HomeMy WebLinkAboutCUP, P&Z, & DOCS - 07-00026 - Bryce Owen - 346 W 2nd S - CUP for Disabled Recreational FacilityJanuary 29, 2007 OF
Dear Rexburg Planning and Zoning Commission: RG
We are applying for a conditional use permit to change the usage of our property at 346
West 2nd South in Rexburg. The following information is attached with this application:
1. Conditional Use Permit Application
2. Plot plan showing the exterior of the property
3. Explanation of the Change of Usage
4. H.A.V.E. F.U.N. Business Plan
Please let us know if there is any additional information you wish to see when
considering this application.
Sincerely,
Bryce and Angie Owen
259 Melanie Drive
Rexburg, ID 83440
208 - 656 -9266 (home)
208 -313 -5031 (cell)
9 0
Conditional Use Permit
City of Rexburg
12 North Center
Rexburg, ID 83440
Applicant
Name:
City:
Phone: 208.359.3020
www.rexburg.org Fax: 208.359.3022
gkx9
o u
g C'o
u �
0
C I T Y OF
REX
America's Family Community
State:
Fee(s) Paid: Yes /No CUP: $200.00
Publication: $250.00
Address: /
Phone- "a
'fi
Owner (Complete if owner not applicant) 1)7
w _���
Name: tAr Address: 059 McA D r
City: Rs �i A If f State: b Phone: (O
Property Covered by Permit:
2� 1 1 ,, 1 F�� p
Address: . 7 u W r Zone: M D M P A-i u-wl be , r�s �
Legal Description (Lot, Block, Addition, Division Number)
b -+ 1 cu -,a 0 R 1 o c: L 3 c -�' BSc �a h ce v-ic,
Nature of Request (Briefly explain the proposed use)
car) S ' ryl,i [t CS who h ave
Existing use of property:
Will this have an impact on schools: n D
Requirements for Granting Conditional Use Permit
The following information will assist the Commission and /or City Council to determine if your proposal will meet
the requirements under the zoning ordinance.
1. What is the estimated water usage per month? Are the existing mains adequate to
fire pro
O `
2. What is the estimated sewer usage per month? Will pretreatment be necessary? On r"d
3. What is the estimated daily traffic to be generated? Will the traffic be primarily private veh icles ox commercial
trucks? S, b y v e h es
Stu'" aS a vat
4. If commercial, industrial, or a home occupation, what will be the hours of
5. Will storm water drainage be retained on site? Is an existing storm drain available? Is it at capacity? If so, will
new facilities be constructed? cScV12k aS 1'1151,0
6. If proposed use is residential, describe number and type of dwellin units. Will this be student housing. multi-
family for young families, singles and couples, or elderly. r 0`
i . s � ah 6 ( enc� b
/� r4-71 . 0 —1 1n r'n &1 r .. - f . ,�.' I .3 w , a ) i n - /1 Yl 1 e a
7. What provision has been made for fire protection? Where is the nearest firr hydrant? Is any point of the
building further than 150 feet, from access sufficient in width for fire fighting �equipment? ho
8. How much parking is being provided on -site? Do the aisle widths and access points comply with the ordinance
requirements? Has landscaping been provided in accordance with the ordinance? S
VP e21_ rN /i"i:v,ni ._In
9. Where will solid waste generated be stored? Is access adequate for the City collection?
10. What is the type of noise,,that will be generated by the usF? What are the hours of
generation?
1 —Q _t.
PA
•
0
11. What type of equipment will be used in the conduct of the business?
12. What are t surroupding uses? Has buffering been provided as required by the
J
13. Are any air quality permits required? Is dirt or other dust creating materials moved by open i r box c
14. Will the parking lots or other outdoor areas have lighting? LIB
15. Are passenger loading zones for such uses as daycare centers and schools provided? How is busing routed? For
commercial uses, where are the loading docks? Is there sufficient space for truck parking?
16. If a commercial, multi- family, or public assembly use, where is the neares collector street? Arterial street?
17. What, if any signa e is anticipated in connection with the p ropose
�t usage?
4 4 , Ci�►l� -- a is a t r e (I cuu t n ej
The Commission or Council may address other points than those discussed above, but a narrative addressing at
least those applicable points will assist in processing your application. A PLOT PLAN MUST BE ATTACHED IN
ORDER TO PROCESS THIS APPLICATION. Included on the plot plan setbacks, parking, etc.
