City Council Special Meeting

Star City Council Special Meeting Minutes October 23, 2018 The Special Meeting of the Star City Council was held on October 23, 2018 at the LifeSpring Church, 174 N. Star Road, Star, Idaho. The Mayor called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm and all stood for the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll Call: Councilman David Hershey, Michael Keyes, Trevor Chadwick and Kevin Nielsen were all present. Approval of the Agenda: Keyes moved to amend and approve the agenda, adding under New Business - 6G Discussion of future agendas and Council requests on future agendas. Yorgason stated that Council could add items to the agenda but only for discussion; they could not add any action items to the agenda once the meeting has started. Nielsen asked if we could caveat that on the time. Keyes stated it shouldn’t take that long. Nielsen seconded the motion. All ayes: motion carried. Consent Agenda: Chadwick moved to approve the Consent Agenda consisting of: Special Meeting Minutes of August 15, 2018, Special Meeting Minutes of August 17, 2018 and the “Make Star Shine” Proclamation. Keyes seconded the motion. All ayes: motion carried. The Mayor explained the “Make Star Shine” day. It will be November 3rd and the City is basically going to have a clean-up and rake up day in Star. He invited citizens to come and help. Presentation: Sara Baker, from ACHD, stated she has been working with Citizens for Better Transportation who want to help ACHD pass the proposition which is on the ballot. She stated she was there to talk about the registration fee increase that is on the election ballot November 6th. She stated that development applications are up 13% and permits are up 5%; they are reaching the point where their ability to maintain and improve roads is underfunded. Craig Quintana from Citizens for Better Transportation, provided a power point presentation. The ballot measure on the November 6th ballot is to increase vehicle registration fees. They gathered information from citizens as to what they wanted, and they indicated they wanted projects for more mobility and safety. ACHD Commissioners put the proposal on the ballot and it is estimated to bring in 10% additional funds to the budget. He reviewed the current vehicle registration fees and the proposed fees. He explained some of the new technology they are looking at installing at major intersections. ACHD has committed $10 million to community projects this year but this level of committed cannot be maintained without some change. The developments are supposed to pay their fair share and there is a state match as well. Big commercial trucks are not covered under current legislation, and ACHD is working in this legislative session to rectify this. Chadwick asked when this will take affect if voters approve it. Quintana stated it will take effect January 1st and will stay in place. Nielsen asked why ACHD lacks funding. Quintana stated the cost of projects went up. Nielsen asked what the funding model was. Quintana explained that it was the growth projected over next 20 years. Calculations based on residential and types of businesses. Nielsen asked if we were not charging enough taxes. Baker stated they don’t have control over their funding. They are collecting 100% of 1 fees. Impact fees will be redone in the next couple of years. You can’t go back and get fees. Baker stated they have priorities and they may not be able to do all the projects. With this money they will be able to relieve congestion and widen roadways. A lot of it is user fees. Baker stated they project to have a five-million-dollar shortfall and next year a fifteen-million-dollar shortfall. They are looking for better ways of doing things and hope construction costs come in lower. This will help. Old/New Business: Steve Green – Mural Discussion: The Mayor explained that Steve Green could not be here tonight. He is asking for permission to re-do the mural on the side of his building. He is again advertising for a contest for the best mural. He will bring the requested one to the Council prior to applying it. Chadwick is fine with it. Everybody was good with that. Public Hearing - Archway Subdivision: The Mayor explained the process of the public hearings. We will start with the Applicant, then Council can ask questions of applicant and staff, the audience may then speak, if they are signed up, limiting time to three minutes. Then the Applicant will rebut the testimony, then the public hearing will be closed, and the Council will deliberate. This is a quasi – judicial meeting. Please hold your comments. The Mayor asked for any conflicts of interest or ex parte contact, hearing none, the Mayor opened the public hearing. Applicant: Jeff Wrede, Noble Rock Engineering, stated the Archway Subdivision is between the Starlight Meadows and Heron River Subdivisions on Achillea. Wrede stated their original plat had 19 homes and after hearing comments they are now planning to remove two of the lots. There were negative comments, so they removed the two lots. The development agreement requested removing the additional five feet per story on the side setbacks; they are now requesting the reduction on the two end lots only. They did resubmit a landscaping plan and it will match the existing wrought iron fencing. Chadwick asked if Wrede will put a pathway along the Lawrence Kennedy. Wrede stated that he would. It is to be crushed black granite. Chadwick would like that pathway to be paved. Wrede would like to match the neighboring properties. Chadwick wants it paved for handicapped people to be to able access it. Wrede stated they can research that, maybe asphalt. Keyes asked if the other HOA’s can use the pathway. Wrede stated that it could be used by everyone. Public Testimony: Gail Glasgow, 394 Procyon Place, Star, stated he is the president of the ditch company and has been in discussion with Mr. Wrede. Sharon Prindle, 236 S. Alcove Avenue, Star, stated that based on Wrede’s comments he has addressed her concerns. She however, did not receive notice of the changes. Joel Talbot, 10664 W. Gloxinia Street, Star, stated that he had heard there was no separation of homes. It has changed. He asked what the distance between the homes will be due to fire concerns. Talbot asked if the Star Fire District puts out the house that is on fire or protects the houses next door. As for the pathway, yes you can do it and you need to have some solid numbers on paper, so citizens know what is going on. For 27 years he was promised a light rail system and not one tie has been installed. They will tax you to death and then come up with some reason not to put it in. The Mayor stated that Mr. Wrede was requesting for closer setbacks and has now changed that and will comply with current standards which is five feet for single story and ten feet for double story. 2 Gene de Laveaga, 10684 W. Merab Court, Star, stated he is the Director of the Shooting Comet HOA and their head gate is on that property. He wants to make sure the applicant knows they need access to that head gate. He heard through the grapevine that part of the canal going through there will be buried and they need to be able to clean the ditch. Chadwick asked if that is the Little Pioneer ditch. De Laveaga stated the head gate is on the Little Pioneer. Applicant Rebuttal: Wrede stated they will follow the existing five feet per story and two-story will be ten feet apart, with the exception of the two end lots. He informed them the head gate is not being touched. The Little Pioneer ditch towards the western section will be tiled and the HOA will be responsible for that. Wrede stated that for clarification there are two end lots he is asking for reduction, lot 1 block 2 on the west end and the other is at the cul-de-sac, lot 2 bock 5, which has no adjoining homes. Chadwick asked for clarification that the first lot will be open space and you are asking for a side setback waiver on the west side and the one at the cul-de-sac the same thing – both just the west sides. Wrede stated that was correct. The Mayor closed the public hearing and moved to deliberations. Hershey stated he wanted to say that