as the second use. Pachner stated that was the residential use and the commercial being the RV rental spaces. Hershey questioned if the City had a sewer agreement and asked Pachner to explain. Pachner stated the City Star Sewer and Water District* does not want to take responsibility for all the services that are spread out throughout the 79 stalls. What they would rather do is bring their -2- main line in and keep the responsibility of maintenance of services by the RV Resort itself. They are making a distinction between the private lines on the property and the public lines which will only be run down Broken Arrow Lane. Hershey asked if there would then be a septic system. Pachner stated no, it eventually dumps into the City Star Sewer and Water District’s system*. The City District* does not have to maintain all the services that are on the property, only the main trunk along Broken Arrow. Staff - Hutton stated they had received a letter from ITD and a copy was before the Council tonight. Public Input – Raeleen Welton, 9500 W. Broken Arrow Lane, Star, stated she and her husband are the owners proposing the RV Resort. They purchased the property twenty years ago and when utilities went in for the middle school they decided this made the resort plausible. They believe an upscale resort will benefit the community and businesses by not only creating a place for guest to stay but also additional revenue for local businesses. Star is also surrounded by many recreational activities, and there’s a lot of people buying recreational vehicles and traveling and looking for recreational activities. There will be certain criteria established and will have to be met and enforced regarding individual RV’s and the facilities. They have experts on their team, including RV designers and managers, in planning and developing the layout to deliver a high-quality project. Ryan Winn, 12232 Skyhaven Street, Star, stated he is not against an RV Park in Star but he is against the location. Based on reviewing the Comp Plan and future maps it is all designated as low density there. The nearest mixed use is across the street and south of it. His other concern is the traffic. The plans look good, but he doesn’t feel it works out for that particular lot. He pointed out they have five criteria they look at for Comp Plan amendments and he doesn’t feel this fits all of them. Basically, number three states it is consistent with the future land use map and it’s not congruent to any other mixed use. He pointed out they are looking to put mixed use in an area that is low density. He is concerned with the comment that they plan to have one garbage can for the entire site. If it’s too complex to get a garbage truck in and out of there, how complex will it be to get some of the large RV’s in and out of there. Again, he likes the plan but does not feel this is the right location. Michael Prenn, 1875 N. Mountain Vista Lane, Star, stated he is not in favor of this because he feels it is out of character with the area. He is concerned with possible conflicts of activities at the cemetery and felt there is not enough buffer between the RV Resort and the cemetery. He is concerned with the maximum four-week stay and who will enforce it. He does not want it to turn into a long-term full use stay. Prenn is also concerned with the rezoning – if this project fails the mixed-use zoning allows for other uses. He also is concerned with traffic. He noted the telephone poles along the road may make it difficult for RV’s to enter the private lane. He stated he felt this was not a good fit for the area and this is not the right location. Kristi Young, 10980 W. Capella Street, Star, stated she lives in Star and works at the Middle School. Her concerns are based on the interest of her students. Number one, there is great emphasis placed on this being an upscale resort and stated the Idaho Press Tribune did an article earlier this year noting RV Resorts are used as living solutions for populations consisting of retired folks, people who like to travel, and folks who can’t find other housing for a variety of -3- reasons; and that is what concerns her. She asked how they plan to sustain an upscale resort so close to a school; how are they going to weed out those who cannot find housing because of past criminal charges and some of them against children. They talked about screening for nice RV’s, a felon or sex offender can buy a nice RV. She is concerned for her students. The demographics is essentially transient, and Star is not equipped with services for these people who may come. She stated she also shares respect for the cemetery and its historical value. She supports this being zoned as a low-density area. She noted this area has historical value with pioneer graves in the cemetery. She stated she doesn’t feel this fits Star’s vision for this area, possibly more appropriate out toward Emmett or closer to recreational opportunities mentioned. Brian Holmes, 1967 N. Water Heights Way, Star, stated he has had over ten years of experience managing RV Resorts and they have no activities in this area to really call this a resort. The day campers have no hiking trails, no horse things to go to, and if you have a bike you will have to go on the roads and this will create a traffic hazard. The RV sites are going to be too small for many RV’s with a trailer and extra car. The length of stay is never enforced; you have an awful time getting someone moved out of an RV Park, especially after they have been there four weeks. You have no control over the type of vehicle that will park there. The older RV’s that end up staying can create a problem and can become a last resort for the homeless. He is concerned about the residents who may be staying next to the school. He noted concern with people who race cars staying, racing their motors and fixing motors, and having nothing to do for kids at night so they will be partying – concerned about noise. He stated upscale is a very loose word and he knows it from experience. Nick Zanze, 10279 W. Purple Ash Drive, Star, stated he echoed the sentiments already stated. He stated it seems to him they are considering rezoning this property from low density to mixed- use and is unsure if the law states that if the applicant meets certain requirements then you are obliged to change the zoning. If not, he would encourage them not to approve; and it seems to him that the project does not fit into the city. He noted this, and other growth will put a lot of strain on services. He also agrees with safety concerns mentioned and concerned with the transient people it may attract, possible felons and sex offenders. Also feels