Formal notice will be sent to applicant after approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Notice will state the conditions
of the permit. If conditions are violated or not met there will be 90 day period to cure the problem. Failure to
comply with the terms may result in revocation of the Conditional Use Permit.
SigraturqZf Applicant Date
' `
Explanation of the Change of Usage:
The property at 346 West 2 nd South in Rexburg, Idaho now known as West Park
Apartments will physically remain the same as it is now except for the following changes
to meet the needs of the not - for -profit organization known as H.A.V.E. F.U.N.:
1. Add additional wheelchair accessible entrances rather than the current stair usage
in three locations ( "A, B, C ") on plot plan attached.
2. Use 10 of the 36 existing parking places to create 2 different loading zones for
potential vans. (This will still leave 26 parking places for cars to park out of 5625
sq. ft. of building). This is a ratio of 865 sq. ft. per 4 parking spaces (meets the
1000 sq. ft. requirement for 4 parking spaces).
3. Add vinyl siding to the east building to match the west building.
4. Create two different accesses on the interior that would connect one room to
another.
5. Improve upon current fences.
6. Other minor changes that have not been considered at this point.
How this organization will benefit the current neighborhood and Rexburg:
1. The night hours from l Opm to Sam will not have anybody residing there. Hence,
there should be very minimal traffic (if any) during these hours. Currently, with
30+ students potentially residing there, these night time hours have potentially
produced more traffic and noise than this new proposal would create.
2. There is a great need in the "Upper Snake River Valley" for this kind of after
normal business hours service for people with disabilities. To my knowledge, this
specific kind of organization does not exist in Idaho Falls or even in Boise.
3. The lack of isolation needs that families sometimes feel (who have members with
physical and mental challenges) can be met by having positive experiences with
each other as well as meeting other families with similar challenges.
4. BYU -Idaho students would be able to walk from campus if necessary as they
fulfill course requirements when coming to participate with our organization.
5. This organization will give community members in Rexburg the opportunity to
volunteer and it will provide a great service to others in need.
Possible negative consequences of having HAVE FUN in this neighborhood:
1. An occasional amount of noise may result if somebody with a disability is trying
to either self -abuse or resist a staff member helping them stay safe. (This would
happen wherever that person lives. Any neighborhood would not be exempt from
this possibility without violating laws against disc
• • RC
. 9 2Qo1
H.AN.E. F.U.N. C�l-rY (-)
F?�Sxsu
Heartfelt Activities and a Variety of Experiences for Families with Unique Needs
Basic Business Outline
Mission Statement:
Strengthen Family Relationships by encouraging parents and siblings to interact
with all of their family members including those with physical and mental
challenges through providing ability- appropriate social and recreational activities
during evening and weekend hours.
Natural By product: Families will be able to meet, support, and socialize with other
families with similar situations.
Clientele:
Clients will have options of a variety of activity "intensity" levels (low, high) when
they choose which activities they would like based upon their preference and
comfort level. For example, some clients may prefer to do a lower level of activity
intensity (hike around the nature park) as opposed to a higher level of activity
intensity (such as hike to Mesa Falls).
Clients will choose which groups they would like to be involved with based upon
their age group and "activity intensity" level. For example, a 6 year old wouldn't be
teamed up with a 16 year old, but with other 5 -8 year olds.
There will be 8 different groups based upon 4 different age groups (5 -8; 9 -12; 13 -17;
18 +) and each age group will have 2 different intensity levels per group for a total of
8 groups. Clients would be asked to attend at least 85% of the activities.
Family Involvement:
Each activity will have a limit of 2 family members per client. On occasion an
entire family could come and participate (such as swimming). Families would not
need to come to every activity, but would be asked to attend at least 50% of the time.
Staff:
We will have at least one trained employee at all of the activities. There will also be
an appropriate ratio of trained volunteers at all of the activities. There will be a
receptionist available during normal business hours as well.
F? EC E IVED
JA
) 9 ?007
Facility: , r ,
The proposed area will be to use the two buildings now known as West pare FtXt�RC
Apartments located at 346 W. 2nd S. in Rexburg. This is V2 a block west of Porter
Park (which could be a great location for some of the activities planned). It also is
set up where there is plenty of off the street parking where people could load and
unload without having to directly off of the main road. There would also be
sufficient space in the rear area for parking. The two buildings with a total of 5
different "environments" (music, art, multipurpose, etc.) would be ideal to facilitate
the types of activities we are trying to pursue.
