HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPPLICATION & DOCS - 05-00221 - Humarock Cove Condos - Preliminary Platt
~ V.,7 ~~221
~""c.
~ Htinlarock Cove Condominiums
o~ ~o °
,, __ ~ d ~~ m ..
V ~ 0 ~ ncxuuiy,iu°nu ooYY~
~ ' Phone (208)359-3020
~s~ -1~~ STATE OF IDAHO fax (208) 359-3022
geC1SHE0 a-mail rexburg@srv.net
Site Plan Checklist File Number:
Applicant Information
Applicant: l-~U~,¢2~G /~ 1~~~ ~'y~z~J~°~c~v7 Phone: ~'O/~ - Z~~-' ~~l'S
~ Owner ^ Purchaser ^ Lessee
Applicant's Address: ~-/(l ~ 3 r.~, l~~w,~~~ ~ ,j-? S~ ~,,Q~~ (•l1. Zip: ~Y~ ~S~
Recorded Owner: _ /r?s G r~f ACC C Nn ~, ~~~~~/•, ~j'(J Phone: ~Q /- za l - rd y,~
Recorded Owner Address: /d7z5 ~J, Gnn/~rrC~~5,~~?it/~C FAX: ~''0'- ~/y-2/Z3
c ~~~-~ ,~:~ ct~~ , ~ Y ~ yv6
Development Information Project Name: l~~~A~oc~~ L~v~ ~,~~o~~ti~~•~J-
Property Address:
^~ 1. Site plan must be drawn to scale, be legible and also be submitted electronically if possible.
~ 2. Adjoining streets labeled.
~'~- 3. Right -of-way location and width, curb to curb widths and sidewalk location.
C~'' 4. Building location, sq footage and dimensions, with distance to property lines.
~' 5. Show existing and proposed easements.
~ 6. Existing utilities (waterlines, sanitary sewer lines, manholes, storm drains).
~ 7. Proposed utilities including tie in location to existing services and new easements.
~- 8. Proposed storm drain and sanitary sewer elevations (for pipe inverts at manholes and catch
basins).
C~'"^ 9. Storm drainage plan for parking lot and roof areas, with calculations.
~ 10. Fire hydrants and fire suppression lines (including tie to City lines).
^ Sprinkled ^ Not Sprinkled
d 1 1. Parking (including parking lot, drainage arrows, dimension of lot, distance between rows,
and total numbers).
® 12. Landscaping (type and total area, including dimensionsl.
® 13. Trash facilities.
d 14. North Arrow
d 15. Drawing to Scale, including a graphic scale (11 % x 17" paper if possible).
~ 16. Proposed street improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, pavement, etc.)
~ 17. Legal description of proposed building site included.
L~ 18. Percent of lot covered by building or paving calculated.
~ 19. Show 10% snow storage area.
^ 20. Distance of entrances from street corner indicated.
~ 21. Current Vicinity Map. (8 % x 1 1 ") at 1 " = 300' scale, showing location of the property.
'NOTE: SITE PLANS MUST BE COMPLETE AND SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BEFORE THE PROJECT WILL
BE PLACED ON THE PLANNING & ZONING AGENDA.
• •
~Plag a~.d caning Co~n~.isszoIl
Clay O~ ~£X~3III'g
Subdivision Applicafion
` Qarta.\ ~ : ~'Q(LV~TATd3QSb~~
Annlication for Approval of Preliminary Subdivision Plat
The attached Subdivision plan has been prepared in accordance with the Subdivision
Regulations of the City of Rexburg, and the following items are shown on the plan or plans, or
explanations given with respect thereto. -
Requirements for Preliminary Plats-
All. Preliminary plats shall be 24" x 36" foldable, drawn to scale, North point, dated.
The following Shall be shown on the PreliminaryPlat or shall be submitted separately:
1. The name of the proposed subdivision. ~-~u,.t, ,g ~ p ~ << ~0 d~ ~~~t/ OOn-t ~~r/~~ ~~"
2_ The Location
Acreage Number of Lots ~
3. The names, addresses and telephane numbers of the subdivider or subdividers and the
engineer or surveyor who prepared the plat:
Subdivider
Engineer-
Surveyor
Name Address Phone Numbers
4. The name and address of all property owners within 300 feet of the external boundaries
of the subdivision whether or not bisected by a public right-of-way as shown on record in
the County Assessor's office. -Place on Preliminary Plat_
5. The legal description of the subdivision. -Place on Preliminary Plat.
6. A statement of the intended use of the roposed subdivision such as: Residential -
(single family, two family and multiple housing; Commercial, Industrial, Recreational or
Agricultural. Show sites proposed for parks, playgrounds, schools, ch2irches or other public
areas. {!~u c 7 ~,oc G 15~Otc ~ .Y~vG
7. A map of the entire area scheduled for development if the proposed subdivision is a
portion of a larger holding intended for subsequent development.
~k e
8. A vicinity rsau show~.g the relationship of the proposed plat to the surrounding area (-/2
mile of rnini-tr~um radius, scale optional).
9. The land use and existing zoning of the proposed subdivision and the adjacent land_
10. Does subdivision conform to present zoning? y/f
11. Requested zoning ---
12. Variance Requested. Yes _No ~ (If yes, attach written request}
13 _ Requesting annexation to City?
14. Streets, Street names, rights-off =Tay, and roadway v~dths, including ~adyorn~.ng streets or
roadways, curbs and sidewalks Usi/ /f~,~t, ~vy~~,z> z~ //1~'~'o J 7~2t~f`T
15. Lot lines and blocks showing the dimensions and numbers of each.
,~
16. Co~itour lines, shown at five (5) feet intervals where land slope is greater than ten
percent (10%) and at two (2) feet intervals where land slope is ten percent (10%) or less,
referenced to an established bench mark, including location and elevation.
17. A site report as required by the appropriate health district where individual wells or
septic tanks are proposed, this sha11 be in the form of a letter. .
13. Any nrocosed or existing utilities including, but not limited to, storm and sanitary
sewers, imgation laterals, ditches, drains, bridges, culverts, water mains, fire hydrants,
power, gas, street lights and their respective profiles and easements.
l9. public sew vices and othei depa.-~nents. approvai: (signatures necessary}
a. water f_ City Engineer
b. sewer g. Planning Commission
c. fire and police h. City Council_
d. electric and/or gas
e. street and traffic
20_ A copy of any proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictians. (To be attached
or submitted with final plat)
21. Any dedications to the public and/or easements, together with a statement of location,
dimensions, and purpose of such_
~ e=
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION-
22..Probable impact of the proposed project on the environment effect on:
a. Public safety and convenience
b_ fire, police, and ambulance services
c. Recreation
d. Schools
e. Displacement or relocation. of people
f Land values
g. Local and long-distance travel, i.e., highway and Local rt~ad impact
h. Behavior of wildlife species
_ I. Water quality aid effect on underground water supply
j. Method proposed to dispose of sewage
~. Noise pollution
1. Air poll,1tion
m. Solid waste disposal system proposed
n, ~eth~d prnpngeri to d1sp~Se fo st ~~ drainage ~Jaters
o. Extent of increased city road maintenance, including snow removal
p. Flood plain-methods pr~osed to alle~i.ate_e~fect~flQO Xe_ar-flood effect-on-adj.aeent _ _
properties i
q. Provisions for housing for persons of low and moderate income
x. Harmony with the character of surrounding developments
23. Probable adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided
a. Traffic usage
b. Rigfits-of--way required
c. Pollution effect on existing environment
24. Relationship between local short-term uses of man's economic environment and the
long term productivity.
a. Existing vs. proposed tax base
b. Costs to City il~proposai approved (annual)
25. Measures taken to minimise harmful effects on environment
a. Effects of construction activities
b. Erosion control
c. Stream pollution prevention
d Borrow pit rehabilitation
e. Fencing
f. Buffer zones
g. Replacement of parklands or farmlands
26. Is this plat plan harmonious with and in accordance with the general objectives or with
any specif c obj ective of the City's. Comprehensive Plan.? _ -
t,k
~ Fe
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
1. Da#e received
2. Da#e of P & Z action
3. Action taken by P & Z
4. Da#e Madison County Surveyor Fees paid -(Resolution No. 249 -May 13, 2002)
paid as follows: Make check payable to (Madison County)
a) Subdivisions with ~-10 lots $250.00 Date
b) S~~bdivisions yr+h 7 ~ _25 to#s $500.00 Date
c) Subdivisions with 25 or more to#s $1,000.00 Date
5. Date of Council action
5. Action taken by City
7. Date of final plat approval P & Z
8. Water and sewer approval State Health
City Council
DISTRICT SEI~ENHEALTHDEPARTMENT
3l4 N 3rd E
Rexburg, Id. 83445
4
Phone 208-356-3239 Fax 208-356-4496
Application Fee $25.00 One Copy of Plat Required
II. SANITARY RESTRICTION PROCEDURES.
The Environmental Health Specialist should have placed on the final plat the sanitary
restriction(s) or a certificate of approval removing sanitary restrictions in accordance with I.C.