there can be safety issues with traffic. He encouraged the Council not to do this project. James Stanford, 1876 N. Mountain Vista Lane, Star, stated he’s not sure why everybody is talking about emotions and personal issues, he felt they needed to address facts and why this would be good for the City. He noted an example of this would be the park on Highway 55 in Eagle and how much it has brought good community effort for that area. He stated he realizes this is more of a recreational park and not sure why everyone is alluding to having sex offenders and all of this coming in. He believes that the applicant is well aware of all of that and is not going to build this park as a trailer hood for what they are accusing them of. This is all hypothetical and he believes the corridor needs this type of recreational park for travelers and friend and families to be able to park their motorhomes and disperse from there to see their friends and family. As for the traffic that is involved, the daily traffic of the school is much more of an impact on a daily basis. When people do come into the park they are not daily, they might be weekly or bi-weekly, so he does not see a daily traffic problem. Applicant Rebuttal – Joe Pachner stated the best way of addressing whether or not this proposed development meets the Comprehensive Plan is to go through the staff report. Pachner read the -4- five conditions and staff comments from page 4 of the November 20, 2018 Staff Report presented to the Council. Pachner noted that Item 3 addresses one of the comments made by a citizen in regard to the project being consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the comp plan and the future land use map. When talking to the Welton’s on what their proposed goals would be on this resort it is not for a trailer park that would be an eye-sore or a problematic place; they want something they could be proud of. There is currently a golf course nearby, there is a lot of biking that goes on, there are a lot of activities in Idaho that people want to come and see and to be able to bring their RV’s. There was a comment on loud speakers and part of the staff’s recommendations is that there be required quiet times and there would be no loudspeakers or other type of stuff that would cause a disturbance. Welton’s goal was to get in touch with people who are in the business and have been successful. Part of being successful is having the necessary controls to be able to throw out the undesirables, to have standards that can stand up in court when telling folks they have to go. These issues have already been brought up in other RV parks and that’s why they are bring them in to help assist them in getting off on the right foot. In regard to traffic counts, ACHD did a quick traffic analysis based on a typical RV resort and that is why they came back with such a low impact. Having the school on the same road is like night and day with a high impact versus a RV park with a low impact. As far as criminal behavior and that type of stuff, that is difficult to address. When you look at the long term, meaning a month, you could have background checks taken and try to catch them. At this point when the riff raff gets in there it is normally in parks that don’t have standards, don’t require you to have a certain type of trailer, don’t require you to move them out after four weeks. When they become non-mobile that is when they often become housing and not an RV park. They do not want housing, they are looking to do an RV Park. Hershey stated he had no clue at all as to what this is when he first saw it. His it may be upscale, but to him it looks like they are trying to squeeze every inch into a slot and he would ask to have the density reduced. As it currently stands it is an R-3 and for this property that would put it at thirty houses. Regarding doing background checks, you throw it in the cost and it’s not difficult. He would really like to see something that goes here and doesn’t see that it fits. To make it upscale he feels it needs to be about half that density. He stated he sees the need for something like this as we have events here. He noted they usually see more residential around a school. He would like to see less density to make it more flowing, plus with a lower density it could truly be upscale with more amenities. Hershey stated he would also like to see a sewer agreement first; as well as the density down. Pachner referred back to the site plan rendering and noted they do try to maximize as much usage as possible because you have a lot of overhead cost. They are leaving the barn and it can facilitate various activities. The City asked for some space to be set aside for tent camping and they are doing that even though it is not economical. They set aside an area for a pool and a clubhouse that is twice as big as is usually in a park this size. These amenities did reduce the number of stalls they could have put on this. Hershey stated he recognized the reduction in stalls for the amenities, but the number in this area is still a concern for him. Keyes stated when he looks at the site plan he sees the clubhouse, which was mentioned to be a residence for staff, and wondered if having this as a residence isn’t really an incidental part of this operation and if this really constitutes mixed-use. He wondered how this is mixed-use when this is not really a separate use, when for mixed-use they are looking for two separate uses, but this seems to be incidental to the primary use. Pachner stated the upper floor will be the -5- residence and the lower floor of the existing residence will be converted into more of a clubhouse facility itself. Having this residency would generally mean having the continuity of someone living there long term, instead of in one of the stalls at the entry, and if anything came up at the park they are consistently the people that are going to take charge of it. In dealing with staff they were considering this as a residence, not as a second use. Mayor Bell declared the public hearing closed and moved to Council deliberations. Keyes asked Legal Counsel if staff housing constitute a separate use as to him it seems to be incidental to the primary function. Yorgason stated when you are talking about a mix-use project it is up to the City how you would determine it; whether caretaker property is an accessory use or residential. Hershey asked if it would be considered a residential use if using that residence is a condition of employment. Yorgason stated there is no definition in code regarding this; it is up to the Council to decide if they believe there is enough information to support whether it is a