with the changes on the fencing to wrought iron it is a very nice improvement. You can’t burn metal. Hershey stated there had been burning concerns on a different project; but he is still happy with the metal fence and with taking out the two lots. Keyes is pleased that the Applicant has met with neighbors and for the removal of the two lots. He is okay with the two lots having different setbacks and pleased about the pathway for connectivity. He supports the project. Chadwick would like to see some conditions regarding the easement and pathways. Chadwick moved to approve files CPA-18-06 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, RZ-18-03 Rezone, DA-18-03 Development Agreement and PP-18-06 Preliminary Plat for the Archway Subdivision with the 13 staff conditions of approval; adding condition 14 requiring the pathway to be ADA compliant and condition 15 requiring the easement be recorded for public access to the pathway. Nielsen asked if there may be other ramifications on the pathway. Chadwick stated we need to amend the development agreement to state the pathway will be ADA compliant. It was agreed they will need to amend the development regarding the setbacks for the two lots, lot 1 block 2 and lot 2 block 5, Keyes seconded the motion. All ayes: motion carried. Public Hearing - Sailing Hawks Subdivision: The Mayor stated we would follow the same process as the previous public hearing. He stated this public hearing was continued from October 2, 2018. He asked Council for any ex parte contact or conflicts of interest; hearing none he opened the public hearing. Applicant: Shawn Nickel, SNL Planning, representing the developer. At the last meeting Council wanted to hear from ACHD. The ACHD staff report has been provided approving the subdivision. He has been working with the neighbors and has resolved the fencing issues. A map was shown showing both fencing types. Both parties worked well with the fencing types and neighbors are in agreement with the fences. They discussed irrigation and weeds and they have put weed removal along the irrigation canal in the CC&R’s for the subdivision. 3 Chadwick stated he does know that ACHD has made it clear the distances the roadways have to be apart. Nickel did discuss the alternate entrance road with ACHD. Chadwick stated he does appreciate the metal fence option and believes it is a better alternative. Nielsen asked if there were three types of fencing. Nickel stated that the breaking point of the fence will be at the stub street. Chadwick asked about the flag lot. Nickel stated that it has been removed. Keyes asked how to document this. Nickel deferred to Ward. Ward stated that the Council can approve the map with the fencing types and it becomes part of the record. Brenda Weaver, 2620 N. Munger Road, Star, stated her property is north of this development. They did agree to a metal fence and the fence will be parallel to the New Zealand fence already there. There is not a lot of room between them. She is still concerned about the new houses and the close proximity to the barn and smells and hopes the new residents take that into consideration. Bruce Weaver, 2620 N. Munger Road, Star, owns the property to the north and they have reached an agreement on the fence. The irrigation easement is 12 feet along the property line and will remain. The pump can be relocated to a place downstream. The silt pond at the bottom is not required and Ross Erickson has reconfigured that with waste back into the Middleton Mill ditch. There is also a 25’ easement around the canal. The Mayor stated that all easements will be in place. Nielsen asked if they were discussing a new easement. Weaver stated that is was not new. The Mayor stated that the easements will remain in place. Kristen Battey, 2420 N. Munger Road, Star, stated her property is west and south of the Sailing Hawks Subdivision and they did have meetings with the developer and have agreed to the fence. The 25’ easement is on her side and the other side is not maintained, he won’t burn it because it becomes a fire hazard. That’s what happened last year. They discussed a creeping fescue along the property line to make it look nice and keep the weeds down. That would solve the problem. Leaving it up to the HOA may not do; the buck will stop with her and that’s why she is concerned. She wants something that will work. Applicant Rebuttal: Nickel stated they heard the loud donkey at the Weavers. Regarding the brush on the south side of the Battey’s property, they are also concerned and have a lot of clean up to do when they start development. They have to work with the irrigation district and will establish an annual or semi-annual cleaning of that area. An errant firework could cause a fire. The clean-up will be put in the CC&Rs. Chadwick asked if they would be willing to put a ADA compliant pathway along the ditch. Nickel stated they asked and the irrigation district stated they would not allow it. Nielsen asked that they add the “Right to Farm” wording that recognizes the neighbors have fencing, dust, trampled by a horse or donkey and it is a real concern. Nickel state that the language is in their CC&R’s. 4 Keyes asked if they would put something in the CC&R’s about weed control. Nickel would be fine with that. The Mayor closed the public hearing and moved to deliberations. Chadwick stated he appreciates Nickel working with the neighbors in getting solutions. He asked that he put it in the conditions of approval in the CC&R’s. Keyes commend Nickel on working with the neighbors and they came to mutually agreeable solutions. He appreciates the creativity of the fencing solutions. Hershey is happy with metal fences. Nielsen thanked Nickel for working with the neighbors and moved to approve files AZ-18-08 Annexation & Zoning and PP-18-08 Preliminary Plat for the Sailing Hawks Subdivision, with the conditions of approval listed in the staff report and adding the conditions that the CC&Rs include language specifically calling out the “Right to Farm Act” as well as informing the neighbors that they can expect dust and sounds and other matters that they may be responsible for the way people in the households interact with livestock. Chadwick seconded the motion. All ayes: motion carried. Public Hearing - Endsley Court Subdivision: The Mayor reminded everyone of the procedures for the public hearing. The Mayor asked Council for any ex parte contact or conflicts of interest; hearing none the Mayor opened the public hearing and asked the Applicant to speak. Applicant: Tamara Thompson, The Land Group, presented a power point on the application. The project came before the Council a little over a year ago for annexation and zoning. The parcel is located west of Star Road and north of Highway 44. The yellow area shown is zoned Residential (R7) and a portion of that is what we will be talking about tonight. The layout was shown in reference to the Albertsons. The plat is in compliance with the Preliminary Plat. It is on 11.6 acres, there are a total of 37 lots with 34 single family residential lots. They have a higher density closer to the Albertsons but agreed with neighbors to align one to one along the Saddlebrook lots. They have 1.4 acres of open space with an open area and a bench. A landscape plan was submitted. The development is in compliance with the Comp Plan and they agree with the staff report and analysis. Chadwick asked if she saw the letter from Keller Associates. Thompson stated they had and issues were all addressed. Chadwick stated the other phase will be denser. Thompson stated density would be higher as it moves toward Albertsons. Thompson was asked when the Albertsons will be constructed. Thompson stated that they are working with Albertsons and construction costs and lack of a work force is causing it to go slower; they are hearing they will start building in the Fall of 2019. Public Testimony: No public signed up to speak. The Mayor closed the public hearing and moved to deliberations. Keyes stated that during the original application, he was standing on that side of the podium and giving public testimony. He had asked that the main road be renamed from Deerhaven to Highbrook. 