50-1326. -
A. Certificate of approval removing sanitary restrictions. The REHS should only sign a plat
removing sanitary restrictions when:
1. Proposed developments with individual water and sewer. He/she is satisfied a111ots
on the plat can have an individual water and individual sewer system, which will meet
all applicable requirements. DEQ has not submitted any letters of concern, or if there
have been issues of concern from DEQ, that those issues have been resolved. *Note*
If special conditions, septic or water apply to a particular lot or lots then those
conditions should be addressed on the pla#_or referenced. to a "Certificate o_f Approval"
letter. '
2. Proposed developments with public water and central sewer. When a certificate of
approval from DEQ recommending release of sanitary restrictions has been received.
3. Proposed developments connecting to existing public water and sewer systems. When
a letter or statement of approval has been received from the municipality.
4_ Proposed developments within impact zone of a municipality. Before issuing a
certificate of approval for any developments within, the impact area of a municipality
the REHS must have an approval letter from that municipalitylcity (I.C. 50-1306).
B. Proposed deveio~ment with sanitary restrictions to be placed on ylat. LC, 50-1326 allows
certificate of approval to be issued for the whole subdivision or a portion thereof.
Developers requesting a certificate of approval for only a portion of the development must
be subnutted to a subdivision committee comprised of the Environmental Health Director,
Supervisor and field EHS. This committee will then review the proposal and make a
determination regarding the placing of sanitary restrictions on the plat.
C. Re-impose sanitary restrictions. The EHS should re-impose sanitary restrictions if
construction is not in compliance with approved plans and specifications. If a subdivision,
which has had sanitary restrictions previously removed, has not been developed and it -
appears cannot meet today's regulations or requirements, sanitary. restrictions may be re-
imposed. Prior to re-imposition of any sanitary restrictions, the matter shall be submitted
to a subdivision committee comprised of the Environmental Health Director, Supervisor,
field EHS and a representative from DEQ.
C - ( January 22, 2Q03
Jul 14 05 11:46a
Jul. 6. 2005 4:37PM
SCHIESS & RSSOC.
[2081522-9232
fte. C891 P. 2 ,
Preliminary/Final Plat O5'~
Z21
Applie tion for Annroval of Preliminary Subdivision Plat
P. s
The attached Subdivision plan has been prepared in accordance with the Subdivision ltegulation~-
of the City of Rexburg, and the following items are shown on the plan or plans, or explanations given
with respect thereto.
Requirements for Preliminary Plats
All Preliminary Plats shall be 24' x 36' foldable, drawn to scale, North point, dated.
The following shall be shown on the Preliminary Plat or shall be submitted separately:
1. The name of the proposed subdivision; ~~/"~~~°~~ ~~~ ~ •~~'~~ ~~"` S
2. The location o-c - .S'F Acreage ~•q O Number of hots
3. The names, addresses and telephone numbers of the subdivider or subdividers and the
engineer or surveyor who prepared the plat:
Subdivider / _
Name• S~7~Ve- Address: ~s 3 w ~-~ws~..(< <S~c~ek -
Phone Number: mil- (- 769 s Cell Number:
u g4~5
Engineer n
Name: -5-~.~ss ~ ASSoe~. Address: ~~ rl a'~~E Sa;~ las r~~~~25
Phone Number: 3 S (o - ~o9a- Cell Number: 709 - ~ '~7 ~
Surveyor
Name: ~~e~ss ~SS~ . Address:
Phone Number: Cell Number:
4. The name and address of all property owners within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the
subdivision whether or not bisected by apublicright-of--way as shown on record in the County
Assessor's office.
5. The legal description of the subdivision.
Jul 14 05 11:46a
Jul. 6, 200 4:31PM
SCHIESS & RSSOC.
(208)522-9232
No. 0891 P. ?
6. A statement of the intended use of the proposed subdivision, such as: Residcntial - (single
family, two-family and multiple housing}; Commercial, Industrial, Recreational or Agricultural.
Show sites proposed for /parks, playgrounds, schools, churches or other public areas.
Cortc~w• ~ I ~~ S
7. A map of the entire area scheduled for development if the proposed subdivision is a portion-®€
a larger holding intended for subsequent development.
8. A vicinity map showing the relationship of the proposed plat to the surrounding area (l/2 mile
of minimum radius, scale optional).
9. Streets, street names, rights-of--way, and roadway widths, including adjoining streets or
roadways, curbs and sidewalks.
10. Lot lines and blocks showing. the dimensions and numbers of each.
11. Contour lines, shown at five (5) feet intervals where land slope is greater than ten percent
(10%) and at two (2) feet intervals where land slope is ten percent (l0%) or less, referenced to an
established bench mark, including location and elevation.
12. Andproposed or existing uti ities, including, but not limited to, storm and saniiery sewers,
imgation laterals, ditches, drains, bridges, culverts, water mains, fire hydrants, power, gas, street
lights and their respective profiles and easements.
13. A copy of any proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions. {To be attached or
submitted with final plat).
14. Any dedications to the public and/or easements, together with a statement of location,
dimensions, and purpose of such.
Please complete the following: (If not applicable, please fi1L in with N/A)
1. What is the land use and existing zoning of the proposed subdivision and the adjacent land?
.S°l> 2
2. Does subdivision conform to present zoning?
Requested coning: /~ l/k
4. Variance Requested: Yes No ~ (If yes, attach written request)
p.7
5. Requesting annexation to City? /`~ ~
.3~a ~~~ g
___
~s5c~- j /-Fc,~,~tcc.wc~c,C
C~h~L
~~
~~~
~ ~
Mayor Larsen reviewed the crossing for the Rail Road on 5"' West. He indicated that it
was an area that needed a sidewalk for pedestrian traffic.
Planning and Zoning Administrator Hibbert reviewed the possibility of improving the
crossing of the tracks by making a side road going south to Trejo Street from the Bagley
property. He confirmed that the abandonment was recommended by Planning and
Zoning.
Council Member Benfield confirmed that Terry owned the land on both sides of the
street that would be vacated.
Council Member Benfield moved to vacate the Street area in Division One of Trejo
Professional Park as requested contingent upon the completion of a sidewalk on 5~' West
in front of Division One; Council Member Fullmer seconded the motion; all voted aye,
none opposed. The motion carried.
L. Preliminary Plat for Trejo Professional Park Division No. 2: Kurt Roland from
Schiess and Associates.
Council Member Erickson moved to approve the Preliminary Plat for Trejo
Professional Park Division No. 2; Council Member Fullmer seconded the motion; all
voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried.
M. Preliminary Plat for Humarock Cove Condominiums: Kurt Roland from Schiess
and Associates.
The City Council discussed the location as being across the street to the south of the
Bagley development on Trejo Street. There are not any parking structures for this
development. Parking will be behind the structures. This is a zero lot line development.
The Design Standards will be met by having decking on all three levels of the structure.
The building must change every forty feet to break up the straight line of the structure.
The Final Plat will require Design Standards review.
Council Member Erickson moved to approve the Preliminary Plat for Humarock Cove
Condominiums subject to Staff approval and the approval of the Design Review
Committee; Council Member Young seconded the motion; Discussion: Council Member
Fullmer was concerned with the snow storage area for the development. Planning and
Zoning Administrator Hibbert explained that there is snow storage available on the Plat.
All voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried.
N. Resolution 2005-13 (ITD Aeronautics Grant for Project No. 3-16-0031-008)
or (F058240 in the Development of the Rexburg-Madison County Airport)
Council Member Fullmer moved to approve Resolution 2005-13; Council Member
Erickson seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried.
F. ITD Division of Aeronautics Grant Agreement (2.5% of project cost, $3,947 Max.)
Lighting
The Council discussed the need for the City to participate in the grant for a cost of
$3,947.
Council Member Erickson moved to authorized the Mayor to sign the agreement for the
City; Council Member Anderson seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed.
The motion carried.
Calendared Bills and Tabled Items:
A. First Reading: Those items which are being introduced for first reading. -NONE
B. Second Reading: Those items which have been first read. -NONE
C. Third Reading: Those items which have been second read.
10
1. BILL 939 Revisions No. 1 Development Code -Deferred to a future
meeting
D. Tabled Items: Those items which have been the subject of an affirmative vote to a
motion to table:
1. Resolution 2004-22 (Adoption of Vision 2020 Rexburg Comprehensive Plan
Text -Tabled November 03, 2004)
Old Business:
O. Resolution 2000-03 Policy discussion concerning connections to the City water
and/or wastewater system
Mayor Larsen reviewed the Resolution which prohibits the extension of services outside
the City. He referred to Quail Hollow as an example of a Subdivision that was affected
by this policy. Policy Discussion: The Widdison Addition annexation and future
development in other areas of the Community was reviewed. He asked if there was an
interest in changing the policy on a case by case basis. The Quail Hollow development
wanted to be served with the City. They were willing to pay on the pumping station. The
Community is going to grow in the future and the City should be ready to accept growth
that will impact the City with these new developments.