secondary use or an accessory use. Keyes stated he is concerned that this is a significant up zoning from an R-3 and he spent time today in the Idaho Land Use Handbook and there's a section in there on spot zoning and he read "spot zoning refers to a change in zoning of a particular parcel or parcels that is out of character with the surrounding area and the comprehensive plan and it is done for the benefit of the particular land owner rather than for the benefit of the community as a whole. Idaho like most states recognize that spot zoning is illegal and that such zoning may be set aside". Then it goes on to say a lot of legal stuff then says "spot zoning represents one of the few instances in which courts feel comfortable second guessing zoning decisions on its merits". He is concerned that in comparing that with some of the sections in our comprehensive plan that were not referenced by staff that we may be setting ourselves up for a spot zoning situation. Keyes read several parts from the comp plan; in the introduction it says the plan is intended to be the public growth policy for the City of Star and as such must be responsive to change and publicly supported. It should be regularly reviewed and revised if necessary to reflect the communities changing attitudes and desires. He stated he's not convinced by the public testimony tonight that the communities changing attitudes and desires are welcoming this particular change. He then read Section 3.2. 12.5 talking about diverse uses in mixed-use and stated he is not seeing diverse use supported here. He then pointed out that in several places it says that mixed-use development was added in our comprehensive plan based on the process we went through in 2007; that mixed-use development was added to describe a mix use of land uses along one of three corridors, Highway 16, 20-26, and 44, and this project is not in any of those corridors. Keyes stated he is concerned they are setting themselves up for a spot zoning challenge and asked for comments from Legal Counsel. Yorgason stated if they support the project they could do a development agreement to provide additional conditions that might make it more compatible with the surrounding area, as a way to get around spot zoning. He pointed out everything Keyes read was accurate. If they agree to the amendment to the comp plan and the zoning that is requested you can make findings to support that. If you feel you can't do that and it will create spot zoning then you may want to put some conditions on it. -6- Hershey asked if he understood correctly that they can condition it to where you think it will not be spot zoning or bring it down to where it might not be as well. That is why he would like to see the density reduced and other terms and conditions put in there. Being near the school he asked about pathways, trails, things that allow residents and children to have a safer path to the middle school. Safety of the children needs to be addressed. He would like to see this thing revisited, like to see it drawn out differently reducing the density, address the walkability from the property to the school and the surrounding areas. The one thing this school is lacking is walkability and they need to see if they get that conditioned into a development agreement. He stated he believed this is something that would be used, believed it would be short term, believed they could control to the best of their ability by conditioning in some form of check to make sure you are not letting in the worst person in the world and to definitely preventing it from becoming a residential area. He stated he is in favor of tabling to allow the applicant to address the concerns he, Keyes and Yorgason have brought up. Keyes stated he loved RVing and believes Star is a candidate for an RV park but is struggling with the location and the fact he thinks the City is setting itself up for a legal challenge due to the spot zoning law. He is struggling with the words in the Comprehensive Plan and is this being defined as a legitimate mixed-use. Because of this, he stated he cannot support this project the way it is. Yorgason reminded the Council they have three applications before them. The first one is to decide whether or not to amend the comprehensive plan. If you decide not to, it stops the other two as you can't rezone unless you amend the comprehensive plan. If you approve the comp plan then you move onto the rezone and discuss whether or not you feel it is appropriate and if you want a development agreement, which can deal with the spot zoning, as it is done with the rezone. You then move to the conditional use permit which allows you to put conditions on it. He just wanted to remind them that this is a three step process. Keyes stated he thinks with what they've heard tonight and with what he's seen in the comprehensive plan that this is not an appropriate location for this. Keyes moved to deny all the requests of the applicant in this matter. Mayor Bell asked for a second and Hershey stated there would not be a second at this time. The Mayor stated the motion dies due to lack of a second. Hershey stated he is not approving any steps because he does not want to change the comp plan even though there is really no harm, but it sets a precedence. He stated he doesn't want to change the zoning because it sets a precedence. If we do change the comp plan he stated he would like to know exactly what he is doing because if they change it, it is basically saying they are looking for mixed-use. He agreed it is a stretch to be mixed-use. He stated he is uncomfortable changing the zoning with what is going to be there; and explained if they zone mixed-use and the RV Park doesn't go there, it is now zoned mixed-use, which opens it up to a huge bag of uses. He stated he would like to table so they have a chance to address the concerns they have and it will still allow for more public input. Tabling allows them to re-evaluate this project and make it fit better with reduction in density, with looking at walkability pathways, and maybe they have a better chance to get it to be more of a mixed-use. He stated he did not want to flat out deny it but he certainly did not want to change their comp plan or zoning at this time. Hershey moved to table this to the second meeting in January 2019, tabling the Comprehensive -7- Plan Map Amendment, the Rezone, and the Conditional Use Permit. Mayor Bell asked for a second to the motion. The Mayor asked for clarification from Legal Counsel as to where they go now as he is not allowed to make a motion or to second a motion. Yorgason stated if there is no decision or action then it becomes a