Facility Preparation: 1. Wheel chair accessibility for apts. # 4 and #5.
2. Siding on the east building
3. Create a door between #2 and #3; #5 and #6
4. Add better fences around the outskirts of the
property.
5. Build a strong fence around the power poles in
the center island.
6. Switch the parking line stripes for loading and
unloading areas.
Funding: We will eventually need between $30,000 and $50,000 a
month to operate. This will come mostly from grant
applications through established foundations as well as
from personal and business donations.
•
0
Timeline: I 6 months (January 2007 -June 2007)
Pilot Run (July 2007 - August 2007) Co v
Phase 1 (September 2007 - December 2007) JAN,? �
Phase 2 (January 2008 - December 2008) cai �
Phase 3 (January 2009 - December 2010) CAF
Phase 4 (January 2011- Beyond)
Dates of Services: 4 terms: Winter, Spring, Summer, Fall
(1) Winter: January 16 — April 7; 12 weeks - (2 weeks in
between)
(2) Spring: April 24 - July 14; 12 weeks - (2 weeks in
between)
(3) Summer: August 1 — September 15; 7 weeks - (2
weeks in between)
(4) Fall: October 2 — December 22; 12 weeks - (3 weeks
in between)
Session Possibilities:
Monday - Wednesday 6 -8 pm
Tuesday - Thursday 6 -8 pm
Friday 6 -9 pm
Saturday 9 am- 1 pm
Saturday 10 am- 2 pm
Saturday 11 am- 3 pm
Saturday 12 -4 pm
Saturday 1:30 -5:30 pm
Personnel: Full time staff: 3 -5
Part time staff: 3 -5
Volunteers /Interns: 30 +?
Client Age Categories:
5 -8
9 -12
13 -17
18+
Activity Intensity Levels: More intense or Less intense
0 0
Activity Examples: Sports/fitness Basketball, Bowling, Croquet,
Tennis, MiniGolf, Volleyball, Badmitton,
Swimming, Yoga, Sledding, etc.
Arts Painting, Drawing, Sculpting, Coloring JAN
Choir, Kareoke, Dance, Acting, etc.,
Social Board Games, Social g ames, etc.�°G
Service Hygiene kits, Rake Leaves, etc.
Outdoor Hiking, Canoeing, "Non- overnight"
Camping, etc.
Planning & Zoning
Department
19 E. Main Phone: 208.359.3020 x334
Rexburg, ID 83440 www.rexbu— org Fax: 208.359.3024
C I T Y O F
REX
Aniericaz Fancily Community
Conditional Use Permit
Bryce Owen having come before the Rexburg Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council on March 1, 2007,
and March 21, 2007, for the purpose of obtaining a Conditional Use Permit for the use of a recreational facility for
the mentally and physically disabled located at 346 West 2 nd North. The requested permission was granted upon the
following conditions:
1. Trash receptacles should be fully screened from the public right -of -way and should not be visible from
adjacent residential property.
2. There should be no outside storage of material or equipment unless fully screened form public right -of -way.
This screening, if in it self is deemed objectionable by affected property owners, should be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Commission or designee.
3. The hours of operation, other than general office usage, as proposed by the applicant shall be adhered to,
unless future modifications are made and approved by the Planning Commission. The hours of operation
shall be limited to:
a. Monday - Thursday 6pm -8pm
b. Friday 6pm -9pm
c. Saturday 9am- 5:30pm
4. If the City receives noise complaints in excess of two, on separate occasions, within a period of 30 -days, the
applicant is required to come before the Commission and address the issue and explain how it will be
resolved. If the situation becomes chronic (i.e. more than two visits before the Planning Commission in a
12 -month period) revocation of the conditional use permit may be warranted.
5. Vehicles that are used in conjunction with the use, e.g. vans or similar, shall be fully screened from the public
right -of -way.
6. A site plan reflecting all conditions of approval and incorporating all City standards, e.g. landscaping,
parking, etc. shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to the issuance of a building permit.
7. Commercial lighting standards per the City's development code shall be adhered to.
8. Parking shall be held to the requirement for Professional Services (Physician), or 5 spaces per 1000 square
foot gross floor area.