Mayor Larsen discussed the possibility of having an agreement to pay for the surcharge
for services and then sign a letter stating they would be annexable when they became
contiguous to the City. He reviewed an example in the City of Ucon that extended
services outside the City for a self help housing development.
City Attorney Zollinger offered the Boise example where residents signed letters of
intent to be annexed; however, a law suite caused the services outside the City to be a
problem. This Resolution was a product of that lawsuit. He indicated that the
Resolutions were a stop gap measure.
Chris Huskinson has requested services from the City to a three home development just
outside the City near Quail Hollow. He indicated that the City sewer was within three
hundred feet of his development.
The City Council discussed the location and the request to connect to City services.
Council Member Fullmer indicated that it was the right thing to do this.
Council Member Fullmer moved to abandoned Resolution 2000-03; Council Member
Benfield seconded the motion; Discussion: The driving force for the Resolution was for a
state-wide concern that the Cities would get caught like Rexburg Heights. Rexburg
Heights has City services outside of the City. Council Member Fullmer reviewed the
past City Council discussions of this problem. The City Council decision was if they
want the services then they need to be in the City. City Attorney Zollinger indicated
that anyone that is provided with City water and sewer are statutorily agreeable to be
annexed per the new State Code. Council Member Erickson asked if there had been
any attempt to get the other properties in the North Hill Road area annexed. Chris asked
them and they did not want to be annexed except for a couple of them. Council Member
Fullmer mentioned that it may set a precedent by giving one property owner permission
to have services and denying other properties later. City Attorney Zollinger indicated
that the services belong to the City; therefore, the City has the right to allow services at
the City's discretion. The City Council passed a Resolution which implies to residents
"Don't even ask." Council Member Erickson compared Rexburg Heights request for
City services to Chris Huskinson's request for services. City Attorney Zollinger
indicated that Rexburg Heights came to the City as an entire community under duress and
the City responded. This request comes from a single property owner to get City
services which is an advantage for the City. As Mayor Larsen pointed out with Quail
Hollow; it was a mistake to refuse to offer services to them because they installed twenty
septic systems upstream from the City water system. Planning and Zoning
Administrator Hibbert indicated that Chris does not have a problem with annexation
into the City. City Attorney Zollinger indicated that it was a political decision. He gave
the example of Rexburg Heights being statutorily annexable if the City wanted them in
the City; however, the City Council has elected to defer that decision into the future.
11
Council Member Erickson indicated that he does not have a problem with it if we make
it known that Chris is an employee of the City. He wanted to make certain that people
know that it is available to others. Chris is paying for the services. City Attorney
Zollinger mentioned that this discussion is to decide whether to eliminate the restrictive
policy for providing services outside of the City. Mayor Larsen indicated that it is a
policy decision that should be reviewed on a case by case basis. City Attorney
Zollinger indicated that if the Resolution is voided, then Public Works Director Millar
could entertain other applications for services outside the City upon approval by City
Council. Council Member Young asked for clarification on the lack of a policy if the
Resolution is rescinded. Do we need another resolution?
Mayor Larsen recommended a new Resolution before future requests for services
outside the City could be entertained. He called for a vote on the motion to rescind
Resolution 2000-03.
All voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried.
City Attorney Zollinger referred to another Resolution concerning this same issue.
Mayor Larsen asked the City Clerk to look up the 2"d Resolution for the next meeting.
P. Employee Handbook update -Richard Horner
Mayor Larsen reviewed past history for the handbook. He asked the Staff to remove all
old handbooks.
Council Member Young moved to approve new Employee Handbook and destroy all of
the old handbooks. Council Member Anderson seconded; all voted aye, none opposed.
The motion carried.
Q. Impact Area Discussion:
Council Member Benteld requested the City Council make a strong presentation to
demonstrate the City's position.
The City Council discussed the County proposal on the Impact area with Sugar City.
The Committee of Nine was a possibility to resolve the dispute; however, the City
Council was desirous to work with the County and Sugar City to resolve the impasse.
Mayor Larsen mentioned one option available to the City is to accept the County's
proposal. He indicated that a letter from the City could convey the City Council's
recommendations.
Council Member Young moved to write letter of acceptance for the County's plan as
presented with respect to all areas that are not in dispute with the Sugar City Impact area;
Council Member Erickson seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed.
The motion carried.
Mavor's Report•
1. LTAC Report from Tom Cole from Idaho Transportation Department is
pending on Hwy 33.
2. Certificate of Appreciation from the CITY OF REXBURG to Doug Andrus
Distributing for services rendered to the Gulf Coast States.
Some of the participating businesses include K-Mart, Cargoes Pizza,
Albertsons, Artco, BYU-I, and the Standard journal.
Calendar
1. Levy meeting tomorrow night
2. 23`d of September luncheon at the Burton School
3. 26~' of September Community Press Conference at 1:30 Middle School
4. 29~' of September Madison Community Council Luncheon
5. 30~' of September Work meeting with Ted Hendricks, the City Council, and
County Commissioners concerning the CDBG applications (Downtown
Revitalization application and the Development Workshop application)
12
•
October O5~' City Council
October 26~' 6:00 pm Open House for the Levy information
then City Council at 7:30 instead of City Council on the 19~' of October.
Adjournment
Attest:
Shawn Larsen, Mayor
Blair D. Kay, City Clerk
13
~~~
7
•
- _ - -CITY OF --__ _ -
REXB[..IIZG
.AMERICAS FAh11LY CJ,WvlUhrrY
STATE OF IDAHO )
ss
County of Madison )
u
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
September 21, 2005
7:30 P.M. City Council
Mayor:
Council Members:
Mayor Shawn Larsen
Vacancy
Donna Benfield
Nyle Fullmer
Rex Erickson
G. Farrell Young
Irma Anderson
Financial Officer Richard Horner
P&Z Administrator: Kurt Hibbert
City Clerk: Blair D. Kay
PFC: John Millar
City Attorney: Stephen Zollinger
Pledge to the Fla¢
Roll Call of Council Members: -One position is vacant. Council Member Fullmer arrived a
few minutes late.
Mayor Larsen welcomed the Scouts to the meeting.
Consent Calendar: The consent calendar includes items which require formal
City Council action; however, they are typically routine or not of great controversy.
Individual Council members may ask that any specific item be removed from the consent
calendar for discussion in greater detail. Explanatory information is included in the City
Council's agenda packet regarding these items.
A. Minutes for September 07, 2005 meeting.
B. Approve the City of Rexburg Bills.
Council Member Erickson moved to approve the Consent Calendar; Council Member
Anderson seconded the motion. Discussion: Council Member Benfield indicated that on page
three, Center Street was closed for the "Rexburg Un-plugged" event instead of Carlson Avenue.
All voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried.
Public Comment: Issues not scheduled on the agenda. (limit 3 minutes) -NONE
Presentations•
A. Introduction of Mayor's Youth Advisory Board 2005/2006 school year.
Karlie Stark introduced the MYAB to the City Council -Amanda Reynolds is the
advisor for the youth group. The members are as follows:
Ashley Smith Jordyn Bochenek David Wang Mike Smith
Austin Weeks Karlie Stark Hyrum Hansen Rick Hoffmann
Braydn Larsen Kylie Peterson Jacob Thatcher Tyler Blanchard
Casey Price Max Black Janae Hammond
Karlie Stark -Chairman Vice Chairman -Jacob Thatcher
Secretary -Mike Smith Historian -Jordyn Bochenek
Treasurer -Tyler Blanchard
Council Member Fullmer arrived at the meeting.
• •
Mayor Larsen indicated that there are fifteen members of the MYAB. These young
people submitted applications to the Mayor's Office to be considered for the MYAB.
Council Member Benfield moved to approve the fifteen members of the Mayor's Youth
Advisory Board; Council Member Young seconded the motion; all voted aye, none
opposed. The motion carried.
Mayor Larsen indicated that all of the students (past and current) will receive a school
credit for their work on the MYAB. They toured City Hall, and the Fire Station at their
meeting tonight.
B. Karlie Stark -National Youth Summit (America's Promise)
Karlie Stark served on the MYAB last year. She attended the National Youth Summit at
Washington DC recently. She reported to the Council about her experiences in
Washington DC. Mandy de Castro from Association of Idaho Cities attended the Youth
Summit with Karlie.
Karlie Stark reported at the Convention on the Rexburg's MYAB and how it operated.
The groups at the Convention did posters showing their vision of how they planned to
serve in Government. They were able to attend workshops. They learned that the youth
need to be active in school activities and become volunteers in the Community. She saw
the sites in Washington DC. It was a good experience. She was glad she got to go.