denial and it is not approved. A denial doesn't mean its dead; it can come back as a new application. Mayor Bell stated there is no decision or action. The Mayor called for a two minute break and Councilman Chadwick took his seat with the Council. Mayor Bell called the meeting back to order. Public Hearing – Iron Mountain Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat: Mayor Bell explained the public hearing process will be the same as the previous hearing, and asked Council if they had any ex-parte contact or conflicts of interest; hearing none the Mayor opened the public hearing. Applicant – Jay Walker, Allterra Consulting, 849 E. State Street, Eagle, stated he felt they have put together a good presentation that fits the Comprehensive Plan, fits the land use plan, is low density and fits the Residential R-3 zoning that is on the property, and is consistent with adjacent uses. Councilman Nielsen joined the meeting and took his seat with the Council. Walker stated he is representing Todd Campbell Construction LLC and they are seeking approval of a preliminary plat of approximately 9.77 acres in order to provide twenty-nine residential lots and seven common lots. The property was annexed and zoned R-3 in 2007. The proposed preliminary plat is consistent with the City’s zoning requirements, future land use and comprehensive plans, as well as COMPASS’s population project models. Walker noted the project abuts the new Middle School and has already been annexed and zoned R-3 low density residential. There is a total of thirty-six lots, with twenty-nine being residential, and one of the common lots provides the micro-path connectivity that Hershey was asking for and for conveying children safely to the school. The proposed development is 2.97 dwelling units per acre which is consistent with the R-3 zoning. Egress and ingress comes from Pollard Lane. Plans were discussed with ACHD, ITD, and the Star Fire District. He just received a copy of a letter from ITD and it seems they have no conditions or adverse comments to their application. Walker stated they have made application for annexation into the Star Sewer and Water District and they have accepted that, so they can have adequate utilities (all utilities) to the property. They have met with the Farmers Union Ditch and addressed the gravity and pressurized irrigation questions, including those for the private system shared with Ron Schreiner. They will meet all concerns addressed in their civil engineering plans at final plat. He stated they are committed to the landscape and amenities as shown on the plan and will meet all City and other Agencies requirements and codes. He stated the neighborhood meeting held July 19th went well. Walker shared proposed drawings of the preliminary plat map. The City staff report conditions asked that they provide streetlights that were not shown on this plat and they will provide streetlight locations and design; they also did not address signage and will submit a sign permit; and they will landscape the common areas, micro path and tot lot per the UDC. As noted -8- previously they have submitted for annexation into the Star Sewer and Water District. They will meet all of the condition requested by the Star Fire Protection District. One item under discussion was the removal of flag lots #30 & #31 and Walker presented a design showing the removal of the flag lots and stated both Chief Timinsky and the property owner were in favor of this and they will make the change through the drawings for the final plat. Regarding landscaping, to the north at the main entrance to the Middle School there is a specific micro path for access to the school. There is a pump station on the westerly boundary that also fronts the school property, but the school preferred not having access at that point. They do have a tot lot and pocket park at the southern portion. There’s also conveyance of water to the south off of Broken Arrow that Star Sewer and Water requested. All utilities, except water, will connect from Pollard Lane at the entrance to the subdivision. They will be doing six-foot vinyl privacy fencing around the perimeter including the areas that currently have fencing; they will upgrade the schools chain link fence. Walker noted the plat is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, the plat provides public services that are available, there is no public financial problem with this and the development will not be a detriment to the public health, and the development preserves significant natural, scenic and historic features that were done, and it provides connectivity to the school site. He requested Mayor and Council approval of the preliminary plat. Keyes asked how long will it take to make the corrections to the preliminary plat that have been requested by Chief Timinsky. Walker stated the corrections have already been done as demonstrated in the slide for the landscape plan and are in the cad drawings. Walker added that they have also addressed all of Keller’s questions and comments. Chadwick asked if they have seen anything from ACHD as in the staff report there is no indication of receiving anything from ACHD. Walker stated he could provide them copy of the draft letter from Stacy Yarrington, that it was in Kristi’s hands and she thought they would send that to Ward at the beginning of this week. He approached the bench with a copy. Chadwick asked about the section that abuts Pollard Lane and if there are sidewalks along there. Walker stated there are sidewalks on the perimeter at the entrance and on the NE quadrant to the school and brought in a larger drawing to show that. Chadwick asked if they have worked out with the school to redo/repair the existing fence and open it up to the pathway. Walker stated yes, and they have had numerous conversations with the school and there may be a consistent chain link fence to open it up. Chadwick verified where the tot lot was going in on the south end of property. Public Input – Mayor Bell noted Stuart Welton had signed up to speak but had left. John Osmond, 10982 W. Rose Lake Street, Star, stated he wanted to reiterate what Chadwick said about the sidewalk along Pollard. He has a son who travels it on a bike going to and from school and it would be beneficial to have something there other than a gravel pit. He was just wanting to make sure it was something that didn’t get missed and there would be something more substantial for bikes put into the plan. Applicant Rebuttal – Walker stated they would be happy to put the necessary sidewalk along the frontage of their property. -9- Mayor Bell declared the public hearing closed and moved to Council