9. Applicant shall comply with all State, Federal, and local regulations.
10. The ratio of supervisor to client shall be 1 to 3.
11. A fence shall be built along the full length of the west side of the property.
Failure to comply with the above stated terms and conditions may result in the forfeiture of the permit, and
revocation of all rights associated with the issuance of this permit.
Dated this _(_0 _ day of April, 2007
7,4 A (A,
Planning & Zon' g Commission Chairman Mayor /City Council R pregentative
. Y o F CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
REXB City of Rexburg
inert« F °ni:' C°r»m«rii -. Department of Community Development
19 E. Main St. / Rexburg, ID. 83440
Phone (208) 359 -3020 / Fax ( 208) 359 -3022
Project Information
Permit #
0700026
Permit Type Conditional Use Permit
Project Name
Bryce Owen - CUP
Site Address 346 W 2ND S
Parcel #
RPROOSE0034691
Project Description
Names Associated with this Project
Type Name
Contact Phone #
License # Exp Date
Fee Information
Project Valuation
Conditional Use Permit
250.00
Public Hearing Notice Fee
200.00
Total Fees Paid
$450.00
* ** SEE ATTACHED CONDITIONS * **
Print Name W i e
Signature��
Date t
Date Issued: 04/05/2007
Issued By EMILYA
y�Q gEXB UR
7
C I TY O F CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
REX City of Rexburg
.Aineric Family commu Department of Community Development
19 E. Main St. / Rexburg, ID. 83440
Phone (208) 359 -3020 / Fax (208) 359 -3022
Project Information
Permit Type Conditional Use Permit
Site Address 346 W 2ND S
Project Description
Permit # 0700026
Project Name Bryce Owen - CUP
Parcel # RPROOSE0034691
Conditions
1. There should be no outside storage of material or equipment unless fully screened from public right -of -way. This
screening, if in itself is deemed objectionable by affected property owners, should be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Commission or designee.
2. The hours of operation, other than general office usage, as proposed by the applicant shall be adhered to, unless
future modifications are made and approved by the Planning Commission. The hours of operation shall be limited to:
a. Monday- Thursday 6pm -8pm
b. Friday 6pm -9pm
c. Saturday 9am- 5:30pm
3. If the City receives noise complaints in excess of two, on separate occasions, within a period of 30 days, the applicant
is required to come before the Commission and address the issue and explain how it will be resolved. If the situation
becomes chronic (i.e. more than two visits before the Planning Commission in a 12 month period) revocation of the
conditional use permit may be warranted.
4. Vehicles that are used in conjunction with the use, e.g. vans or similar, shall be fully screened from the public right -
of -way.
5. A site plan reflecting all conditions of approval and incorporating all City standards, e.g. landscaping, parking, etc.
shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to the issuance of a building permit.
6. Commercial lighting standards per the Ctiy's development code shall be adhered to.
7. Parking shall be held to the requirement for Professional Services (Physician), or five (5) spaces per 1000 square foot
gross floor area.
8. Applicant shall comply with all State, Federal, and local regulations.
Date Issued: 04/05/2007
Issued By: EMILYA
Print Name WT8W DGW
Signature Date 1. ?_m
I
an
o �4�Xn�R. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
a C I T Y OF
. ° REX City of Rexburg
AmeicaS Fam v c ° „ °nt:,lly Department of Community Development
19 E. Main St. / Rexburg, ID. 83440
Phone (208) 359 -3020 / Fax (208) 359 -3022
Project Information
Permit Type Conditional Use Permit
Site Address 346 W 2ND S
Project Description
Permit # 0700026
Project Name Bryce Owen - CUP
Parcel # RPROOSE0034691
Conditions
9. A fence shall be built along the full length of the west side of the property.
10. Ratio of supervisor to client shall be 1 to 3.
11. Trash receptacles should be fully screened from the public right -of -way and should not be visible from adjacent
residential property.
Print Name
Signature Date — l-tl-b
Date Issued: 04/05/2007
Issued By: EMILYA
Customer Support Services ��o 4g8xB11 CITY OF
Citv Council Minutes REX
0
12 North Center blairk@rexburg.org Phone: 208.359.3020 x313 Americas Family Community
Rexburg, ID 83440 www.rexburg.org Fax: 208.359.3022
March 21, 2007
Mayor Shawn Larsen
Council Members:
Donna Benfield — Council President
Farrell Young Christopher Mann
Rex Erickson Randy Schwendiman
Bart Stevens
City Staff:
Stephen Zollinger — City Attorney
Richard Homer — Finance Officer
John Millar — Public Works Director
Val Christensen — Building Official
Gary Leikness — Planning & Zoning Administrator
Blair Kay — City Clerk
6:00 P.M. — Work meeting with the School Board:
Pledge to the Flag
Council President Benfield welcomed everyone to the meeting and excused Mayor Larsen who
was away on business in Las Angeles.