Mayor Larsen indicated that the trip to Washington, D.C. was funded through
America's Promise. MYAB will come up with ideas to get other schools (Junior High &
Middle School) involved in service projects.
Committee Liaison Reports:
C. Council Member Young: Downtown Vision Rexburg Arts Council:
The Rexburg Community Orchestra is growing. Their fame is growing. They are practicing
for a concert event in November. The new floor on the stage looks really good. Gwen
Harris, Roger Harris, and Margaret Arnold have been involved with the project.
Roger Harris Debra and Slade Lovejoy from the City have done a lot of the work on
the project. It is a wonderful addition. Mayor Larsen reviewed the Arts fee from
construction projects consisting of a 2.25 percent fee for the advancement of the Arts in
Rexburg. The Art projects are subject to the approval of the Arts Council and the
Beautification Committee. Council Member Benfield mentioned that the story-telling event
was sponsored by the City at the Tabernacle. It was really good. Council Member Anderson
commented on the possibility of combining the Arts Council and the Tabernacle Board.
Mayor Larsen recommended consolidating those two committees. Council Member
Anderson will work to that end. That effort would make a Tabernacle and Upper Valley
Cultural Arts Council. The other committee would be the Museum Committee made up of
the Historical Committee and the Museum Committee. The Downtown Vision Committee
needs some support.
D. Council Member Benfield: Beautifrcation Traffic & Safety
The Beautification Committee has completed their bylaws. The sign is close to
completion at the new Evergreen Kiwanis Park that is a Welcome to Rexburg sign.
Mayor Larsen mentioned the proposed changes to the City Seal to simplify the City
Logo. The sign needs stone-work. The flower baskets are a success on Main Street.
Mayor Larsen reviewed the donation of $4,000 from a Kiwanis Club grant from
United Way that will be matched by the Kiwanis Club to be used for Evergreen
Kiwanis Park projects.
Traffic Safety is working on a proposal to close a road in the Millhollow Mobile Home Pazk
They discussed the parking on 2nd East and taking off parking on the west side of 2"d East.
Crosswalks were also discussed on 2"d East. The next meeting will be concerning a
crosswalk proposal from the University.
Spirit Week events starting October 11 will include a torch parade and a relay. The
University would like a Community Team with thirty people on each team.
C. Council Member Erickson: Airport Board ~ Planning & Zoning
The Planning group has applications for two new churches in the City. One church is
on 7~' North near the Stonebridge Subdivision and the other one is on Mariah Avenue.
The church on Mariah Avenue is a BYU-I church for a Student Stake Center with
eight to twelve wards.
D. Vacancy: Golf Board
The City Council discussed the future plans for Teton Lakes Golf Course. The plan
to build a new nine hole interior golf course is slowing due to the loss of revenue
from the Sunbird golfers. The land for the new golf course was purchased with funds
($50,000) from the Teton Lakes Golf Course. The future plans for financing the
expansion of the golf course were discussed. Revenue Bonds were one possibility
for financing the project.
E. Council Member Fullmer: Emergency Services Board
Nothing to report.
F. Council Member Anderson: Museum Tabernacle Parks & Recreation
Marsha Bjorn resigned from Chairman of the Museum Committee. Mazsha plans to continue
to be a member of the Museum Committee. The Board will seek a replacement for Mazsha.
Mayor Lazsen indicated that there were two grants (CHC Grant & a Beatification Grant
through ITD) for landscaping the entry ways into Rexburg.
G. Mayor Larsen: Trails of Madison County ~ Mayor's Youth Advisory Board. Nothing from
the Trails Committee. (see previous discussion for the MYAB.)
2. Report on Projects: John Millar
A. Roundabout lights due in three weeks. Landscaping bids are due Friday for the
Roundabout on Fourth South. The sprinkling systems are in for the Roundabout and
the adjoining properties.
B. Animal shelter building is going to bid next Friday. It will be built this year.
C. Sunset Circle street project was awarded to Zollinger Construction. They were the
low bidder out of five bidders.
D. There is minor landscaping being done on the North Hill Road.
E. New Sanitation Truck will be delivered next week.
F. The Splash Park is designed and the concrete bids are coming soon. Cement is being
scheduled as it becomes available. The supply is being rationed.
G. The restroom building at the Splash Park is under design. The costs are going up
with construction planned in the Spring of 2006.
H. Evergreen Park fence is up with rock faces coming soon.
I. The Welcome Sign to Rexburg at the Evergreen Kiwanis Park has been erected. The
City is waiting for rock work to be completed.
The City Council discussed the possibility of a grant for the Animal Shelter. John
mentioned that the Animal Shelter furnishings and fixtures could be done separately on a
grant.
The City Council discussed the possibilities for the Westwood Theatre. There have been
requests to use the Theatre for films etc. The heating and plumbing equipment was
discussed for the building. The plumbing pipes were frozen a few years ago.
Mayor Larsen indicated that University groups are looking for capstone projects.
Council Member Benfield reported that there are several areas in the City without street
lighting due to a lack of street light maintenance. Public Works Director Millar will
check the street lights to make sure they are working. The lights for Smith Park have
been delivered.
The City Council discussed Hidden Valley Park. Public Works Director Millar will have
the sprinkler lines in by the end of October. The water project on North Hill Road is
progressing. This project will close offthe Rexburg Ditch in that area. It will be diverted
through Barney's property to the Canal.
• i
Public Hearings:
7:40 p.m. Annexation of four parcels including Rexburg Heights Subdivision
Mayor Larsen asked Planning and Zoning Administrator Kurt Hibbert to report on the
annexation proposal. Kurt reviewed the separate parcels that are part of the public
hearing tonight. It went through the Planning and Zoning process. The Planning and
Zoning Commission gave a recommendation to send these parcels forward on to the City
Council for consideration.
Mayor Larsen opened the Public Hearing.
Those in favor of the proposal:
Kenneth Burt at 1339 Meadowview Avenue in the Rexburg Heights Subdivision
indicated that he was in favor of the annexation proposal. The petition that the
neighborhood submitted to the City concerning some concessions for snow removal,
safety issues, and taxes was important. If the City annexes their area, they wanted those
concerns addressed.
Kenneth indicated that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the City
Council give some relief to the neighborhood by refunding the thirty percent surcharge
on their water & sewer services back to Apri101, 2005. As he has talked to different
people about the annexation, they seem to feel that it is the natural thing to do because the
City is growing to the south. The City needs to plan for the growth in the Rexburg
Heights area. He agreed with that position; however, he indicated that the annexation
could have happened earlier in the year before the summer watering season. He
mentioned that the savings on the water bills would not have changed the Cities tax
assessment for the year. He is looking forward to working with the City.
Attorney Richard Smith at 654 Harvest Drive, (representing BYU-I) informed the
Council of 2 items.
1) The University is not driving this annexation proposal. They are neutral in the
proposal; however, they will continue to use the Erickson farm as agricultural.
2) The new road called University Boulevard is going to be constructed in the area,
so the annexation of the University property is the prudent thing to do for wise
City planning.
Council Member Young asked Mr. Smith if the farm is using City water. Mr. Smith
indicated that the Erickson farm has anunder-ground private well.
Todd Smith at 850 West 5000 South, requested annexation due to an emergency hook up
to City sewer for two parcels on 5`s West. He was in favor of the proposed annexation.
Those neutral to the proposal: -NONE
Those in opposition to the proposal:
Attorney Greg Moeller at 1302 Meadowview Avenue, gave a statement from the
neighborhood concerning the petition that was presented to City Council at a
neighborhood meeting in July. They have had large and small neighborhood meetings
concerning the annexation proposal. Sixty-five members of the neighborhood were
represented with Mr. Moeller's comments in a conditions statement. They are here to
discuss if the City should annex this subdivision. He asked if their concerns could be
addressed. Mr. Moeller indicated that the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended annexation, if the City could address the concerns of the neighborhood.
He complained about the treatment the group received at the Planning and Zoning
meeting. They were not able to give input as they desired in rebuttal to other testimony;
however, the City Attorney was allowed to provide input into the discussion. It was
rather frustrating to the neighbors at the meeting. They wanted to respond to incorrect or
misleading statements from others who provided testimony to the Planning Commission.
•
One of the Commissioners mentioned that the neighborhood was freeloading on the City
because they were on City services without paying City taxes. Mr. Moeller indicated that
the neighborhood had paid their way. They had raised funds to organize a sewer district
for the neighborhood. They did appreciate the City for letting the neighborhood connect
to the City services; however, they have paid an additional thirty percent on their water
bill for the services.
Mr. Moeller complained that the tax information was somewhat misleading. He
mentioned that the numbers were advertised low because the City is going to get a higher
levy rate. He noted that they are not a selfish people; however, who would want to pay
more unless they knew they were going to get more. Examples of misinformation
included the probability of the assessments going up after annexation, which would lead
to an increase in taxes. One example of showing good faith from the City would be to
refund the thirty percent surcharge on their water bills for the 2005 summer watering
season.