deliberations. Hershey stated his concerns had been addressed. Chadwick stated he felt they need to condition sidewalks along Pollard that abuts their property and also since they lack an ACHD report that a condition is placed as well that they are required to follow ACHD’s conditions of approval. He asked since they don’t have a preliminary plat that has the flag lots removed, do they need a condition as well. Hershey stated they could just condition all the agency requirements. The Mayor stated they could do that with the motion. Chadwick moved to approve File PP-18-09 Residential Preliminary Plat for Iron Mountain Ridge Subdivision with the fourteen conditions of approval by staff; with the additional condition of requiring a sidewalk along their property along Pollard Lane; with the additional condition requiring them to follow ACHD’s comments in their conditions of approval in their staff report; as well as making sure they remove the flag lots per their presentation, Keyes seconded the motion. Chadwick added to his motion that they pay for the fencing changes along the street that goes into the middle school, so the cost doesn’t come against the school, Keyes maintained his seconded. All ayes: motion carried. Public Hearing – Amazon Falls II Annexation & Zoning: Mayor Bell explained the public hearing process will be the same as the previous hearing, and asked Council if they had any ex- parte contact or conflicts of interest. Chadwick stated as being the liaison for ITD and ACHD, the applicant had reached out to him about Hamlin, about when ACHD was going to take over Hamlin, and he stated he had reached out to ITD and let applicant know it was on ACHD’s agenda to take over several sections of road. Mayor Bell opened the public hearing and turned it over to Chris Todd, the applicant’s representative to speak. Applicant – Chris Todd, Green Mountain Resources and Planning, 53 N. Plummer Road, Star, stated they are mostly in agreement with all of the recommendations. He noted, as Chadwick alluded to, that ITD did dedicate Hamlin Road to ACHD. He stated he knows there’s a lot of work ahead of them for the southern portion. He stated they do have new neighbors to the west. They have been meeting with Drainage District #2 and Middleton Mill. Last Friday they were annexed into the Star Sewer and Water District. In going through a lot of the designs they are making a lot of headway; one of the biggest things right now is the connection of sewer but also where that comes into contact with Drainage District #2 and the Middleton Mill Irrigation District on the northwest corner of phase 1. He reviewed that with phase 1, they had brought in the southern portion and it was recommended by Council that they look at mixing up some uses, including some commercial and had tabled that decision until a later date. There are other issues they are continuing to work through before they can bring before the Council a preliminary plat or PUD; and feel that by bringing in a zoning request with a development agreement it helps them to implement the plan that is before them, with the economic corridor, the master plan as well as the comprehensive plan. By being able to implement those with the zoning they would also be able to show the City what they are trying to do with the property which is bringing in mixes of uses with retail and offices as well as high density. They have requested in their application an R-24 for six acres and fourteen acres of mixed uses for commercial which brings it to a total of approximately twenty acres. One of the reasons they haven’t submitted a preliminary plat or an actual hard plan for this southern portion is number one they would like to - 10 - know what the zoning is going to be; number two they are still trying to nail down where the intersection or signalization and access points are going to be along the southern boundary. They are working with ITD and will with City Staff in the coming months to better prepare ITD as to what Star would be looking for on this northeast corner. As a planner, business owner and resident of Star he strongly feels that the northeast corner of Highway 16 and 44 is the best location for commercial growth in the future. Their three major points of intersection for the project are first choice Hamlin and Highway 44, second choice would be at Short Road and last option would be east of the site. The northeast corner of Highways 16 and 44, with the new neighbors at Eagle Crossroads and the property to the north, and building going from Palmer to Highway 16, and as well as the City’s goal of having that be a commercial/industrial business district, it would serve the City well to have Hamlin as a signalized intersection and they will work through whatever hoops they have to to try and get there. It would be a substantial link for the industrial/commercial properties, tax bases, employment and be a well-rounded economic use for the future. He noted they are looking at construction in phase one in the early spring and the goal for phase two for the southern portion will be based on zoning and where their access is going to be. Looking at marketing business pads as professional office, retail, or other commercial interest. The reason they are asking for the mixed-use is because they have a high- density area as well as a commercial area together. Project design is pending on where the intersection will go in which will determine where their access point can be. The staff report talks about coming back to you with a conceptual plan if this is approved and they are in favor of that before they move toward a PUD because they will be asking for a mixture of uses. There are some utilities and cross access easements that they are working through with their neighbors, so the details of that plan will come before you in a preliminary form of a conceptual plan for review. They may need a workshop with staff before moving forward with an actual preliminary plat. It is in the staff report that once they get the blessing of the conceptual plan then they would condition a traffic study based on the scope of what they came up with in the conceptual plan. Chadwick asked Todd if he had seen the letter from Spink Butler regarding adding wording to the development agreement. Todd stated yes, and they were in agreement that that can be added. Chadwick ask if on Hamlin Avenue would they be willing to put in their pro-rata share to pay for a light at that location regardless of what kind of light that can be put there. Todd stated yes; and Chadwick stated that could be put in the development agreement as well. Chadwick asked why they were looking at mixed-use versus