5 Chadwick moved to approve file PP-18-07 Preliminary Plat for Endsley Court Subdivision with the fourteen conditions of approval listed in the staff report, Nielsen seconded the motion. All ayes: motion carried. Public Hearing - Crystal Springs Subdivision: Mayor Bell asked Council for any ex parte contact or conflicts of interest. Chadwick stated that the Mayor and himself have been in contact with ITD working on access points along the Highway 44 corridor. Keyes stated that he spoke with Kevin Deats and had him direct his questions to the City. The Mayor opened the public hearing and turned it over to the applicant. Applicant: Bob Taunton, 27247 Palmitier Road, Boise, stated he is representing US19 LLC who own the property. He asked if the recorder was on. The recorder was on. The application request is to rezone 11.386 acres to C1 with a development agreement and another parcel to the south of 15.6 acres to rezone to R16, the development agreement’s original intent was to create 240 residential units. He has submitted a Conditional Use Permit for a waiver to increase the building height to 55 feet. In the previous applications they had proposed four off site signs; they have been deleted. It is a rezoning application, not a development application similar to the previous public hearing. For those in the audience, it is not a development application, they will have to get several approvals before they can proceed to that point. Taunton showed an overall picture of the property. It is twenty-six acres that they have done a lot split on. To the west is the Larson property that was approved as C1 and R8 with no site plan or development plan with that. The frontage property along Highway 16 is approximately a half a mile long. The frontage is 430 feet wide and they do have a portion of the property in the flood way along the southern portion. At the south end of the property they will be doing more work on that area due to the flood zone. The streets accessing their property are ITD streets and have not been deeded to ACHD yet as they need to be brought up to ACHD standards. The property is going down toward the river and the roadway is elevated. The staff report goes into compliance, Section 3 for housing, to provide for a mix of housing types, rental and ownership and to be able to cater to different economic age groups. Star is predominately single family attached. They are proposing a different scope. Chapter 5 speaks to roadways and uses, it is mixed uses. COMPASS, with the original application, does a check list on projects, it states that this development is consistent with households within this area of the valley, it supports VRT transportation, and development of the State Street corridor is a strong interest by Star. It is outside prime farm land. An example of the housing was shown which is of eight buildings, 180 units for 20 units per acre. This is a typical density allowing enough for parking and provides for amenities and open space. A preliminary transportation study was done by Kittleson and Associates. They looked at the residential side. They know they have to do a full blown TIS. The study was done in 2016 and they looked at the existing volume, increased the traffic by 3% and used the number of units and that gave them 2018 traffic conditions. Those numbers would be a little bit more now. At State Street and Moyle a traffic signal was not warranted by the residential by ACHD at that time. Per the study, 60% of the intersection capacity remains and the cut through traffic to Heron River was well below ACHD standards of 2000. Traffic was estimated to be 400 trips from Heron River and 150 from their property, well below the 2000. ACHD reviewed the 2016 application, because there was no development application, they would be required to develop the roads 36’ from back of curb to back of curb and increase the size of the cul- de-sac. The roads have not been accepted by ACHD. The ITD review reflects no objections. 6 The residential development thought process for the 240 units is 15 acres at the R-16 zoning. They will lose property to the flood way and flood property which they estimate will bring it down to 12 acres of developable land. So, 12 times 20 units brings it to 240 units as well. When you do multifamily it requires open space amenities, and each unit requires two parking spaces. It will take some engineering to figure out how many units they can build. They proposed the 55’ height which would allow them to cluster the buildings and by building higher it would open up some open space. There will probably be ponds to raise some of the areas. They have no certainty they can do 240 units. By giving the height limit it gives them more opportunities. They have eight plus amenities and the secondary access that goes all the way down to the river. There will be a pathway down toward the river. A list of amenities was shown. There are two categories of amenities, quality of life and recreation. The first five on the list fit into the quality of life, the other items are recreational amenities. If you have over 75 units there are a certain number of amenities required; they have additional amenities including several walking pathways. Taunton added that it has a paved lane that goes under the Highway 16 bridge and it could be a future greenbelt pathway, and possibly a component of a much larger pathway. This is a resort type of development. The high number of units will help them support the amenities. Bike storage will be provided as well. The transportation provisions were presented at the public hearing and then were incorporated into the development agreement. The initial agreement indicated they would cooperate with Heron River HOA on cut through traffic and they would work with ACHD for solutions on traffic calming and if solutions were identified the developer would pay for them. On the commercial side they agreed they would participate in a City sponsored regional traffic study for a traffic signal and are still willing to do that. If a signal is warranted at Moyle by ITD, they would pay their pro-rata share and they would have to figure that out. They would do a site-specific traffic impact study prior to building permit issuance on the commercial. They are doing the best they can to cover the transportation concerns. They concur with the conditions of the staff report and possible addition of special provisions talked about. Chadwick asked if on the DA they could add Section 7.7 a TIS to the residential side as well. Taunton stated they could, it has to be done. Neilson stated that ACHD requires that. Chadwick stated that Section 7.8 Regional Traffic Study also needs to be included on the residential side as well. Taunton stated they would be willing to do that. Chadwick stated he wanted both added so it was clear they needed to be done for both development agreements. Keyes stated he spent quite a bit of time down at City Hall reading the 99 letters regarding this application on concerns for transportation, property values and cut-through traffic. The Larsen property, which was publicly noticed, was west of this property and was for 288 units and was closer to the subdivision and they didn’t receive any comments or public testimony. He asked Taunton if he had any reason why the opposition to this property and not to the property which is closer? Taunton stated he has had the opportunity to be a city planner and consultant and developer and there is universal opposition to multifamily. He is doing a similar project in Boise and there is a dislike for multifamily and a dislike for families that would live in these projects. A lot of people will choose to rent, and people are attracted to this type of living. There is a wide diversity of people who are biased against multifamily. They believe there is socially unacceptable behavior, old cars, noisy kids, and it will reduce their housing value. Keyes asked Taunton why he thought there was no opposition to the other application that virtually brought more apartments. Taunton stated he had no answer but thought it was because it is apartments. Chadwick stated that the DA says 240 units at R16, but the previous one said 196 at an R13. Taunton stated they would prefer the Council consider the R16 zoning for the reasons previously discussed. 