Mr. Moeller asked if the City could maintain the roads. They wanted the record to
record that they have paid their way with the additional thirty percent surcharge that they
have been paying on their water bills.
Mr. Moeller noted that they are concerned with losing the Rural Residential Zone
classification by a future Council. The lots in Rexburg Heights are large (at least one
acre lots) and it would be very expensive to put in curb and gutter on these lots. It would
cost $50,000 to $60,000 to put sidewalk and curb and gutter on some of these lots. If
Annexation is approved, they would like an agreement with the City to avoid changing
the zoning in the future which may require sidewalks and curb and gutter. He recognized
that the City could not make agreements that would bind future City Councils; however,
Mr. Moeller indicated that the neighborhood would like an agreement or statement in the
record from the City Council stating to future City Councils that the current City Council
would recommend leaving the zoning as it was represented in an annexation agreement.
Mr. Moeller mentioned that snow removal (their greatest concern) is an issue of safety.
The County has done a wonderful job with snow removal in our area. It is a difficult
neighborhood to remove the snow because of its hilly nature. The County would be glad
to get rid of them if they were annexed into the City. They wonder why the City is so
anxious to annex them. They have thirty-eight children (now forty-one children with a
new family moving in after the Planning and Zoning meeting) in the neighborhood. They
are concerned with having safe roads for their school children. The County gets into their
neighborhood very early, sometimes at 5:00 a.m. in the morning to remove snow.
Sometimes, they plow it several times before the school buses get there. The roads are
typically sanded by the County. If the roads are not sanded, the buses would not be able
to stop. Buses have to stop on a very steep hill. They are asking the City to beef up their
snow removal equipment to be similar to the County's equipment. They are very
concerned with the City's ability to do snow removal in Rexburg Heights. Can the City
do it? At the Planning and Zoning Public Hearing, one City employee indicated that the
City had comparable snow removal equipment to Madison County. He did not think that
the statement was quite accurate with all respect. He went on to list the equipment from
the City compared to the County as follows:
City Snow Removal Equipment County Snow Removal Eauipment
two road graders six road graders
several dump trucks three nine fifty loaders with plows
snow loader one snow blaster
backhoe ten plow trucks
eight sanders
liquid deicer
backhoe
D-8 dozer
D-7 dozer
TB- I S dozer
Mr. Moeller indicated that the County has more and substantially bigger snow removal
equipment. Unless the City is willing to make the capital expenditures necessary to
improve there inventory of snow removal equipment, they would be opposed to the
annexation proposal for Rexburg Heights.
Mr. Moeller mentioned that he and others have lived in the City before and they were
very dissatisfied with the City's snow removal effort. They read the letters to the editor
and they know that the situation has not improved. He mentioned that the Mayor
indicated in the June meeting that their neighborhood would become part of the high
priority area for snow removal. The bigger question that the Rexburg residents need to
ask is "who would come off from that list".
Mr. Moeller reviewed several growth areas in the City and he noted that the City is
having growing pains. Their subdivision would add an additional two extra miles of road
to the City. That is a 3.6 percent increase to the road system.
Mr. Moeller indicated that at this time they are apposed to being annexed because the
City is not prepared to handle the additional roads and stress on City services. Street
repair budgets are averaging $382,000 for street repairs. The needed funds for expected
road repairs in Rexburg are 1.1 million dollars. The Mayor has indicated that without
proper funding for road repairs, the City is headed for a train wreck. Mr. Moeller agreed
with the Mayor that we are heading for a train wreck. The neighbors have asked "Who in
their right mind would want to get on a train heading for a train wreck"? He asked the
City to wait for annexation until the City could meet the requests of the neighborhood
petition letter. It is not wise to rush into this annexation proposal unless the City can
meet all of the requests in the petition letter. He asked the City to wait until the City
could take care of them.
Mr. Moeller asked the City to be cautious, be smart, and don't rush head long into a
wall. Wait until you can be more wise and more prudent.
Mayor Larsen commented on the Planning and Zoning remarks that they were
concerned about some misrepresentations. Mr. Moeller thanked the Mayor and he
indicated that he did address those concerns with his remarks tonight as noted below:
1. The neighbors were concerned that they were not paying their way
2. Cogent (Unconvincing) questions they could not answer but the City Attorney
could answer them.
3. That the City equipment was comparable to the County equipment being up
to the task.
Jennifer Christensen at 1250 Fairview Avenue, indicated that she was not opposed to
the annexation proposal; however, she is concerned with some of the issues for her
neighborhood. If the neighborhood concerns can be addressed, she would not be opposed
to annexation. They enjoy the area. She is concerned with the repercussions of increased
taxes for her family and neighbors on fixed incomes. She is impressed with the County
snow removal techniques. School buses come by her home four or five times in an hour
a few times during the day. The buses do a double loop on Fairview Avenue. Every
morning the County comes very early and removes the top layer of snow before they
sand the roads. She is not sure the City can maintain her roads as good as the County
maintains them in the winter. She is concerned with thick ice on the City neighborhood
roads. She reviewed her experiences with City roads and she asked why the City can't
provide safe ice free roads in the neighborhoods? If the steep roads are a high priority to
the City, she is concerned with bumping other areas of the City off the high priority list.
In the July meeting with the neighborhood, the Mayor stated that the resources are
strained during the winter months. Their roads are thirty years old, and their roads would
be a strain on City resources. City revenue for their subdivision comes from a 30% water
surcharges. She indicated that the 30% additional revenue for water service comes
without additional services from the City. This revenue will be lost to the City if
Rexburg Heights is annexed. She was concerned with the City not having a sound
annexation plan. They will become a liability to the City because the City has put the
cart before the horse. The City should have all of the components in place in a
comprehensive plan before they bring on new citizens.
Council Member Fullmer asked about the County snow removal practices in Rexburg
Heights. Jennifer Christensen indicated that County makes two passes in the morning.
The first pass is very early. Then the buses come by her home at 7:40 a.m. and 7:50 a.m.
The County comes by later in the morning at 10:00 or 11:00 a.m. for plowing and
sanding as needed. It just depends on the road conditions.
! •
Robert Boyce at 1259 Meadowview Avenue, reviewed the neighborhood of Rexburg
Heights on the overhead screen. He asked why the City had not annexed the parcels on
South 5~' West. He reviewed the upcoming School District plan to build a new high
school. That new school will cost about 35 million dollars in two or three years.
He liked the County snow removal practices.
Kevin Packard at 1207 Morning Side Drive, asked if the utility funds where they pay the
30 Percent surcharge could be transferred to the General fund. Mayor Larsen indicated
that the water funds are enterprise funds that are dedicated funds for the services rendered
for water and waste water. They can not be mixed with the General fund.
Ellis Miller at 1325 Meadowview Avenue referred to the Mayors 1.1 million dollar road
construction budget. He indicated that "we have to consider the possibility that the levy
will not pass." He was concerned with the levy not passing. Maybe the Citizens are not
as concerned about the roads at this time as they are for food and gas. He referred to the
recent hurricanes in the Country which has caused the price of fuel to increase.
Diane Perry at 106 West Poleline, reviewed the problems of buses and other vehicles
trying to negotiate the slick roads near her home. She indicated that busses are unwilling
to stop at her location and pick up two school children due to the condition of the roads
with snow and ice. She has taken her children to school at her own risk because the
buses won't stop. She has made calls to the County to close the road or maintain it
properly. She indicated that they have to shovel out cars out of her driveway about ten
times per year. They are not high income people they may have to sell if they can't pay
their taxes. She was concerned with fixed income neighbors too. They are not able to
take on three additional tax increases in the next two years. She would love to be a part
of the City if she could financially afford it. The three issues for her were an increase in
taxes, elderly neighbors on fixed incomes, and snow removal. She thought the County
had done a superior job on snow removal.
Mayor Larsen closed the Public Hearing for public testimony.
Mayor Larsen reviewed the tax concems and the building of a new high school. As a
City resident, he will participate in the funding of the new high school. The issue comes
down to fairness. It is good planning to plan for the growth of the Community. He
thanked the neighborhood for coming together to represent the neighborhood. The issue
of taxes is on his mind. He reviewed the revenues that come into the City. Moneys for
water, waste water, police and other City revenues were reviewed. Anew high school
will also increase the taxes. He mentioned that the Teton Lakes Golf Course is self
funded. As a City resident, he indicated that he pays County taxes too (i.e. Beaver Dick
Park, Twin Bridges Park, and all the City parks which include Porter Park, Smith Park,
Evergreen Kiwanis Park, Nature Park, and Hidden Valley Park). He reviewed a few
charts (graphs) on the funding of streets with City resources. Schools are funded with
City and County taxes. He reviewed the proposed levy for City road maintenance that
the City Council has authorized for the ballot in November. The roads that the residents
of Rexburg Heights travel on in the City of Rexburg are funded by City residents. Your
roads would be an added cost for the City to bear. He reiterated that he understands their
concerns with the added taxes from the City. It is an increased value to be included in the
City limits.