a C-2 in that area. Todd stated they have a large C-2 to their west, high-density to their north, so they feel having a kind of blend of the two uses on their property lends itself to making it all work together. Also, First Service Group does property management and association management, so when it comes to high- density residential, something they would have a stake in as a joint partner with actual builder, they would have a little more of a personal interest on that property. They scaled it back from the first go around as sent to you as 20 acres of high-density. A mixture of uses combined with the uses to the north and the west, and also with the present economy, and having a personal interest in this is why they are asking for mixed-use. Staff - Hutton stated they had received a letter from Spink Butler and ITD and copies were before the Council tonight. - 11 - Public Input – Tamara Thompson, with The Land Group, 462 E. Shore Drive, Eagle, stated she is here representing the property owner’s immediately to the west. They wanted her to attend and offer their support with the project; and especially to bring the Spink Butler letter with requested condition and state they are in support of the letter. They offer their support with that condition. Applicant Rebuttal – Chris Todd stated one of their concerns was that the application was brought in with an R-24 and Mark Butler crossed that out and put R-18 to match what is to the north. What their goal is with the R-24 is to do a little bit different design, maybe with a three- story design; but not the forty-five-foot design like on the southwest corner. They feel they can be a little denser toward the highway, commercial and mixture of uses and be able to put those together with an office building, medical building or executive suite building. It gives them more options and if the City is willing they may be able to go down to R-22. Chadwick asked how much of the twenty acres is actual useable acres because of all the ditches they have going through there. Todd estimated they would be taking out three to four acres. Chadwick asked if that meant they still planned to have six acres of high-density, making it about eleven acres of commercial mixed-use. Todd stated they are still going to take the whole area and have fourteen acres of commercial, plus or minus, and approximately six acres of residential including easement areas or drainage areas which are most likely going to have to be tiled along the perimeter of the property. Chadwick mentioned when they did the first phase they talked about the road that cuts between the two parcels and they were going to match that road to be like the road to the north parcel with three lanes; Todd stated that was correct. Then on the Hamlin side he stated he didn’t recall what they decided on that. There are sidewalks there now that ACHD has taken it over and you will be able to improve that to what they are requiring. Todd stated they have met with Tamara Thompson, ITD, their civil engineer, and Star Sewer and Water on site and they were looking at that land spur that goes up the right side of Hamlin. The north phase has a covert crossing that is part of the access easements that is referenced in the Spink Butler letter. They do not control the ground east of Hamlin. They are trying to make it a coordinated effort with the neighbors to the west so it is a beneficial blanket easement, because he would imagine his neighbors to the west are not going to want to improve that side of the road when a preliminary plat or PUD comes in for their side. They are more than willing to work with their neighbors with whom they have a development agreement to improve that road to ACHD standards. Keyes asked for clarification, that when talking about R-24 on six acres they are talking about one-hundred and forty-four units. Todd stated that was correct. Chadwick asked Legal Counsel in regard to the development and having a split like that without knowing where the R-24 is going, if this was okay. He stated he's confused because they are doing mixed-use and R-24 without knowing where the uses are going on the property. He questioned if they can approve it like that? Yorgason stated it was up to them to decide. If they have a preference as to where they want the divide to be, they can ask. They don't necessarily have to have a map with definite lines. Todd stated the location preferred for high density on this site would be the northeast corner or along the north boundary with storage or garages possibly along Pembridge. The issue they get into when looking at specific areas is that ITD - 12 - could come back to the City of Star and to us and say Hamlin is a no go, you have to put it at Short Lane or another location. It is site to be determined till they know where the major north/south intersection or signalization intersection will be. Todd stated when they do their conceptual plan, with input from City staff and where they will have the intersection, that will dictate where any high-density residential go. He suggested they could put that with the conceptual plan or in the PUD that they cannot go in excess of the six acre allotment, including the easement ground. Chadwick stated they would have a chance at preliminary plat to make any chances they feel are necessary. Yorgason stated they will have a conditional use permit and/or a development agreement come before them, both which require a public hearing, and they will have another chance to see what it is before they actually approve what will go in. Todd stated what they would actually like to do is a conceptual plan, so before they start doing a PUD they will have comments from Council and staff about the location of those and their circulation pattern as well. Keyes stated Star is probably the only city in the valley that grants entitlement without any type of a site plan. He stated he would like more information to base his approval upon and asked what the rush was and why they could not wait for ITD's decision. Todd stated some of the big rush is coordination with their neighbors to the west and to nail down what their actual circulation pattern is, and what those cross accesses look like. If there is not a Hamlin intersection or signalized intersection there will have to be a rural cross access road to the west through this property. Number two they feel that as they have been going almost a year and a half trying to work with ITD and feel by putting a plan in front of them that has the vote of confidence from staff and Council that it may have a little more weight to get a decision, so they know which way to move forward. He felt with the amount