7 Public Testimony: Mike Crance, 9389 W. Wildbranch Drive, Star, stated that based on his personal review of COMPASS and Ada County on-line collector street requirements, on the surface it may appear to the City Council that this may be permissible, but it is not in the best interest of the Heron River community in respect to safety. It shows the Council’s disregard for Star citizens concerns. They know the land will eventually be developed. Heron River doesn’t want them using Wildbranch and respectfully requests that a traffic study by an appropriate company be done prior to any development. The traffic study should address the impact this will have on our community. It appears our community’s only scenario is the comprehensive traffic study. Heron River is approaching 380 homes and they are concerned with the developer mitigating safety and with livability in their community and in the City. Joneane Loria, 9372 W. Deerfawn Drive, Star, stated that some of her questions have been answered. No traffic study has been done, there were no plans, they haven’t met with the HOA, hadn’t heard an answer if there is a master plan for Highway 44, no site development, or a TIS study. These were in her previous notes and were indicated must be done. Paramount to Heron River is safety. She noted Wildbranch is a collector road and read the definition. She did not see that it is suitable for cut through traffic. She asked the Council to please act wisely as it will define your legacy. Teri Haigh, 9257 W. Wildbranch Drive, Star, stated she had looked at the City’s revised comprehensive plan and it states they must insure that land use policies do not violate property rights. Section 8.1 of the revised comprehensive plan sets forth the height of a new building, to high can overwhelm neighbors. Applicant is proposing 55 feet high multi-family dwellings, and this will adversely impact neighbor’s properties. Objective C in Section 6 sets forth the land use and transportation for higher and capital development such as the proposed project. They are to be located near or adjacent to arterial or collector streets. Plummer will be the closest collector street for this project. The only way for this project to access Plummer will be to come through Heron River using Wildbranch Drive which has a width of 32 feet and is not an arterial or collector street. The traffic will drastically impact the health, safety and wellbeing of the residents. Section 6.1.4 of the revised comprehensive plan provides local streets are to be paved with widths of 24 to 35 feet. The developer’s request for rezone is a contradiction to the revised plan and should be denied. A traffic study for the entire project should be done prior to consideration of the rezone application. Jerry Arbiter, 351 S. Crystal Springs Lane, Star, stated he and his wife live at the intersection of Crystal Springs Lane and West Wildbranch Drive. He opposes the proposed multifamily for the following reasons: the increased traffic will adversely impact safety, property views of the foothills will be compromised, multi-family is inconsistent with surrounding single-family residences and agricultural fields and it could affect property values. They recommend the applicant be required to do a certified traffic impact study prior to approval of this application. Recommend Council approval with ITD and ACHD recommendations and grant installing a light at Moyle prior to construction of the development. Traffic issues must be addressed. His property is not within the city limits, but he is impacted by this. As they have no vote on the council, he appealed to Ada County Commissioner Visner for some recommendations. Tom Haigh, 9257 W. Wildbranch Drive, Star, stated a few things said tonight have not been accurate but he was not going to get into that. Many of them are aware of the November 23, 2016 letter from the applicant’s attorney to the city’s attorney and they noticed it is not contained in the Council packet. They are concerned that between the last hearing and this hearing that the Mayor and City Council may 8 have had additional contact with TJ Angstman or another agent of the applicant either in person, by e- mail or by other means. He would like to ask every City Council member and the Mayor to assert on the record whether there has been any contact whatsoever with the applicant since the last hearing that could possibly be related to this project. The Mayor stated they have already addressed that with the ex parte contact. Haigh stated he understood that, but for his record and the record he would like it stated. The Mayor explained the record already stands. Haigh stated he had some questions for the Council. The Mayor explained they are taking testimony at this time, not questions. Haigh asked if the City have a current traffic impact study for the project and the answer is no. He asked if the Council has detailed plans for the multi-dwelling project. Nielsen asked if he could ask Haigh a question; if he wanted to go back to more pertinent concerns such as traffic, there are problems and what he is looking for is evidence. Haigh noted they said there would be 150 trips per day which is not true. Nielsen asked if he can provide them with the facts. Haigh stated he could at another time, but for now wanted to finish him comments. Council has information whether ITD will grant a signal light at the intersection at Moyle and Highway 44. He stated he has been told they will not do that because of the half a mile rule. Haigh stated based on lack of information he would ask the Council to defer approval until they received necessary documentation to make a decision on. The project could be downsized, and they were to work with them, but the developer has not approached them. Keyes asked Haigh where he was when there were 288 housing units being approved. Haigh stated that was for R8 and Keyes pointed out it was proposed at an R12. Keyes asked why no opposition? Haigh stated they had talked with Mr. Larson and he wants to work with them and has already. An R8 is way smaller and that makes a difference with them. Larsen has single family homes and duplexes. Keyes stated It is 192 units and you have no concern with traffic. Haigh stated it has far less of an impact. Brian Wagner, 564 S. Tressa Place, Star, stated he wanted to bring up some other things. The existing apartment complexes they tend to meld well with the City, they tend to be smaller and are not a large eye sore, or they are nestled among commercial buildings, so they are not obstructing views. There are apartments on Plummer surrounded by a strip mall and traffic not going through residential. There are apartments near BiMart and by Dairy Queen and they are not very tall, are on their own streets and don’t seem to interfere with homes around it. Neighbors don’t want this change in zoning to R16 and the height is going to affect a large number of homes. There are a lot of homes within Heron River on the east side that will be impacted by the height. There are several corridors in Heron River that allow for a greenbelt and several ponds. Personally speaking he has a home on the interior and is concerned with traffic and some of the visuals regarding the height of proposed buildings. He does not believe this is what people want next to them. Carol Fleischer, 226 S. River Mist Avenue, Star, stated she has concerns regarding traffic, safety, and it seems the application has a lot of blanks that need to be filled in. Regarding high density apartments, she believes it is necessary and also affordable housing. There are benefits to different housing and different price points in town. She stated this is not the area for it and it will be the first thing people see when they come to our City, a huge complex, a big penitentiary type development. The high density in Garden City fits in, but this wouldn’t be the case here. Safety and traffic is a big issue. She asked how do we want people to view our city, what do we want them to see first thing. She pointed out there are problems with Moyle Street. ITD has said no to the light at Moyle and she doesn’t see that changing. She doesn’t see a light going in at Moyle. She sees problems with traffic cutting through Heron River onto small residential streets. 