Mayor Larsen reviewed the reasons communities are formed. As a youth growing up in
Rexburg, he did not realize that Rexburg Heights was not a part of the City. He found
that out when he campaigned for the Mayor's position in 2003.
More property tax bearers on the City tax rolls spreads the cost out among more people to
lower the tax levy. The neighborhood did not seem to agree with the Mayor in this point.
Mayor Larsen reviewed the low tax levy rate that is currently in place in Rexburg. The
State Legislature limits tax increases to 3% of the past years taxes collected.
If the tax levy increase is passed, the City tax levy for $100,000 of value in a property
would increase from $345 to $534. It is requested to help maintain the road infrastructure
in Rexburg. Rexburg Heights residents use these same City roads.
Council Member Young has never been in favor of forced annexation. The time will
come when these people will come and ask to be annexed. Annexation should be asked
for by the citizens when we are ready to receive them. The majority should help us
understand how we feel and why we feel that way. He indicated that this is a challenge
that the City is not capable of handling. He mentioned talking to four or five residents
that did want to be annexed in this neighborhood; however, it was not the majority. If
this was issue of right or wrong, he would stand on the side of right. He indicated that
this was an issue of convenience, not an issue of concern for the City.
Council Member Erickson asked City Attorney Zollinger if only part of the requested
parcels can be annexed.
City Attorney Zollinger indicated that the City Council could annex a portion of the
original request; however, they can not increase the annexation area beyond the area that
was advertised.
Council Member Erickson indicated that some members of the Community in Rexburg
Heights did want to be annexed. These residents have expressed some concern with the
petition they signed. They were not totally aware of the petitions use. Some did not want
to sign the petition; however, they did sign the petition as requested.
Council Member Erickson mentioned the road problems in the Rexburg Heights
neighborhood. There are pros and cons to the annexation proposal. The parcels on 5~'
west should be annexed too, except the services are not available in that area. He
mentioned that snow removal equipment from the City is up to the task of doing snow
removal in Rexburg Heights. The residents disagreed with the thought that the City had
similar snow removal equipment as the County.
Council Member Erickson indicated that the current City Council could not guarantee
that any concessions (zoning) made at this time could be mandated for future City
Councils. He had mixed feelings and emotions in both directions.
Council Member Fullmer indicated that it does come down to snow removal. He
referred to Mrs. Ashton's concerns on the snow removal issue. We will continue to be
very proactive on snow removal. Will Rexburg Heights be an asset or a liability to the
City of Rexburg? He thought it was time to annex Rexburg Heights. The City does not
want to wait for annexation until there is utter disrepair. He recommended that the City
be proactive. "Those are my concerns."
Council Member Young do we want to move forward with such opposition.
Mayor Larsen reviewed the addition of two more roads in the City. He indicted that the
City could not guarantee that the City could provide the same level of service as given by
the County. The City Council can not guarantee what a future City Council will approve.
The roads would be maintained as other roads in the City. Zoning could not be
guaranteed under future City Councils. Taxes will go up if these residents are annexed.
There are not any parks in this area because they are receiving a lower level of service for
the development of parks. No one wants to pay more taxes. It is a challenge to provide
the infrastructure for the City of Rexburg for the City and County residents. Council
Member Young makes as good point.
Council Member Anderson will be happy to continue paying her county taxes for them
to take care of Rexburg Heights.
Council Member BenCeld reviewed the issue of snow removal. She indicated that the
City Council all feel and hear what the residents of Rexburg Heights are saying. The
non-requested annexation of a recent annexation in Rexburg had the support of the entire
Council. This annexation proposal does not have the full support of the City Council.
She indicated that the City was up to the challenge of the task; however, the underlying
factor is the safety issue.
Mayor Larsen indicated that it is a challenge to provide services that the Community
demands with the current tax structure. He mentioned that the City has fifty-six miles of
roads plus Main Street. The City would be adding about two miles of additional roads.
The City contracts with local companies to do snow removal. The last thing he would
want to see happen is to have a terrible winter and the residents showing up at the
Mayor's Office saying we told you so. He reviewed city snow removal practices with the
residents. He thinks the City crews do an excellent job with snow removal. Rexburg
Heights would receive excellent snow removal from the City crews.
Council Member Erickson asked if the two miles of road include Poleline Road.
There was some discussion indicating that it does include a portion of Poleline Road;
however, the County has agreed to continue to maintain Poleline Road.
Council Member Young asked to vote on the parcels individually.
Council Member Fullmer mentioned that the City does snow removal for less money
than adjacent communities. The City gets a big bang for the money spent on snow
removal. He asked why the Rexburg Heights residents would not want to be a part of the
Rexburg Community and start paying for the services. He referred to the recreation
services that they use in the City. They are a part of our Community. He thinks it is a
good time to annex Rexburg Heights into the City.
Mr. Moeller commented that it is premature to annex Rexburg Heights into the City at
this time. If the City was prepared for the additional services, the residents would not be
against the annexation proposal. They love the City of Rexburg.
Mayor Larsen asked Public Works Director John Millar to explain the reason for the
additiona130% surcharge for the Rexburg Heights neighborhood. John indicated that the
Waste Water system was originally constructed with property taxes from City residents
for about $7,000,000 in plant facilities. The 30% surcharge is to cover the plant facilities
capacity that is needed to serve Rexburg Heights. Mayor Larsen indicated that the
money came from all of the residents of Rexburg to build the system.
Council Member Fullmer mentioned that it is to extend services to Rexburg Heights.
James Wood at 4554 East 2000 South mentioned that the City could not open the roads
under the current conditions if there was a severe storm. He asked the Mayor to think of
the children and how they would need to walk the Poleline Road if the roads were not
opened.
Council Member Young moved to annex parcels 2,3,4 and exclude parcel 1 (Rexburg
Heights); Council Member Benfield seconded the motion;
Those votin¢ ave Those voting nav
Council Member Young Council Member Fullmer
Council Member Erickson
Council Member Benfield
Council Member Anderson
The motion carried.
New Business•
J. Annual Beer & Wine License approvals -Staff
The City Council reviewed the list of applicants. The licenses are provided to the
applicants after they pay the fees.
Council Member Fullmer moved to approved applications for the annual beer and wine
licenses; Council Member Erickson seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed.
The motion carried.
IC, Vacating street property in Trejo Professional Park:
Terry Bagley reviewed the proposal to vacate a street in Division One of Trejo
Professional Park. He is seeking to use the street area in Division Two that was platted in
Division One. Terry indicated that Planning and Zoning approved the Preliminary Plat
for Division Two subject to the vacating this street area in Division One.
The Council discussed the need to complete the sidewalk for this development on 5~'
West. Terry indicated that he will complete the sidewalks on 5~' West for this project.
B. Humarock Cove Cond•niums -Preliminary Plat •
Kurt Hibbert explained that this was on a prior agenda but it was dropped. This parcel is below the proposed
Trejo Professional Park. These are zero (0) lot line condominiums. There was only one concern and that was
that it did not meet all of the design standards. It is deficient on several criteria, one of which is that side facing
the street. They do have decks and other features that make it look very nice. Staff will be working with them
on that. There may be some minor alterations with the shape of the footprint by the time it goes to a Final Plat.
Staff's recommendation was that it be approved with the understanding that staff is working with them on
design standards. He also explained that each condominium could be sold individually.
Randall Porter asked if the snow storage would also be the green space. Kurt Hibbert confirmed that it
would be.
Mike Ricks expressed concern that the owners will use parking spaces for snow storage. Chairman Dyer
asked Kurt Hibbert if they had enough snow storage. Kurt Hibbert confirmed that they did.
Thaine Robinson asked if the parking lot should be broken up a little. Chairman Dyer commented that it is
required for buildings over 25,000 square feet. It is a good concept to apply at all levels. Below a certain size,
it probably is not practically applied.
Chairman Dyer commented that he was fine with the idea that even though the design standards are not shown
on the plat, it is at preliminary level. It should be a condition in the motion to require it be there in the Final
Plat.
Mary Haley recommended to City Council that the Preliminary Plat for Humarock Cove be approved with the
stipulation that all of the building code and design standards be met prior to the presentation of the Final Plat;
that adequate snow storage be behind the parking; that landscaping plans be provided and that final footprints
are to be included. Mike Ricks seconded the motion.
None opposed. Motion carried.
C. Design Standards in Industrial Zones
Kurt Hibbert explained that industrial properties usually have need for large warehousing and storage-type
buildings that wouldn't usually have the design features that are required in the Commercial Design Standards
in Ordinance 926. The discussion and consensus needs to be reestablished to the proper level of design
requirement on industrial structures and properties.