School Board discussion:
A. Overview of our Partnership:
David Ward discussed finding a way for the school to help the city particularly with the Barney
Dairy Road property that has been discussed. He drew two circles, one for the city and one for the
Madison School District. He would like to find a way to merge the circles together so the city and
the School District are working together for the common good of the people in this area. Currently,
the city and the School District have talked back and forth to see what resources each of them have
to contribute to each others purposes. He would like the city to start thinking about this from a
value for value perspective instead of a dollar for dollar perspective. The city looks at this
partnership from an economic point of view. He suggests looking at it from a more philosophical
point of view. He would like to combine resources so the school and city become more united. He
suggested having the School District donate tennis courts in exchange for deferred business fees.
Before any of this can happen, legal issues need to be reviewed.
Finance Officer Richard Horner explained both parties have assets in certain areas. The city and
the School District need to find areas where they can compliment each other; it is important to find
the strengths that can benefit both sides.
David Ward would like to use the School District bond money so it is most beneficial to everyone.
1
Council Member Mann asked how Madison County will fit into this partnership.
Council Member Stevens explained the city is accountable for the tax payer's dollars. This is the
main reason the School District and the city aren't completely merged together.
Council Member Erickson explained that the city needs to look at this from a dollar for dollar
perspective because in the future, different people will be making these decisions. If this property is
worth $9700 today, it may have a different value four years from now. He explained that if a trade is
made today, it needs to be purchased at the value today.
David Ward would like to find a permanent solution so the school district and the city can have a
successful partnership today and in the future.
Council Member Schwendiman explained if the city starts to subsidize these types of projects, this
will cause city residents to pay for the subsidy for the city and the county residents and it will cause
problems.
Finance Officer Richard Horner explained the city needs more /bigger parks. The school district
has about 10 acres of land that may work for a city park. He suggested looking at trading this land to
the city in exchange for building fees.
B. City issues to discuss:
1. Joint Agreement:
City Attorney Stephen Zollinger will need to look at this joint agreement before further decisions
can proceed.
2. Barney Dairy Road:
Brent Mendenhall officially proposed finding a way to deed the property west of the ball park
fences (just the bare property) and then negotiate fees from after the property exchange. This
area contains between 10 -12 acres of land.
Council Member Erickson asked for a dollar amount on this property. The School District
does not have an appraisal on this land because the entire property would need to be appraised.
An appraiser who is completely neutral to the city needs to do the appraisal.
Finance Officer Horner suggested building a city park next to a school park, using the parks
together. Public Works Director John Millar explained there are no deed restrictions on this
property. Finance Officer Horner explained past maintenance of the park has required the city
to maintain the park for 3 months in the summer and the School District to maintain the park
for the other 9 months. The city pays for the lights. He suggested trading these responsibilities
so the school district pays for the light bill and the city maintains the park year round.
3. Site plan for the new high school:
There are no changes or updates to report.
4. Traffic Study:
2
Brent Mendenhall explained they are working with Madison County so they can be involved
with the traffic study. The purpose of the study is to determine what kind of traffic the new
school will generate. Another Meeting with the School District and the City Council will be on
April 18, 2007.
7:00 P.M. — Pledge to the Flamm
Roll Call of Council Members All Council Members were present. Mayor Larsen was excused
from 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 from March 07, 2007 meeting
B. Approve the City of Rexburg Bills
Council Member Schwendiman moved to approve Minutes from March 7, 2007;
Council Member Erickson seconded the motion. All voted aye, none opposed.
The Motion Carried.
Public Comment on issues not scheduled on the agenda (limit 3 minutes) — NONE
Committee Liaison Assignments for 2007:
A. Council Member Chris Mann Parks & Recreation • Museum Committee • Romance Theatre Committee
The Westwood held their Top Hat Night last week. It was very successful. It was suggested to
meet 15 minutes early at the next meeting to take a tour of the Westwood Theatre.