9 Andrea Carroll stated she is the attorney that represented a number of citizens in the most recent judicial review. The judicial process was to come back here tonight to start anew and have a new conversation and a little more information. She appreciates the ex parte contact that was disclosed here tonight, and that they were disposed tonight, but they haven’t exposed the content of discussion. This doesn’t bring anyone in this room into the conversation and it is not fair and doesn’t feel fair if you are not in on it. How are you supposed to be a part of a conversation if you have been left out of it? In regard to the rezone and CUP being considered prior to a site plan or capitol impact study, there is not a city that would consider this. She has been through a lot of hearings and gets what is being said about the multi-family buildings and what it comes down to is they do not want a line of cars going through their community. Their community was designed with homes facing Wildbranch; it was never designed to be a road with a line of cars going through. Unless you condition it with approval of the signal light at Moyle it is going to impact property values and their value of life. The information coming out of a traffic impact study are sometimes details that are assumptions that should not be made. You are not going to hear that at a public hearing and are not going to be able to address them and may want to put them in the development agreement. You are doing yourself and your citizens a disservice by even considering this tonight. The only decision that should be made tonight is a decision for denial. How can you know based on the information provided here tonight that it will not adversely impact the citizens? They don’t know if this is going to be a behemoth because there is no site plan, nor do they know if there is a transition of height. You should want to know that. Nielsen asked Carroll if she was suggesting that Boise has never annexed and zoned a piece of property without a site plan. She stated absolutely, she has never seen a multifamily considered without a site plan nor a combination commercial and residential. Nielsen stated he wanted to follow up on Mr. Keyes question regarding the Larson property with over 250 single family residential units versus this project and asked if she was aware of ACHD trips between the two properties. It is roughly estimated that single family residences generate nine trips while multifamily generate less trips. In regard to safety, the access for the Larson property is also on Wildbranch. Nielsen asked for her opinion as to why no opposition to the single family that will significantly generate more trips. Carroll stated it could be because it is a lower density, there is more space and there are more access points. She noted this property also contains commercial and you have no way of knowing how many vehicles it will generate. She was approached to be involved in the Larson property and they don’t think it was as dense. She wanted to let them know that half way through the judicial review she has been operating for basically for free and the entire civil action is pro-bono; she is doing this for no other reason than she cares about the Treasure Valley. That’s why she wasn’t here for the Larson property. Chadwick asked if the Idaho State Code requires a site plan for annexation and zoning? Carroll stated that it does not, it is left to the discretion of Cities and Counties. She stated what is required is you do have to do findings that it is not a public safety issue and that this will not adversely impact other property owners. If what you are trying to do is to make a responsible decision for growth, then why not get the information before you obligate the City of Star with entitlement. They are going to have to do a TIS; she asked why not look at it first. Chadwick commented they are required to get a TIS and nothing can happen until the TIS is done. ACHD and ITD will decide if this property can handle traffic and if it cannot they will kill the project. Carroll stated she did not see they would kill a project as they are not the land use entity, the City is. Chadwick noted they are the ones who ultimately decide. Carroll reiterated they will not stop a project, they will ultimately create access and where the access points are. Nielsen asked what her understanding of the IDAPA rules is. Carroll stated they are regulations by the State to assist state entities in interpreting state laws. Nielsen stated the purpose at the center of IDAPA rules is safety. There is a requirement for a TIS when building issues come along; and ITD and 10 ACHD have jurisdiction over traffic, so those entities need to make those decisions. Carroll stated the difference is this is a public process that will protect property rights and enforcement of the IDAPA rules will not allow them to participate. This is their opportunity to have a voice and by kicking it down the line you take their voice away. The Mayor pointed out there will be another public hearing and everyone will have a chance to voice their opinions. He asked how are we taking away their voice if they have a voice in every step of the way through this process? Carroll stated it will be a different list of findings and criteria and will not be looking at whether this property adversely affects them. This is the time to decide will it adversely affect property in the vicinity; and whatever decision you make you won’t be able to reverse later. The Mayor stated the application tonight is strictly for annexation and zoning, it is not a development decision. Carroll stated you should not apply a rezone prior to seeing the project. David Baumann, 232 Langer Lake Way, Star, stated he wanted to shout out to Chadwick for bringing out Section 7.7 and 7.8 to be added to the residential agreement. He also wanted to do a shout out for Chief Vogt regarding his letter and non-secured parking and how that can adversely impact citizens property. He had a question pertaining to the staff report and the request for a conditional use permit for additional height, but it doesn’t mention actual use. He heard through the developer that this is for multifamily; and his question is that multifamily is a permitted use, not a conditional use, so not sure why it is being considered as it is not applicable. If you go to ordinances and you look at Title 8-2 b-1 regarding conditional use and he read the definition; he stated It does not pertain to this application. Multifamily is a permitted use. He stated the question is do you want to approve a use that does not apply and leave yourselves open to another possible judicial review. Kevin Deats, 2468 Deerfawn, Star, thanked Kathleen and Cathy for getting him information. He reviewed the letter from ITD and stated they object to the proposed application due to traffic concerns and no direct access to Highway 44 and 16; and ITD will not permit or support proposal until these concerns are addressed. He believes this congestion would be detrimental to our community and to businesses to generate income. In reviewing the material turned into the City he has found that no plans have been submitted to the City. The applicant has significantly changed the September 30, 2016 application to rezone by adding the 55’ exception as of September 28. Star has no limitation on the number of stories or buildings they can have and 55’ could have five or six stories. There is no acceptable density on the number of buildings in any given area. As of the September 28 application in the ITD response, there have been no assessments completed by the Star Fire Department or the Star Police Department and the Ada County Highway District. I believe the ITD report objected to and does not support the design to be compatible with other uses. I believe upon thorough examination the Star Fire, Police and ACHD may find the site for the zoning proposal inadequate for services by public services and facilities. He asked that they deny this until all traffic and access concerns have been dealt with by ITD, assessments be completed by the above agencies and the applicant submits plans to be evaluated. He asked Keyes if he had something to ask him. Keyes asked Deats to answer the same question he had asked everyone else. Deats stated in speaking for himself he would have gone to the zoning meeting if he had known and he does applaud the Council for asking the questions to come to a decision. With respect to Heron River he would like to comment in general about Star and Star residents; they work together, they talk together, and they pulled together a HOA meeting and met with the developer who came and didn’t have to. In respect to general applications there is a 300-foot rule regarding notices, so Heron River again did not get any notification and he felt they could improve that as a City on the notification. 