Chairman Dyer commented that this would apply strictly to the industrial zone areas and not those
commercial. It includes both Light and Heavy Industrial. The question is, do we need design standards in the
Industrial zones, and if so, what will they be. He agreed with Mary Haley that if there were office components
of the business that they receive some kind of architectural standards.
Randall Porter suggested two (2) ideas: 1) Go to another community and see what they have done and use
their design standards for Industrial; 2) Have Industrial people plant fast growing trees in to hide the building.
Mary Haley concurred with his comments.
Mike Ricks brought up the point that trees are a lot of upkeep. Ted Hill commented that big industrial
buildings are not going to get into landscaping. Thaine Robinson concurred.
7
Mary Ann Mounts suggested giv them achoice -providing landscaping or making the building more
beautiful.
Kurt Hibbert suggested including in the zone under the design criteria say that roads and street sides have to
be buffered.
Discussion will continue at the next meeting on Design Standards for Industrial Zones.
Meeting adjourned at 10:25pm.
8
d~ CITY OF c ;
y 2'
f .. ~ ~ } ~ ~
'~ REXBLI ~ `'~'a~ h ~~ ran ~. a K.
Y i r~ ~ u Ott, :. - i G f'.
AMERICA'S FAMILY COMMUNffY 19 E. Main (PO Box 280) Phone: 208-359-3020 x326
Rexburg, Idaho 83440 Fax: 208-359-3024
www.rexbura.org planning@rexburg.org
September 15, 2005
Commissioners Attending:
Rex Erickson - Council Member
Winston Dyer- Chairman
Mary Haley Ted Hill
Joe Laird Randall Porter
Mike Ricks Thaine Robinson
Bill Johnson Mary Ann Mounts
Chairman Dyer opened the meeting at 7:OSpm.
Cit.:
Kurt Hibbert - P&Z Administrator
Bethany Caufield -Secretary
Roll Call
Charles Andersen asked to be excused. Mike Ricks asked to be excused until around 9:OOpm.
1. Minutes -September 1, 2005
Amendments: Joe Laird and Mike Ricks arrived at 7:13pm and 7:41pm instead of 9:13pm and 9:41pm.
Thaine Robinson motioned to approve the September 1, 2005 P&Z Minutes. Randall Porter seconded the
motion. None opposed motion carried.
Ted Hill abstained for not having been present at the last meeting.
2. Public Hearings:
A. CUP -LDS Church (Corner of E 7th N)
Johnny Watson - 1152 Bond Ave -representing the owner. The property is north of Wal-Mart and is currently
zoned MDRI . The Growers are the owners of the property and are currently platting the area for a residential
neighborhood. It is a four (4) acre lot. It is planned to be a three (3) ward Heritage Meeting House. The
current design has a capacity of 270 parking spaces. The parking requirement is about 135 parking spaces, but
the owner is proposing 218 because he felt they would use all of them. The building will be fire sprinkled.
Water and sewer are already there. There will be no problem with fire hydrants on each corner to also serve the
future residential neighborhood. There may be a landscape section in between the property line and curb and
gutter. The purchasing agreement has not included putting curb and gutter in.
Mary Haley asked what was meant by a Heritage Meeting House. Johnny Watson explained that it will be
similar to the original Crest Haven or Millhollow building.
Randall Porter asked about their lighting. Johnny Watson replied that they will do everything in their power
to keep the lighting on the parking lot so there is no light pollution spilled onto the neighbors.
Randall Porter asked if he was using high-pressure sodium lighting. Johnny Watson believed they were.
Mary Haley asked why with the growth they would have a small building. Terry Bradshaw -representing the
LDS Real Estate Department -Manager. There are two (2) designs of buildings, 1) Stake Center: 25,000 sq. ft.
building; 2) Ward Meeting House: 16,500. These are the only two (2) sizes they build as general meeting
houses within the general stake area.
Randall Porter was also concerned about the concentration of people compared to the smaller building they
have designed. Terry Bradshaw explained that they are designed for family stakes, not for the university. They
are designed for the standard congregations and standard units. The ward sizes will be governed by the activity.
If it gets so large, they' 11 divide it.
Chairman Dyer opened the public input portion of the meeting.
In Favor: None
Neutral:
Tammy Bagley - 623 W. Stonebridge. Neither for nor against the church; she didn't feel it will impact them
too much.
Contrary: None
Chairman Dyer closed the public input portion.
Chairman Dyer declared a conflict of interest on this proposal and asked Mr. Porter to manage the
deliberations.
Ted Hill declared a conflict of interest because his firm is involved in Real Estate Transaction.
Randall Porter continued as Chairman.
Thaine Robinson did not see any problems with issuing the Conditional Use Permit. He commented that they
should make a condition to strongly adhere to the lighting standards.
Mary Haley commented that she was a little concerned with the size of the building. She felt they should
encourage double chapels to consolidate parking; it is a better advantage than redoing everything all the time.
Thaine Robinson motioned to accept the Conditional Use Permit for the church house to be built on 7th N with
the condition of following the lighting standards that are set forth. Mary Haley seconded the motion.
None opposed. Motion carried.
Winston Dyer regained the chair.
B. CUP -LDS Church (389 Mariah Ave)
Johnny Watson - 1152 Bond Ave. He explained that it is not a standard plan. It is similar to what is on E 7th S
- 36,000 sq. ft. building on about seven and a half (7-'/2) acres. It will be a single level structure. It is an eight
(8) ward student stake center. The two (2) chapel capacity sits around 600 people, with 354 parking spaces -
they are guessing due to what the actual floor plan will turn out to be; they have a lot of property to work with
depending on how the building department in Salt Lake comes out with their plans. They can easily meet the
parking regulations. The City has ample utilities in this area; the building will be fire sprinkled. It is meant to
perform seven (7) days a week. It will not house any of the hometown wards or stakes. There will be a bridge
2
over the canal into the Henderson~velopment in the future. They are trying to remove the student population
out of the City wards and get them into a stake and ward buildings of their own. The particular area is zoned
HDRI .
Joe Laird asked if there was a time table on completing the bridge across the canal. Johnny Watson said that
there was no discussion on it.
Randall Porter asked what the greenspace plans were. Johnny Watson explained that their plans far exceed
any greenspace requirements that are currently in place.
Chairman Dyer commented that they recently approved housing developments in the southwest quadroon of
town that will bring an excess of 5,000 people, and this is a response to that demand.
Terry Bradshaw commented that this is a developing area, so they are not sure what the needs will exactly be.
The actual Stake Center off of E 7th S is an eight (8) ward complex - 28,000 square feet. It is very similar to
most of the stake centers that have been built over the last ten (10) years. That may be what ends up on this site
as well, it just depends on what the growth and demand is. They gave to Mr. Watson the largest design they
had to make sure everything would fit on the lot. It is very similar to the Hinckley building on campus. It can
accommodate eight (8) wards up to twelve (12) if needed. At this point, they have not decided what is going to
be needed. There is the potential that they will build what is being built now on E 7th S, which is 28,000 square
feet, double chapel.
Randall Porter asked if Mr. Watson had the latitude to build some features into the roofline of the buildings to
break them up and make them a little easier to look at. Terry Bradshaw commented that he has some flexibility,
but these are standard designs and there is very little capability of changing that. Johnny Watson added that
when there are design criteria that the City imposes, he has the latitude to say that the community requires
certain design elements. He has to get special approval, but they would try to find a happy medium.
Joe Laird was concerned with the traffic on the streets in the area with the size and number of wards. He asked
if they felt the street system was adequate to add more cars into the area. They need to be sure there is good
access. Johnny Watson commented that the majority of the residents that are going to attend this already live
there; they are in the apartment buildings right now. He didn't think they were brining population from a
different area; some may come from up on the hill. Terry Bradshaw added that these people are going
somewhere anyway, and if they can localize them in that area, they will alleviate a lot of traffic going on
Yellowstone Hwy across the railroad tracks using other facilities.
Joe Laird commented that out on the curb line of the street, he felt there should be another five (5) feet on
either side, totaling thirty-five (35) feet. Johnny Watson agreed with his comment.
Chairman Dyer opened the public input portion.
In Favor: None
Neutral:
Gerald Jeppesen - 540E 7th N. He felt that if they were going to a twelve (12) ward, if the intent is for the
people to walk to the facility and only have access on two (2) sides, he felt the general emphasis should be that
all directions from that stake center should have a pathway for at least walking to the facility. He was also
concerned that they may not have enough parking.
Opposed: None
•
Chairman Dyer closed the public input portion.
Ted Hill declared a conflict of interest. Chairman Dyer declared for the record that he had no interest in this
particular proposal and remained in deliberation.
Mary Ann Mounts expressed concern about the traffic. She commented that she was glad to see extra parking
spaces. Mary Haley concurred regarding the parking.