B. Council Member Donna Benfield Beautification Committee- Police Department
The Beautification committee has not met since the last meeting. There is nothing to report on
the Rexburg Police Department.
C. Council Member Rex Erickson Airport Board- Planning & Zoning
The Airport Board has not met since the last city council meeting. Planning and Zoning met last
week. Some items will come up tonight. Joseph Laird on the Planning and Zoning Commission
passed away in a car accident. A replacement is needed as soon as possible on the Planning and
Zoning Commission. There are several others on the commission who are close to replacement
as well. Council Member Erickson asked for names or suggestions of possible replacements.
D. Council Member Randy Schwendiman Goff Board- Traffic & Safety• Emergency Services Board
The Golf Board had positive feedback with the county for the additional nine holes at the
Teton Lakes Golf Course; he will work on getting specifics.
Emergency Services has requested to surplus a water tanker — There is an extra water
tanker the emergency services board would like to surplus. The fire district has already approved
the sale of this water truck. Council Member Schwendiman moved to approve the surplus of the
water tanker; Council Member Mann seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed.
The Motion carried.
E. Council Member Farrell Young Tabernacle Committee • Rexburg Arts Council
The Tabernacle Committee met and they are in the process of putting in a handicap ramp on the
north side of the Tabernacle building. They are also working on getting new restrooms, fans,
and a new site for the fire truck. The stage has been remodeled to make more storage room
under the stage at no cost. The Tabernacle Committee is very aware of their budget. Other
maintenance items have been completed. Light bulbs have been changed and new blinds are
installed. They have bids out for new windows; however, because the windows are so large, they
are having a hard time finding a bidder. The building continues to be an asset for the city.
The Arts Council had an orchestra concert two weeks ago. It was a resounding success!
F. Council Member Bart Stevens Trails of Madison County- IBC Committee- School Board
The City Council met with the Madison School Board earlier in the evening. No report on the
Trails of Madison County Trails Committee.
G. Mayor Larsen Mayor's Youth Advisory Board • Legacy Flight Museum
Council President Benheld submitted the name of Jeffery Parsons to be put on the Westwood
Theatre Committee. Council Member Young moved to approve this ratification; Council
Member Man seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried.
Public Hearings
A. 7:20 P.M. — Conditional Use Permit for a Health/Recreation Facility — Bryce Owen
Planning and Zoning Administrator Gary Leikness explained that a Conditional Use Permit
is being requested to operate a physical and mental health recreation facility just west of Porter
Park. The Planning and Zoning Commission found that it met the conditions for approval. The
area is in a multi- family area. This facility will allow handicap students to engage in activities with
family and friends.
Bryce Owen at 259 Melanie Drive explained he would like to put in a Mental and Handicap
facility. The two main issues of concern were noise and traffic. Mr. Owen explained the only
anticipated noise would be when a person is coming or going. This should only take 30 seconds
to 2 minutes. They anticipate anywhere from 8 -12 vehicles at a time that would come and go.
All of this would take place after 9am and before 9pm. Vehicles will be limited due to space.
The facility will be open weekdays (Monday- Friday) only in the evening; they will also be open
on Saturdays and they will be closed on Sundays. Currently, there are 30 college students living
in the proposed location and these college students have the potential to make just as much or
more noise at any time any day of the week. The parking and coming and going of vehicles will
only take place when there is music or art related activities held at the actual building. This will
4
be between 2 -6 days out of the month. When outdoor and sports activities are held, they will
meet at the actual location of these events. Traffic was the other area of concern. Mr. Owen
explained that a vehicle would be asked to drive in from the street at 2nd South into the back
portion of the property. No traffic problems are foreseen at this time since vehicles will come
and go at different times. The facility would not create any more traffic than the college students
currently using the location. If at any time these or other concerns become a problem,
adjustments will be made to minimiz the concerns. They want to be good and respectful
neighbors. The goal of this facility is to provide "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" for
those who have mental or physical challenges.
Council Member Benfield opened the public hearing.
Those in favor of the proposal:
Kurt Belz at 625 Angela Drive would like the council to take into consideration less fortunate
families with disabled children. This facility will allow these families the opportunity to enjoy
positive activities. It will be a positive example in the community.
Gaylynn Bean at 3041 North Cottonwood Lane said this would be a vital institution. This
facility would allow those with autistic or mentally challenged children to have supported and
controlled activities that they could enjoy as a family. There is no downside or negatives to this
facility.