of concern for the conceptual plan that has to come through, and on top that the Planned Unit Development which is the most stringent preliminary plat that you can do, there will be stop gates in place so if something doesn’t happen on their end the City can stop this dead in its tracks. Nielsen followed up on the conversation with Chadwick and commented the development agreement is written with density of R-24, if approved tonight it won’t be re-negotiated with a preliminary plat. Chadwick stated he recalled on the first development they had a condition placed to protect the landowners to the east of that property, something about fencing and the right to farm. He wants to make sure that is included in this development agreement. He stated in the development agreement they need to make sure the R-24 is for six acres only. Nielsen pointed out that 2.7 points out they will be allowed to develop approximately six acres to R-24. Chadwick asked if they could say no more than six acres. Hershey felt they should stipulate no more than 144 units (six acres at R-24); he didn’t care so much about the exact number of acres. Chadwick asked what the density to the north was and was informed it was R-18. Mayor Bell declared the public hearing closed and moved to Council deliberations. Nielsen asked Chadwick his thought on the staff recommendation for R-18. Chadwick pointed out the R-18 matches what is to the north, which would make it 108 units versus 144. The staff report makes sense and noted all the traffic will be going down Hamlin basically or where ITD deems where the access point is going to be. - 13 - Keyes stated he had a question for the Mayor and Chadwick and stated he has been reluctant to grant entitlement without more detail or at least a site plan. However, the applicant has expressed there is some hardship on his part in terms of ongoing negotiations with the highway districts; and he asked if it would be helpful in those negotiations to grant entitlements now. He asked if there was an urgency he could expand on. Chadwick stated the Mayor, he, Dave Szplett and Mark Butler have met with ITD regarding access all along Highway 44 and there has been a lot of discussion as to where those access points are going to be. In Chadwick’s opinion if they grant the entitlement today it does allow ITD to know what they are looking at as far as access along there. Hershey stated when it comes to unknowns, in this case he looks at where it is, what it is, and what type of environment they all agree should be there. He is okay with the zoning as asked and would hope the high density is away from any major roads. Where it’s located it is obviously going to be a C-2 district and higher density housing. He stated he is for it with the stipulations they have discussed to be included. Nielsen stated he is not sure about it being zoned mixed-use as he reviews the application as their corridors are designated for commercial uses. He stated part of the reason they tabled this the first time was because they wanted to see those commercial uses. Even though those six acres are not the majority of this application, it certainly puts more high-density residential in this area than he was anticipating based off the phase one application. He was anticipating more commercial use in there and would like to have seen commercial zoning over mixed-use, possibly C-2. Keyes asked Nielsen if he would feel more comfortable with this if it was six acres of a high- density zoning and the balance being a clear commercial zone instead of mixed-use. Nielsen stated he would probably be a little more comfortable with that and noted the development agreement does limit the residential component; he would like it to be more deliberate. Chadwick stated in thinking about what Todd was talking about with the western portion being C-2 and the residential in there, and then going to mixed-use will provide you with other opportunities. It basically is creating a little community within itself, which is what he is envisioning. Hershey stated he is good with C-2 or mixed-use as long as they lock down the residential side being no more than six acres. Nielsen stated he was sure he was on record saying he would like to see mixed-use taken out of our comprehensive plan land use map. Chadwick stated he is concerned with the mixed-use and that you could end up adding more multi-family dwelling units in the mixed-use with a conditional use. It was discussed they could limited the number in the development agreement to only 144 units. Nielsen noted that in 2.7 of the development agreement it says six acres of high density residential and the remaining acres shall consist of commercial uses allowed within the mixed- - 14 - use zone as conditionally allowed as regulated in Section 2.3 above. Then 2.3 lists a whole host of primarily commercial uses. He stated it doesn't make sense to him to get to commercial uses through a mixed-use. He noted Section 2.4 conditionally allows them to come back for conditional uses permits for all the other uses. Chadwick pointed out conditional uses require a public hearing which will allow more opportunity to talk about them versus if you go to a C-2 with permitted uses. Nielsen stated mixed-use leaves the door open for more uses and he would like to see 2.4 stricken from the development agreement so they are limited to the permitted commercial uses within that zone and not considering any other uses in the future. Keyes asked for clarification that Nielsen wants to strike allowing uses designated as C as commercial; Nielsen stated as conditional. Hershey stated what he is doing is making a mixed- use commercial only zone. Keyes noted given this is a development agreement and it requires approval of the applicant, he asked if the applicant wants to head nod that this is okay. Nielsen stated they had received a head nod from applicant. Mayor Bell noted they need to annex and zone with a development agreement. Hershey noted they needed to annex strictly as stated and then the development agreement would have the conditions. Keyes moved to approve the annexation and rezone from Ada County RUT to City of Star MU/DA for Amazon Falls Phase II, a mixed use commercial and residential development subject to amending the development agreement to include all of staff's recommendations, minus the striking of 2.4 in the development agreement and including the condition in the letter from Spink Butler, and amend the clause that says six acres, since the applicant indicated he would be happy with R-22, to 132 maximum number of units on six acres and also would not allow any other additional residential development on the