11 David Ray, 446 South River Mist Avenue, Star, stated he also didn’t know about the other development, and probably would have make comments about that. He is concerned about the five story buildings and hopes it looks good as he knows nothing about their plans. He is concerned about views, and stated he is not anti-development, it happens all the time. He believes they need to be careful as there appears to be a lot of road issues. He’s not sure who’s in charge but he anticipates problems with fighting roads. He noticed no one talked about rafts and stated if you put a raft place down at the river everyone will be going there. Nobody wants to do it as everyone says there is no money. Keyes stated he would like Chadwick to comment on the progress with ITD. The Mayor stated they can do that later. Applicant Rebuttal: Taunton stated that in the first comment they said they haven’t spoken with Heron River HOA, they did and talked about cooperating with them. There were comments about heights and views and he pointed out they are over a quarter of a mile away. Mr. Arbiter talked about views and he is north of the multifamily parcel so it’s hard to image how we would block his view. One of the key things the zoning is contingent on is the City’s approval and other agencies approvals. It’s a rezone request not a development. Many people want to see the fully cooked deal while the development is a progression. As to Ms. Carroll’s comments, there are a number of other municipalities that ask for site plans, but Star has a different process that we have followed. We are requesting zoning to plan for future development. As to the assumptions that go into a TIS, we sit down with jurisdiction to review everything, do a scoping exercise and they tell us what they want us to look at and we go out and do the traffic engineering. The agencies then review, make corrections and we then modify plans per their direction. In the case of ACHD, they hold public hearings to review transportation components while ITD does not do that. ITD issues access points. Where we can’t access the highway beyond a certain level, they are looking at other options; so they really are in the driver’s seat. Keyes stated that in the presentation they talked about ponds for fill; we have had some issues with dredging operations that have gone on and on. He asked Taunton if they would be willing to put hard limits on how long the mining operation will go on? Taunton stated he thought they would be willing to do that and they will talk about it. The Mayor closed the public hearing and Council moved to deliberations. Keyes asked to have Chadwick address his discussions with ITD as they may be pertinent to this process. Yorgason stated if any of the conversations have anything relevant to this project, then we have to re- open the hearing because we can’t bring in new testimony after the public has spoken and they have not had a chance to speak to it. As he does not know what the context is of the conversations, it is his understanding the conversations were very general. Chadwick stated there was nothing specific to this project, that the meetings with ITD have been regarding transportation for the corridor as a whole. Yorgason stated he would recommend that they not be part of the hearing and not be part of the Council’s decision making. Yorgason reiterated if it needs to be discussed then we need to open the public hearing to discuss and bring in new testimony. Mayor Bell stated this is not specific to this application; they are in the process of doing transportation planning for the whole corridor and the whole city. They are making progress and there is nothing specific to this application. The Mayor stated that it was not specific, there are just a lot of workshops going back and forth. 12 Keyes questioned where everyone was for the Larson hearing. When he looks at what is going on here, we have approved Larson which added 192 homes and we do not have a traffic study for that. But it does use some of the allowable capacity from the collector to Heron River. He stated that ITD has said for years that Moyle won’t be signalized and we are hearing there is working going on and maybe something is going to happen. Obviously, there are exceptions to the IDAPA rules. In reading the 99 letters one thought that struck him was a comment from Ruth Givens. Nielsen asked for clarification from Legal Counsel that as this is a new hearing, can they hear previous comments tonight. Yorgason stated except for the conditional use permit, the application is still from the original one. You made a decision, it went to court and the judge remanded back for a re-hearing. Tonight, that is what this is, a re-hearing and everything is part of the record from the beginning to now is still part of the record and presumable everyone has had the same opportunity to review the information. Anyone could have come and requested copies and they would have been given a copy of everything not just what has happened since the appeal and what has been happening the last couple months. Keyes stated Ms. Givens made a comment about thoughtful integration. He is concerned about the need to protect the people who live on Wildbranch and thinks that Wildbranch at some point should be considered to be blocked off from access for through traffic except for emergency vehicles or somehow have design features added so it minimizes traffic. He thinks they need a traffic study done, the traffic study done earlier does not account for the 192 homes approved on the Larson project. He thinks that by not allowing Wildbranch it requires a secondary access onto Highway 44. Regarding the request for a conditional use permit we have in our code variances, and requirements for variances. One of the things that is required is the variance to show relief from undue hardship due to characteristic of the site and a variance should not be detrimental to public health. We are looking at this conditional use permit as a way to go around a variance and he does not believe it is a wise way; he thinks that we as a Council need to consider these things, not look for ways around them but for ways to thoughtfully consider them. Mayor Bell asked Legal Counsel to address this and noted this is not a way around it, it is a legal process. Yorgason stated the procedure they are talking about is actually found in State Code Title 67 Section 65- 12 where the legislature has decided in addition to other processes of the land use act, exemptions or waivers of standards other than use may be permitted through issuance of a special use permit. The applicant has the right to decide what process they want to choose. The development agreement is a legal way to do it, or they could have chosen a variance or a conditional use permit which is identified in our code is also a legal route. It is the choice of the applicant which route they want to go. This isn’t about a particular use, but State Code gives you the specific right to grant exemptions or waivers of standards through the conditional use process. Keyes stated he is not inclined to approve this with no plans before them tonight. There is no site plan or anything to judge whether or not the conditional use permit is appropriate, other than one has been