Lori Saurey was unable to attend the meeting, however she wrote a letter in favor of this
proposal.
Jessica Bagley was unable to attend the meeting, however she wrote a letter in favor of this
proposal.
Those neutral to the proposal: NONE
Those opposed to the proposal:
Fred Calder at 244 Steiner Ave has concerns about the location of the facility. He is in favor of
this business coming to Rexburg; however, his concerns have to do with the location. It is
coming into an MDR1 Zone area. The proposed income is $30,000- $50,000 per month which is
$600,000 per year. He has concerns about this large of a business being introduced into an
apartment area. He also has a concern about this being a school, or academy coming into this
area. It is a place for instruction, and he finds no place for a school in this type of zone. The
professional office zone would be a more appropriate place. He suggests letting apartments stay
in the proposed location and let this new business find a new location. His big concern is the
railroad track and a canal that runs right next to this property. It is wrong for this type of facility
to be allowed by the railroad track and canal because they are two potential places of hazard for
these handicap children. If this location is approved for this facility the city is allowing the
potential for these children to come into harms way.
5
Frank Jenkins was unable to attend the meeting; however, he wrote a letter in opposition to this
facility.
Rebuttal:
Bryce Owen explained no matter where they put this facility, there will be some kind of hazard.
They plan to have a 1 to 1 ratio of a responsible adult to a child or handicap individual. Mr.
Owen explained that this is a non -profit organization and not meant to be a large business.
Schools, daycares, recreational facilities, etc. are allowed in medium density areas with
Conditional Use Permits. This location is very convenient right next to Porter Park and it allows
BYU -I students who wish to participate to walk to the facility.
Council President Benfield closed the public hearing.
Council Member Erickson asked if a fence would be built between the railroad and the
property. There is currently a wooden fence half way down between the property and the
railroad; however it is not very suitable. Mr. Owen explained that the plan is to put up a nice six
foot fence along the entire length of the property if it is allowed with the easement.
Council Member Mann asked who is currently living at the location. There are single students
living there now.
Council Member Schwendiman asked Planning and Zoning Administrator Leikness what kind
of zoning is at this property. The zoning is Medium Density Residential One (MDR1). Council
Member Schwendiman said this is a wonderful thing, but it may not be the right location.
Council Member Young said he doesn't see a reason to stand in their way.
Council Member Erickson thought Planning and Zoning would issue a Conditional Use
Permit without coming before the City Council; however, he believes this allows the city to make
sure the conditions are followed. As long as the conditions are met there should be no problems
issuing a Conditional Use Permit for this property.
Council President Benfield agreed Mr. Owen must adhere to the permit's conditions.
Council Member Erickson said that a fence needs to be a condition of approval.
Council Member Erickson moved to approve Conditional Use Permit with the conditions set
up by Staff and the addition condition of a fence to be built the full length of the property on the
west side of the property; Council Member Young seconded the motion;
Those voting Aye Those voting Nay
Farrell Young Randy Schwendiman
Rex Erickson
Bart Stevens
Christopher Mann
Donna Benfield
The Motion carried.
B. 7:30 P.M. — Annexation request for 228 acres on South 12 West — Erikson farm
(The parcels are located west of 12 West and southwest the John Deere complex.)
Planning and Zoning Administrator Gary Leikness explained 228 acres are requested to be
annexed and rezoned. The requested zoning for the entire property to be annexed is LDR2.
The Planning and Zoning Commission heard this request and made a recommendation to annex
only those areas within the city's Impact Area and rezone the west part of the property to Low
Density Residential Two (LDR2) with the east portion of the property remaining zoned
Transitional Agriculture One (TAG1). This recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
Commission would make the proposal in compliance with Rexburg's Comprehensive Plan
boundaries.
Council Member Stevens asked how the proposed area would affect the area to the north. It
would line up on the Comprehensive Plan Map as compatible.
Kerry Schneider from Ogden, Utah explained they are asking exactly what was recommended
by the Planning and Zoning Commission for zoning. The proposal accidentally applied for the
entire property to be annexed with an LDR2 Zone; however, they would like the zoning to be
approved as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The small parcel owners
are in favor of this annexation. The concern with this annexation is the arbitrary line for
Rexburg's Impact Zone. If the area outside the Impact Zone is not annexed, the property line
will be split. This will not allow the property owners to develop this in a proficient manner, and
it will cause pocket developments. Once the high school is built to the north, a lot of
development will happen in this area. They are still asking for all of this entire area to be
annexed with the intention to put in residential housing. All the property owners are in favor of
this annexation.