Randall Porter asked about the parking requirements. Chairman Dyer replied that there is a formula, but Mr.
Watson indicated that the church's requirements for parking exceed that of the City's.
Chairman Dyer asked if it would go to twelve (12) congregations would there be enough room in the north
piece to achieve the additional parking required. Johnny Watson replied that they could easily expand to well
over 400 spaces.
Chairman Dyer suggested that the size of the building be limited to the parking demand.
Randall Porter asked if the road was wide enough if at some point they ever needed a turning lane. Chairman
Dyer explained that it was aforty-four (44) foot street which accommodates two (2) way traffic and parallel
parking at the curb line on each side; they could put a turning lane in there and take the parking off of it to do
that; that could be done if it got to that point.
Bill Johnson was excused at 8:OSpm due to a previous engagement.
Chairman Dyer agreed with Mr. Laird to have as many accesses as possible.
Mary Ann Mounts motioned to approve the Conditional Use Permit for the church house to be built on 389
Mariah Ave. and asked that they will bring it back to us with more details and they pay attention that it is
walker friendly for people who walk, that they be required, depending upon the use of the building and size, that
they maximize the parking and use additional space if needed; that they pay attention to the lighting, to make
sure it meets the standards; and that there be as many accesses as possible, with the entrances being apart of the
design standards also.
Joe Laird seconded the motion.
Chairman Dyer recommended including that their proposal for the building or the occupations not exceed the
parking available. Mary Haley added that it be self-contained rather than flowing into the neighborhood.
Randall Porter requested that they request the local architect to work with the Salt Lake architect to try and
build in some design features to break up the rooflines.
Kurt Hibbert commented for point of clarification that this is in a residential zone and the Multi-Family
Design standards apply which includes building form, eyes to the street and architectural detail.
Mary Ann Mounts amended her motion to include the stipulations discussed after the motion was made. Joe
Laird seconded the motion.
None opposed. Motion carried.
3. Tabled Reauests:
4
U
A. Trejo Professional Park Div. 2 - PP
•
Randall Porter motioned to pick the discussion back up. Mary Ann Mounts seconded the motion. None
opposed. Motion carried.
Terry Bagley explained that when he went in and spoke with John Millar, they could not find a way to go
through Melaleuca without having conflicts. John Millar found a solution for them. They do not need to go
through Melaleuca because they already have two (2) entrances. The second entrance is through the parking lot
of the buildings to the right of his proposed lots. They have atwenty-four (24) foot wide access, with one
hundred (100) foot turning radius into the parking lot from Trejo. In the parking lot, there is not an island on
the turn in the parking lot (it is just painted), so they have good access to be able to get through safely. John
Millar thought it was great. The Fire Department approved it, Kurt Hibbert approved it.
The northeast access was portrayed as no longer being a through street. He explained that he will need to go to
City Council and ask them to vacate that area, which he believed would not be a problem after speaking with
Kurt Hibbert.
Chairman Dyer asked if there was a need for any kind of dedicated easement or access so that the public can
utilize the private ground (referring to the parking lot adjacent to his property). Terry Bag1eX explained that it is
common area; it is common to the owners.
Chairman Dyer suggested having a document that the Owners Association allows public access there so that
there is no question in the future.
Mary Haley suggested addition a condition that the landscape strip between the parking lot and Grand Ave. be
kept clear at all times.
Chairman Dyer proposed a solution. In this agreement, he suggested that the Home Owner's Association will
allow public access and remain unrestricted. Terry Bagley didn't have a problem with that. They don't intend it
to be retail; they would like it to be medical.
Kurt Hibbert explained that staff is in agreement with this. The only restriction is that they would be
approving this preliminary plat with the understanding that the northeast access, that appears to be closed off on
the plat, would be excluded from the proposal until the City Council has approved vacating that.
Chairman Dyer commented that since it is preliminary, he does not have a problem including that.
Note: all discussion stands from the previous meeting (September 1, 2005) regarding this proposal.
Mary Ann Mounts approved the Preliminary Plat for Trejo Professional Park with the condition that he
address the former eastern extension of Targhee Drive, and that there is an Owner's Association agreement
saying that the parking lot is public right-of--way. Mary Haley seconded the motion.
None opposed. Motion carried.
4. New Business:
A. Residential Business District (RBD)
Chairman Dyer explained that Ordinance 926 was recently formulated and ado ted. It does need some
p
continual amendments. There is Bi11939 before the City Council to discus edits to the code and includes other
existing ordinances that would be very appropriately placed in Ordinance 926, such as the Subdivision
Ordinance. The Commission has discussed all of those matters here, and that was moving forward with the City
Council when it became apparent there was some misunderstanding about what is now the Neighborhood
Business District (NBD) and what it was intended to do and that fell short of the mark of addressing the concept
of where we might have a business in a residential structure. At that point in time, and because it was already
up for City Council, the Mayor and members of the Staff got together and tried to have something in way of
ordinance that would provide for that. It did get first and second read before the City Council, but that
particular issue, which is called the Residential Business District, is now before the Commissioners for
information and possible recommendations.
Kurt Hibbert acknowledged that when this was first discussed, there were some mixed emotions on the
Commission as far as the need and desire to have it. Currently, in all of the residential zones, since 1992, home-
based businesses have been a property right. There were limitations on the exercising of that right which
included not having any more than twenty (20) percent of the structure in business use at any one time, not
having signage outside the structure, not having uses that would be high impact as far as traffic. The RBD zone
allows up to one hundred (100) percent of use for a business, it does not require owner occupancy, and this is
only allowed in LDR2 zones and more dense. Another deviation from what was allowed in the past would be
signage larger than two (2) feet by four (4) feet. The uses were expanded. There are also Conditional Uses.
Commissioners had many concerns regarding the RBD zone and felt they needed more time to review it before
it went to the third (final) reading at City Council.
Chairman Dyer asked the public for their input regarding the RBD zone.
Don Sparhawk - 37 S 3rd E. He felt like there were some good ideas on this. He believed it started because
they wanted to save some of the homes, but there were a lot of questions that he didn't feel were answered. He
was concerned that this was more like spot zoning. He could see this zone being applied to certain areas, but he
believed that most residential neighborhoods wouldn't want it. It started with a good idea, but it needs a lot of
work.
Jerry Glandville -17 S 3rd E. He explained that when he moved to Rexburg, it seemed like the "Old Town".
The "New Town" provided a lot of clutter, empty buildings and conflict. The neighborhoods seemed divided;
they're not of one mind any more. Most of it is over proposals that have been proposed over the years. A lot of
proposals leave it up in the air all the time, each one seeming worse than before. He felt that in the future, there
would be a lot of absentee owners and businesses. He could not see any industry coming in. He felt the
community would become a transient community with no basis. He was not happy with the proposed new
zone.
Mary Haley motioned to recommend to City Council that they postpone the final reading of Bill 939 which
amends Ordinance 926 so that their amendment has some forward thinking and would be very glad and happy
to have input concerning this matter. Randall Porter seconded the motion.
None opposed. Motion carried.
Mike Ricks arrived at 9:30pm.
Rex Erickson commented that he would ask the City Council that the third reading of Bi11939 be postponed
until after the first meeting in October.
6
i •
.--_
~~
..~
w
4{
D3
=i
m
a
c
v
w
N
C
N
3
O
3 J
A _ T C
tC
e
R -
E -
3 O:
c
f
.. y~
C
C
L
1
M
Y
U
O
CD
J
H N
F
W _
U
J ~ ~
cn U M ~
o w W v
N ~ ~ ~ p
7~
O W ~
~~
2
>
>
Q ~ ~
~ O ~ W rn
M
F' d p~ Q
~~ ~ Z a W 0~ N~ O O Q H
r Q v rn Q O
~Y~op~~rnmv O
v ~cn o,
vo~
Z O O O O I~ V N
0-' '7 (O M 2 ch c~7 OM N N ~
O O _ O_ >W N'
N~ EH N O EA M> N
C Ul N U
O d 7 Ol J N
O 2' (O N l0
A v c ~ Q
v C~ p
v~
,~._ ~
Z I T= m ~
~~aya a
rn
°~ x x
aa`a~ D fn
~F~FU t7J
M
Y
U
O
J
m
`
(
7
H
~
Z ~
J Q -
N
Q ~ p
~
~ ~
o U_ ~
p ~
' -
~ -
m V
2
2
O Z
O
Z ~ ~ W
~ ~
W
OJ ~tn~
QZfn
V o
~ c~
2
H W p ~ o N
a' ~~ N p r W V~ V 0~ Q~~~ O
~
O 1~ aD V N ~
~ U
~ U 0 0 _~ O O
WW~j ~
_
~
N
(O
N N N N N
f!~ N O EA M>
~~ O ~` N N (0 d
V~ ~ ~ ~ ~
z
•
aa`La~ D
~F~ci c7J