requested. The undue hardship language in the variance makes sense and there has been no undue hardship presented tonight. He feels the CUP, while it is legal, is a poor choice for Star to use. This first came before the City two years ago. The City Council has repeatedly discussed getting the development ordinances updated and we have appropriated money specifically to pay our planner to get Star's development codes up to updated. He stated as far as he knows they have not directed him to begin that work. He has urged the Mayor to get this done and believes the development code should be updated by an experienced planner, not by the city attorney and the city clerk. Keyes stated he feels he signed a blank check in approving the Larson property because they granted development rights without knowing what is going to happen there. He thinks Star needs to grow up and stop granting development rights without understanding what is going to happen there. This is potentially a good project but 13 doesn’t have a lot to base good planning information on. When he ran he wanted managed growth, he wanted codes updated and the comp plan updated, and this is happening painfully slowly. He encouraged the developer to bring them more detail, but at this point he doesn’t have enough detail information to be favorably impressed to vote for it. Chadwick stated he is not in favor of the 55’ height, previously it was 45’ height. Chadwick asked Legal Counsel what happens if they don’t approve the conditional use permit for the height waiver. Yorgason stated the CUP can be brought at any time and they will want to check the development agreement to see if it addresses the height also. Chadwick would like to see no more than 45’ because he has not seen the project. He would like to see what the project looks like prior to giving a height variance. He is not in favor of R16, he thinks it is too dense and would like to see a maximum of R13 and 196 units as maximum. He understands they have learned a lot over the last two years; that no permits will be issued, no shovel turned until traffic impact study is done. Those traffic impact studies really will dictate what will happen on this property. He would like 7.7 and 7.8 added to the residential DA that requires a traffic study to be done. Open space and everything there looks good. He is really concerned about the traffic going down Wildbranch, it is designed for failure. The issue is of a stub street to Moyle by previous Council. He believes there needs to be some traffic mitigation, but at the same time I am concerned with the safety of those folks getting out onto State Street. Once the light at Plummer is in that will be the travel of choice. He stated he thought the DA looked pretty good, they put in the DA they would be willing to coordinate with the Heron River HOA and work with ACHD and ITD on traffic flow and mitigation. Gravel extraction needs to have a timeframe and understands they will need to have a conditional use which can stipulate that as well. Nielsen noted currently Star allows annexation and zoning without a site plan. He differs with Keyes in that the applicant shouldn’t be published because we don’t like something that is allowed. The applicant is requesting a decision based on the current law. He stated he also trusts traffic agencies for traffic safety, they have received their recommendation and both have said they have conditions the Applicant will be required to meet. At this point, even going back to the original plan, he would propose going to what Chadwick has read to work with the HOA for a ITD approved solution for the cut through traffic. People have testified they feel the Council doesn’t listen to them, and he feels just the opposite that they have been listening. He stated the 55’ height does not bother him, it is a quarter mile away, if you have a tree in your yard you will not see these buildings. It will also provide a sound buffer from the highway. He has not taken a sexton out to see what the visibility is. It is tucked over by the river and will not be the first thing you will see coming into Star; you will see the commercial building at the intersection, so he is not concerned with the aesthetic of it. Hershey stated first off, he would like to see the 196 units back in. Truthfully he is not a traffic engineer or a developer, but he does love Star and has lived in every environment in Star. He started out in low income apartments and enjoyed it; but these are not those kinds of apartments. He thinks it will be beneficial to Star, but we have time to look at it. He realizes traffic is an issue, and feels traffic goes right on through Star. It bothers him about Wildbranch and he wonders if this can be mitigated; he thinks so. He doesn’t want to block people from getting to a signal light, it is a safety issue. He questioned if 55' height would be a benefit and would like to see more before making a decision. He wished they could get traffic studies first, but didn't believe it was possible without some form of approval. He would like to see density back down to where they previously had it and believes other conditions are taken care of. He's not in favor of approving or denying as he would like to see a little bit more. 14 Nielsen asked Hershey to elaborate more on what he would like to see. Hershey stated he would like to see what a 55’ building looks like. He realizes it's going to be in the back but would like to see something that they can look back at and see this is our building at 55’, at 45’, at 35’. Nielsen asked if maybe they considered the conditional use permit for 55' at a later time with a site plan, would that suffice it. Hershey would like a site plan that everyone can see and have input on. Feels it is critical to address the needs of the citizens, work with Heron River HOA and bring in Paul Larson too as he is part of this now. He doesn’t want to deny for the few things that can't be shown right now, but his biggest concern is traffic. He liked the condition ITD put in. They need to get a firm grasp on traffic. If traffic doesn’t allow them to turn one rock or pull one weed, he will be okay with it and then the site plan should be done and they can see what they are getting into. This sound like a nice project, nice apartments and has great amenities around it. Nielsen stated he too is concerned about the traffic but also concerned about the rights of the applicant in this process and for us to make a decision based upon traffic that is outside our jurisdiction. Keyes stated he didn't know if we are trampling on the applicant’s rights by asking them to bring us a more fully baked plan. Nielsen stated where he was going with that is Star does have a process to bring an application for zoning today. We provide for decisions around traffic by those jurisdictions and also provide for additional hearings. Part of the reason for doing this is it is very expensive to do some of those things. So by granting the annexation and zoning it is so the applicant has financial assurance that they can invest further into the project. Keyes moved to deny the request and the CUP. Legal Counsel pointed out there are several applications and wanted it clarified if he was denying all three applications. It was pointed out there are actually four applications. Keyes amended his motion that they deny all of the applications. Motion dies for a lack of a second. Chadwick brought up Section 7.8 regarding Moyle Avenue and Highway 44 signalization where it states that upon TIS the applicant will provide pro-rata portion for signal light and City will provide a late comers fund. The concern he has is he doesn't think they should have them waiting for a regional TIS. His thought is it should be a result of the traffic impact study that is provided by the applicant at time of providing a preliminary plat. Nielsen stated he understands there are two TIS studies addressed here; the regional one we asked them to participate in so they could create a master plan and the other TIS is required by ITD and ACHD. Chadwick stated he wants it indicated if the TIS indicates a need for signal he would be willing to pay 35% of the cost, cost of portion is not just based on the regional TIS but also by the traffic impact study. If TIS says light needs put in, he pays his portion. Legal Counsel noted that on site specific they may not want it to be the 35%, it should be prorated and not a percentage share. A site specific one - if they go in and say you need to put the light in he's not sure who pays if more than the 35%. He believes the pro-rata share fixes that and it should not be a burden on them for the entire 100% either. He would recommend based on the site specific one, not to have the 35% limitation because some of the site specific improvements could be targeted to only that project. He is fine with the regional one at 35%. He is just saying if adding language for site specific TIS that it should still be the pro-rata share, as this is typically how they are done. But from the City's perspective you do not want to put a limitation incase the site specific warrants a greater percentage. 