City Council Special Meeting

CITY OF STAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES November 14, 2006 A special meeting of the Star City Council was called to order by Mayor Nathan Mitchell at 6:00 pm at the Star Elementary School gymnasium. Roll Call: Councilpersons Tammy McDaniel, Dustin Christopherson, Tom Erlebach and Chad Bell were all present. Approval of Agenda: Christopherson moved to approve the agenda, McDaniel seconded the motion. All ayes: motion carried. Public Hearings: Foothills Crossing: Mayor Mitchell announced the applicant for Foothills Crossing had requested the application for annexation, zoning, and preliminary plat be tabled indefinitely. The Mayor explained that on May 18, 2006 the Council took testimony regarding the annexation of 500 plus acres in Canyon County. At the hearing the Council asked the developer to address several of their concerns and bring back a development agreement. He reiterated that any development agreement between the City and the annexed property stays with the land annexed. The question now before them, is whether the applicant has answered the Council’s concerns. Corinthian Homes: The Mayor reviewed the procedure for public hearings. Mayor Mitchell declared the public hearing for Corinthian Homes open and asked the applicant to speak. Applicant – Moriah Christianson, 391 W. State, Eagle, representing Corinthian Homes stated they had made some changes to the development agreement and a new copy with the changes is before them. On exhibit E the open space is changed to be 12-15 percent; on exhibit D there is a side lot setback typo – 5 inches will be corrected to 5 feet; setback on side interior is 5 feet not 3 feet; and houses will be only one and two story structures – not three. On page 7 sections 12 and 13.1 shall reflect the property reverting back to RT or Rural Transitional not R3. An agreement with the Middleton School District has not been reached but they are close; Tom Farley will address the Council regarding schools. Tom Farley, 11787 W. Blake Drive, Star, spoke as a representative from the Middleton School District. The District values the role schools play in a community. They do not want schools landlocked or located where students have to travel great distances to attend. The District has developed a uniform growth plan and estimates the growth in the District will require one elementary and one middle school. Mr. Farley stated Corinthian Homes has been working hard with the District regarding a possible school site. Christopherson asked Mr. Farley what the School Districts requirements were for how many students per school. Mr. Farley replied they liked to have under 600 students. Christopherson questioned how many acres were needed per school. Mr. Farley stated they liked to have eight to ten acres for an elementary. It was projected the District would need forty acres total for Middleton’s projected growth district wide. 1 Bell noted the agreement mentions 1800 home sites and asked the applicant what number they were looking at. Christianson replied she didn’t believe they would reach 1800. Bell asked if the percentages stated for each product could be tightened up as there were big variances with each one. Christianson stated she realized this was a broad range over the entire project, but when it is looked at in small pieces they are not large differences. Bell questioned if the Council would have control over density phase by phase. Mayor Mitchell stated the City would not be approving the preliminary plat by stages. At preliminary plat they will have the density spelled out more. Bell stated he was not comfortable with the development agreements density numbers. Christianson stated these ranges would give them some leeway in developing the project. Bell asked what recourse would they have if they approve this document like it is and when the preliminary plat comes in they do not like the percentages at that time. Paul Fitzer, Legal Counsel, stated it falls in the same context as other preliminary plats. When they submit the preliminary plat they must follow City Code. Before the Council is a conceptual plan. McDaniel asked Christianson if she could tell them roughly what percentage of homes are based on exhibit B. Christianson stated the smaller lots had fewer lots and the larger lots had more lots. Exhibit B could be the layout but they were looking at some changes. Erlebach questioned what if they were to put all the density on 300 acres, would they be allowed to put anything on the other 200 acres. The Mayor stated if they get to the maximum number of lots allowed on a certain number of acres then essentially you would have more open ground or undevelopable ground. Mayor Mitchell questioned the relationship between exhibits B & E. Dave Roylance, 391 W. State Street, Eagle, stated he is with Corinthian Homes and that they were trying to be vague. It will be market driven on how much should be what type of homes as they build. They will probably change this conceptual plan quite a bit. Erlebach asked how many phases they projected to have. Roylance stated they estimated ten to twelve phases. Build out will be market driven. Christopherson questioned the acres as they asked to annex 507 acres and the development agreement states 310. The Mayor explained the agreement now lists the number of acres as separate parcels. Christopherson asked if the land uses in exhibit C would apply to the entire development. The Mayor explained that because they are looking at a large parcel and are asking for Multiple Use (MU) they will need to apply for conditional use permits for certain types of uses at the time of preliminary plat. Christopherson asked if instead of listing the land use schedule could they reference exhibit C to the Zoning Ordinance as the list could change in the future. Christianson stated they possibly could reference that section. The Mayor asked legal counsel if it could be referenced date certain. Legal Counsel stated it could be; as the list is now it is straight out of the City Zoning Ordinance. Christopherson pointed out the Economic Development Committee was interested in looking at putting an entry sign in that section of town. He asked if they would be willing to donate a small parcel of ground for the sign. Christianson stated they would be willing to consider it. 2 Erlebach asked what the white areas on the conceptual plans were; were they being annexed. The Mayor stated that