Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables Starling Springs annexation; asks developer to revise PUD, buffers and water coordination
Summary
After lengthy testimony from ranching neighbors and technical Q&A, the council voted to table the Starling Springs annexation and PUD application indefinitely and directed the applicant to remove the PUD element, rethink courtyard cluster lots, remove private-street proposals, add rural-design buffers and work with the Eureka Canal Company on water and easement issues.
The City of Star on April 15 tabled the annexation, rezoning and planned-unit development package for the proposed Starling Springs subdivision and directed the applicant and staff to address multiple outstanding issues raised by the council and neighbors.
The developer, represented by Nicolette Womack of Kimberly‑Horn and Toll Brothers representatives, proposed a conceptual master plan for a 129.39‑acre project with 345 single‑family lots (gross density 2.66 units per acre), a small office/commercial node, and a gated private‑street enclave of roughly 36 acres containing 77 units. The presentation emphasized open space, more than the required amenity package and a variety of housing products, including a “courtyard” cluster product with reduced setbacks.
Neighbors — many from long‑established ranching families — raised consistent concerns that cluster/courtyard lots proposed on the project’s eastern boundary are too close to active livestock operations. Speakers representing the Phillips and Dancer families, as well as the Eureka Water Company, flagged three interrelated practical issues: (1) livestock and agricultural operations bordering new, smaller residential lots increase the risk of nuisance complaints and operational conflicts; (2) the site’s irrigation is served by a dam‑up schedule (Eureka Water Company) that limits when surface water is available and requires careful pond/storage design and IDWR coordination; and (3) fencing and buffer detail are essential to prevent animal trespass and protect operations. The applicant acknowledged those concerns and said it would consider moving cluster lots inward and adding buffers, and that final water/pond design would be resolved with the canal company and IDWR during engineering and preliminary‑plat review.
Council members said the PUD mechanism in this case raises entitlements (reduced setbacks and private‑street approvals) without sufficient detail and asked the applicant to return with a revised submittal. Councilman Nielsen moved and the council voted to table the application indefinitely, directing the applicant to remove the PUD element, rethink the courtyard/cluster product placement, remove private streets, produce a rural‑design element for inclusion in the development agreement, and work with the Eureka Canal Company on water and easements.
The council’s tabling preserves the applicant’s ability to revise and refile but stops the entitlement process until the applicant and staff return with the specified changes and additional studies.