remaining mixed-use portion of the parcel, Nielsen seconded the motion. Mayor Bell stated they have a motion and a second and asked if there was any further discussion or questions. Chadwick noted the way Keyes phrased the "minus" almost says we're not going to do that. Keyes stated his intent is that they are striking Section 2.4 from the development agreement and Chadwick asked they strike the minus from his motion. Chadwick wanted it clarified that they are agreeing to R-22; Keyes stated that is correct and they are limiting it to 132 units not to exceed six acres. All ayes: motion carried. The Mayor called for a two minute break then called the meeting back to order. Resolution 2018-09 Council Additions to Agendas: Mayor Bell stated this was brought by Council Keyes to them and asked Legal Counsel, Chris Yorgason, to address this Resolution. Yorgason stated Keyes had brought this to him early on to look at. Historically before the last legislative session Council could add items to the agenda at the meeting with a motion and could take action on them. In the last legislative session, the legislature amended that and they can add items to the agenda for discussion but not action items. This meant the Council lost the ability to add action items to an agenda. The resolution in front of them is to put in place a mechanism that allows them to put items on an agenda, to control the number of items placed on an agenda and to keep someone from keep putting an item on the agenda after it has been voted down. Historically the Mayor and City Clerk have set the agenda and Council could add items by a motion amending the agenda. Nielsen noted the Council makes a motion to approve the agenda and asked if they could not control this by not approving amendments to the agenda. Yorgason - 15 - stated he is not accusing anyone of doing this; he was just raising this as a concern for consideration. Historically the Council has had the ability to change or amend the agenda. He stated it would be a benefit if there’s a process for the Council to put something on an agenda and make sure approval of the agenda includes action items and they stay on an agenda. Keyes stated he was not concerned with this Council doing that, but felt they need to consider a process for future Councils. The Mayor stated they need a mechanism to control having a request to place an item on multiple agenda after it has been denied; they have seen this done in the past. Nielsen asked if they should not add language in this resolution that these additions to the agenda would be ratified at every meeting by the Council. It was unanimously agreed it should be added. Keyes pointed out that in the packet there was a letter attached to the resolution to show the process. The intent was to give the City Clerk and staff the ability to document what they do. It was not his intention to have it approved as part of the resolution; it should be up to the Mayor and City Clerk as to how they would do the process. Nielsen asked if they should also add language in there that prohibits the Council from adding anything to the consent agenda and asked if this was a concern at all. Keyes stated he hadn't contemplated that. Yorgason stated State Code was clear, the Mayor has the authority to control the business of the meeting and how it's handled. All items are subject to removal by the majority of the Council present and can then be discussed. Nielsen recommended that added language could be something like items added to the agenda by the Council would be ratified by the Council at the beginning of every meeting by majority vote. Chadwick clarified wording to be items added to agenda by Council be ratified by majority vote of the Council at the Council Meeting. Keyes stated he had wrote down be it further resolved that agenda items added by Council members are subject to removal by majority vote of the Council; it was unanimously agreed this wording worked for them. Keyes moved to approve Resolution No. 2018-09 with the addition of a clause "be it further resolved that agenda items added by Council members are subject to removal by majority vote of the Council", Nielsen seconded the motion. All ayes: motion carried. Reports: Council – Councilman Nielsen stated he had nothing to report. Councilman Chadwick stated he had attended meetings with ITD and ACHD about Highway 16 and 44 and they are running through scenarios; he will report back when he finds out what they decide. Councilman Keyes noted the first annual Make Star Shine Day was a success. The Beautification and Community Relations Committee held a recognition event honoring the Ada County Sheriff’s Department and Chief Vogt and his staff. The Welcome to Star entry signs are being painted and they hope to be done by the end of the year and will need to finalize the locations for the signs. He attended a meeting with the Air Quality Board and they approved their budget and some rules. He informed Council of the upcoming Idaho Cities Conference on - 16 - November 30th and encouraged them to attend. He asked the Mayor for an update on the acquisition of the Sample parcel and the two excess lots at Hunters Creek. Councilman Hershey reiterated Make Star Shine Day was a success. The Star Christmas Bazaar will be next week-end November 30th and December 1st. He stated the Food Bank is ramping up and in need of volunteers with trucks and can hand out food and gifts for Christmas. Staff – Chief Vogt stated every year the Sheriff’s office does Shop With A Sheriff and they will be doing it this year on December 15th; and he noted they have identified some kids from Star to participate. Mayor - Mayor Bell stated they had a productive meeting with ITD, ACHD and other agencies and believes they have them thinking outside the box. In regard to the acquisition of land from Mr. Sample, they have a new prospective buyer and he is encouraged with the outcome of their meetings and they are working on drawing up a plan. The lots at Hunters Creek need to be put up for public auction and he will work with Yorgason; hopes to have it happen by the end of the year. The Mayor invited everyone to the Tree Lighting on Monday, December 3rd. The choir from Star Elementary will be there as well as Santa and treats. He noted they are again going to have a gingerbread display at City Hall and invited the public to participate. Adjournment: Mayor Bell adjourned the meeting at 9:50 pm. Approved: Respectfully submitted: __________________________ Charlten Bell, Mayor _____________________________ Kathleen Hutton, Deputy City Clerk *Councilman Keyes requested change even though it was not reflected in audio recording. - 17 -