what is in color on the map is what is a part of this application. McDaniel asked where the school site location will be. Christianson stated it was a green area in the middle and was identified as school/public site. McDaniel asked what the size the parcel was. Christianson stated the parcel is 20 acres and will be a park site also. Bell stated he was concerned with the gross acres versus the density. Basically this is an R4 and includes some commercial and a school site. He asked if they were open to a lower density than 1800. Roylance stated they were and asked what number Bell had in mind. Roylance stated the present plat map has 1534 lots. Bell stated he would like to see it not exceed R3 density or 1500 lot. He asked if they would be willing to put this figure on the document. Roylance asked if they could settle somewhere in the middle. The market currently is for smaller lots and more park space. He asked if they could go up to 1550 as the current plan shows 1534. Public – Eric Battey, 2420 N. Munger, Star, stated this agreement is a legally binding contract and he agreed with Bells comments. He feels he is at a disadvantage as he has no map to view and wondered if the developer couldn’t have brought a large map to display. He stated he is opposed to this annexation. He stated it is the Mayor’s job to administer public policy and the residents are primarily against high density. He felt there is disconnection between private property rights and land use planning. He pointed out the City is revising the Comp Plan and do not have a plan for this parcel as it is outside the City’s Area of Impact (AOI). Battey stated this is not best for Star, but is what’s best for the Developer. He asked they do not allow the developer to set the zoning to parcels outside the City’s AOI. Sue Sullivan, Idaho Transportation Department District III planner, stated she was there to discuss traffic impact. They would like to ask for help in preserving the right-a-ways, but have no money to develop them. A development is required to make improvements, as required by ITD, to the road frontage along their property. They would like an additional lane through this project. Vehicle trips on Highway 44 are now approaching 12,000 and this development will double that number. It is a concern that only a small portion of the development fronts the Highway. The Mayor stated frontage property along Highway 44 is from Bent to Blessinger. Sullivan stated they need to look at how to widen along the whole length of the highway, but ITD does not have impact fees to build with. Mayor Mitchell stated he agreed this will have an impact on the highway system but was concerned that this is the first they have received any comments from ITD. Sullivan stated the developer has agreed to add through lanes where they have frontage and to develop the intersections, but it is a grey area if they can require them to improve outside of their area. The Mayor asked if they had held any conversations with the developer. Sullivan stated they have, but have not worked out anything regarding them helping to pay a proportionate share for improvements. Jill Hettinger, 6177 Somerset Lane, Star, reiterated that this Council has the power to designate the zone. She feels that limiting them to 1500 lots is good. It will allow for more open space to be designated permanently as open space. The Mayor pointed out that each open space is as permanent as it can be; although, different councils can make different decisions upon application. Hettinger asked that they hold them to 1500 and asked if the school site was for an elementary or middle school. The Mayor stated it was to be an elementary school. She would like to see large berms and vegetation or more open space 3 between larger parcels. The putting in of barriers helps to prevent incompatible land uses. She stated she appreciated the council thinking through this process. Rob Hettinger, 6177 Somerset Lane, Star, stated that from attending meeting the one thing he has heard is a lot of talk about the Comp Plan. He asked if we have no Comp Plan what does the Council plan to do about it. Frank Turner, 234 N. Devon Way, Star, asked who would be providing police services to this area. The Mayor stated that if it is in the corporate city limits of Star, Star will patrol the area. There will be an agreement with Canyon County that if they have a unit closer they will respond. It becomes more complicated when dealing with prosecuting as they can not send an Ada County prosecutor to Canyon County. Turner pointed out that according to an article in the Statesman paper this has not been worked out. The Mayor pointed out they were not aware of conversations taking place and he is comfortable with the two agencies relationship. David Fenwick, 6344 Foothill Road, Star, stated he lives above the development. He feels they are doing a good job although he is nervous about parks. He would rather have smaller backyards and larger park areas. He stated he is in favor of this subdivision. Darrel Gazzola, 1710 N. Willow Glen Place, Star, is concerned with them saying “trust us”. He has an issue with them not stating the maximum number of lots they will have. It seems to be a little up in the air in regards to what they want. He feels the commercial and open space could suck up the ground and create smaller lots. In reply to Mr. Hettinger’s question the Mayor stated the City does have a Comprehensive Plan, they just have not done any planning for this area in Canyon County. The Mayor stated they were caught in a catch 22 with expanding into Canyon County. The City does not want to promote Ada County expanding into Canyon County, but the developer is exercising their right to annex. Just because there is no prestated zoning it does not mean it can not be annexed and zoned. They will be looking at what’s best for the area and the City. Mechanical and water and sewers services encourages growth from the west to come east to Star. Bob Moore asked what their options were if the City does not annex them. The Mayor replied they could develop under the County or annex into another City. In reply to Mr. Gazzola’s comment regarding terms they use, if the Council made decisions off of promises of doing a nice job they would be blind. They make their decisions off of maps, numbers and the contract. What’s in the contract is what they can enforce. If something is not in the development agreement than it is enforced