15 Chadwick asked if they need to work out the language now. Yorgason stated they could use the same language, they would just say they would pay their pro-rata share and not put the 35% cap. Nielsen asked about the late comer's fee. Yorgason stated late comers fee is for if they feel they have overpaid. Taking the wording out does not harm the applicant as they can still request it if they feel they are paying more than their pro-rata share, so later applicants can reimburse them. Chadwick stated this should carry over to both DA’s. Chadwick would like to strike out J8 avoiding any reference to height. This can be done with another conditional use at another time. Yorgason stated they should probably avoid any reference to height in the development agreement; otherwise they would have to come back and amend the development agreement as well. Chadwick asked if they should table or deny that option; Yorgason stated they could do either. If they table they will need to re-notice hearing but they do keep the public hearing open for whatever time. It they deny it then it is done tonight and they can bring that application back whenever they want as the height is the only thing they are talking about in the conditional use. Chadwick stated he would like to see it with some plans. Yorgason pointed out the application is for a rezone and depending on what you rezone it you should have a conversation on whether the rezone complies with your existing comprehensive plan and have those findings referenced on the record. Nielsen stated this application does comply with our Comprehensive Plan which specifically states that this type of development is conducive along the Highway 44 and Highway 16 corridors and is consistent with mixed use designation. Nielsen stated the other thing he wanted to consider is the Larson property which is transitional from residential medium density to high density and commercial located along the highway. He felt this is consistent with the City's goals. Hershey stated he agrees and he really wants it back at an R13 and they have it that traffic studies have to be done for both the commercial and residential sides. The traffic studies need to know what type of dwellings there will be, the numbers and designs that comes with a site plan. They can lock down the R13 and then the traffic studies can be started. Nielsen asked what do they get if they reduce the number, what is the benefit to the City besides a lower density. Hershey stated they comprised at one time and he felt they should stick to it. Chadwick stated he felt 240 is far too high for that area based on traffic counts provided by ACHD. Nielson stated study says they are at 60% of full capacity. Chadwick stated he is not a fan of the 240 units, would like to go with the 196 units per the DA. Yorgason pointed out they cannot do a development agreement before the zoning. He suggested if the zoning R13 is actually less than the total number of units, they might consider going to an R14 but then capping the units using the development agreement. Use the development agreement to be more restrictive on the number of units as an option. Chadwick asked if they approve R14 and the development doesn’t happen is there a timeframe that the development agreement goes away and does it revert back to an R4. Yorgason stated the development agreement does not go away unless you have another public hearing terminating it. The document is recorded and goes with the property. Chadwick moved to approve Rezone File RZ-16-02, rezone to an R14; approve DA-16-01 Residential Development Agreement with zoning classification of 2.1 as R14 not to exceed 196 dwelling units and 16 remove 2.1 J8 referencing building height of 55’, that we add 7.7 and 7.8 to this agreement which references the traffic impact study along with adding 7.7 from the commercial development agreement and amend the site specific signalization at Moyle Avenue and Highway 44 based on the site specific traffic impact study and the owner agrees to contribute his pro-rata cost when signal is warranted, as well as 7.8 in its entirety; and approve DA-16-02 Commercial Development Agreement in its entirety, Nielsen seconded the motion. Keyes stated that for all of Star, this Council needs to do better. He doesn't object to this project but he encouraged the Council to vote no and have the applicant bring back a more fully baked and clean package. Chadwick asked what the legal basis for denying is, if the application follows our code there has to be a legal reason to vote no. Keyes stated he does not have enough information to vote yes, especially on the 55’. Chadwick said they removed the 55'. Keyes stated that the ITD letter states they do not support this, and on the basis of that they could not support this. Chadwick suggested he read the letter from ITD; it is approved with a condition. Hershey wanted to clarify they are looking at 196 units, they will have to do traffic impact studies before anything can happen, and we have complete and open public input on site development and also they are willing to work with Heron River and Paul Larson. He just wanted to be sure traffic studies get done. Motion carried three to one: Keyes voted nay. Chadwick moved to deny File CU-18-03 the Conditional Use Permit, Nielsen seconded the motion. All ayes; motion carried. Ordinance No. 279 Eagle Christian Church Annexation and Zoning: Chadwick 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. 279 be considered after reading once by title only, Nielsen seconded the motion. Roll Call: Hershey – aye, Keyes – aye, Chadwick – aye, Nielsen – aye: motion carried. Chadwick moved to approve Ordinance No. 279 an Ordinance annexing to the City of Star certain real property owned by the Eagle Christian Church, located at 100 Short Lane, in the unincorporated area of Ada County, Idaho, and contiguous to the City of Star; establishing the zoning classification of the annexed property as residential (R10) of approximately 23.217 acres; directing that certified copies of this Ordinance be filed as provided by law; and providing an effective date, Nielsen seconded the motion. All ayes: motion carried. Agendas & Council Items: Keyes stated that with regards to our agendas, our ordinances are silent on agenda items. He wants to be able to put items on the agenda for Council discussion. Nielsen asked why the Council doesn’t adopt a Resolution for presentation at the next meeting. Keyes will have that prepared. 17 Reports: Staff: Ward stated that she has been working with Canyon County regarding the issues with gravel, dust and noise. Council - Chadwick was invited to give a presentation to 75 kids. He and the Mayor are working with ITD and making progress with them. Keyes stated he has been attending the Air Quality Board and they are making progress. The City sign is coming along, there are three signs. Ward asked what the time frame was, Keyes stated there is no time frame. Hershey stated there was nothing to report from the Fire meeting. Adjournment: The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 10:55 pm. Approved: ____________________________ Charlten Bell, Mayor Respectfully Submitted: ________________________ Cathy Ward, City Clerk 18