through the zoning and subdivision ordinance. In regards to the quote “my job is to facilitate developers” that he has been quoted as saying; he stated he did not believe he had put “developers” at the end of the statement. It is his job to facilitate everyone who walks in the door equally. Per applicant’s request the Mayor called for a ten minute recess. The Mayor called the Council Meeting back to order at 7:40 pm. Applicant Rebuttal – Christianson stated she recognized the impact of this project on the community. They are trying to bring a positive, vibrant product to the community. They do understand Ms. Sullivan’s concerns. The agreement does say they will mitigate with ITD and they will be paying their way, if not more. The plan in front of them is a preliminary 4 concept. They will be holding neighborhood meetings and will address feathering density and buffering concerns. Bell stated he was still concerned with the 1800 residential lots showing on exhibit E, especially since the conceptual development is for 1534. He asked if they would be willing to do away with exhibit E and state they can not vary from the conceptual plan designated uses more than 5% and setting the maximum residential lots at 1534. Christianson stated they would be amendable to coming down from 1800 to 1550. Roylance stated the Council is looking at an earlier generation map. They are looking for flexibility to develop a plan and this map may not have had the careful consideration they are looking at now. Bell reiterated he is having a hard time approving a document that is so open and feels they need to set a maximum number of units. Roylance stated the plan in front of them is probably 80% of what they are looking at. The roads are about the same, as well as the product mix. They are asking the Council to let them vary the plan. They would be willing to go with the exhibit with no more than 5% variance. The Mayor stated they could set a limit to the exhibit with plus or minus 5% variance, and this would give some discretion. Roylance pointed out if they came back with more percentage then the Council liked they could require them to cut back. The Mayor stated they could set a total number and allow them to vary only a certain percentage. Christopherson stated the map doesn’t state the percentages; they need to know this to set a base line. McDaniel questioned the breakdowns of exhibit E. The Mayor explained exhibit E gives the breakdown of the number of lots per type. They could reduce the numbers line by line and accomplish the same thing. McDaniel asked if this would give them more flexibility later. The Mayor replied yes. Roylance pointed out the conceptual map is close to final. If they go with the map and allow a 5% variance, and they bring a plan back that goes over that, the Council would decide if it is agreeable or not. Roylance asked if the setbacks were the same and the Mayor replied yes. Christopherson asked how many neighborhood meeting had they held and how many citizens attended. Christianson stated she did not know as she was not involved at that time. Roylance stated they had held one. The Mayor pointed out that at that time neighborhood meetings were not required. The City has since put an Ordinance in place and neighborhood meetings are required at preliminary plat. Erlebach asked about the infrastructure improvements discussed on page three of the agreement. Roylance stated they will mitigate for the traffic generated and more. They will continue working with ITD. The Mayor pointed out the City can not require them to pay more than ITD will require. If we want the process changed, everyone needs to let the Legislature know they are concerned with highway traffic on Highway 44. The Mayor declared the public hearing closed and moved to deliberation. The Mayor stated he felt the changes discussed were less impactive. Bell stated he was not sure he wanted to go with this or have it reworked and come back. He is not comfortable with 1800. He feels the conceptual map exhibit B is easier to work with than the variances on the table in exhibit E. He stated he felt they had done a decent job putting smaller lots against the commercial and going to larger lots. He would like to see them use this concept and set a maximum number of lots with no more than a 5% variance. 5 Bell stated he would like exhibit C to say “what uses are at time of preliminary plat”. Mayor stated it may be more appropriate at final plat. Bell agreed. Legal Counsel pointed out contractual term would be to say “designation at time of final plat”. The Mayor pointed out it would be conditional uses allowed at the time of final plat. Legal Counsel stated it is usually done at time of application. The Mayor stated that in regards to commercial and mixed use they will have to come back to the Council for approval for conditional uses with each phase. Bell stated he was not as concerned with changes to the conditional use lists. He would be willing to move forward with what it is now if they apply a maximum number of lots and maximum variance percentage. Following Christopherson asking how many lots he would specify, Bell stated he would like to not exceed 1500, which would be a little more than R3. Erlebach stated he agreed with Bell and had no problem with 1500. Christopherson stated he would rather base restricting the percentage off the map. To have more flexibility he would like to go to 1550. McDaniel stated she felt it was a well laid out conceptual plan with density along the road. She felt setting maximum lots at 1550 along with a 5% variance sounded good, as it is close to R3. Bell moved to approve the East Canyon Land Use Development Agreement with amendments, a maximum lot count of 1500 single family dwelling units, and exhibit B not to be varied by more than 5% in any category, Erlebach seconded the motion. All ayes: motion carried. Roylance asked if that number was absolute. The Mayor clarified the variance was per category or Exhibit B. The Council has the choice to accept exceeding percentage but caps the number of lots. Legal Counsel stated that legally he would like to see an amendment to the development agreement. Ajdournment: Bell moved to adjourn the meeting, McDaniel seconded the motion. All Ayes: motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 pm. Respectfully submitted: Approved: ____________________________ ____________________________ Kathleen Hutton, Deputy Clerk Nathan Mitchell, Mayor 6