Council President Benfield opened public Hearing
Those in favor of the proposal: NONE
Those in neutral of the proposal:
Brent McFadden at 5335 North 6000 West is representing Madison County Planning and
Zoning. They know this annexation is eventually going to happen; however, they would like the
city to follow the process in working with the county to first expand the current Impact Zone
before annexing property outside the Impact Zone.
Those opposed to the proposal:
Ralph Robison at 1920 North 3000 West is representing Madison County Commissioners.
They are not opposed to economic development; however, they would like a procedure followed
to define the Impact Zone expansion area first before the annexation is completed.
Rebuttal:
7
Mr. Schneider said they have worked with the county through the whole process; however, they
were never told to start with expanding the Impact Zone first. If someone had made them
aware of this request from the beginning, this is where they would have started. They never
intended to step on anyone's toes or cause problems. This area is eventually going to be
annexed. The fees have been paid, it is going to happen sooner or later, and he requested that
the public officials allow this request to proceed.
Council President Benfield closed the public hearing.
Council Member Young said we have already annexed an area outside the Impact Area; and he
asked the county if that is why they axe concerned. It is not a concern for the county; however,
they just want a process to be followed.
Council Member Erickson said they need to apologize to the county for not involving them in
this annexation request from the start. The City Council does not have to have approval from
the county to annex this area. That is what the City Council assumed when this request was
reviewed for annexation. No complaints were made in an earlier annexation outside the Impact
Zone. Council Member Erickson said the city owes it to the property owners to annex the entire
piece into the city at this time. He said from this point forward the city will not give a developer
the approval to do an annexation without first giving the county the opportunity to object. This
doesn't mean the City Council won't annex it, but they will follow protocol. If the City Council
decides not to annex this entire piece, they won't be doing the right thing by making the
Erikson's split up there property.
Council Member Schwendiman said the city has been bumping up on this area for a while.
The city needs to deal with this issue as soon as possible.
Council Member Erickson said Staff should have made the city aware the county had not been
part of the approval process. The county should have been consulted before verbal approval
was given to the applicant. He feels the City Council should go to the county from now on;
however, in this situation the city should approve this proposal.
Council Member Young said the reason we didn't enlarge the Impact Area is because the city
has outsourced this work however, it has been put off for too long. The city can't wait for a new
Comprehensive Plan. The city needs to get this Impact Area expanded as soon as possible.
Winston Dyer explained that he went to the Madison County Planning and Zoning
Commission. A meeting is scheduled for the city's and county's Planning and Zoning
Commissions to make recommendations to their respective governing councils to negotiate a
new Impact Area boundary line for the City of Rexburg.
Council Member Erickson said this area is going to be annexed at some point. The City
Council misled the requester. There is no reason to postpone this annexation.
Council Member Schwendiman asked the county if they would have said no if they had
requested it through the county. The county would not have said no.
Council Member Mann said one of his concerns is that we are constantly behind the curve so
he thinks until we force the county and city to get together it will never get in line.
8
Public Works Director John Millar requested a condition of annexation. It has become a
problem in some past annexations that water rights are sold off and then the city is required to
buy water rights for that property in perpetuity. These water rights are becoming very hard to
come by. It is requested as a condition of annexation the water rights assigned to these
properties is utilized as a secondary on -site irrigation system or the water rights revert to the city
as the property develops.
Planning and Zoning Administrator Gary Leikness also requested that an annexation
agreement be made for necessary right -of -way on 12 West and 2000 South. The process has
been started to expand the Impact Zone. It should be done by the end of June, 2007.
Council Member Stevens feels really strongly that the city needs to maintain a good
relationship with the county; however, putting this annexation off could cause financial issues for
the parties involved.
Council Member Erickson moved to annex the parcels as proposed by the applicant contrary
to the total recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission in a public hearing on
March 1, 2007. The annexation is conditioned upon the city of Rexburg receiving the dedicated
water rights associated with the parcels as the property is developed and receiving the necessary
right -of -way dedicated to the City of Rexburg on 12 West and 2000 South. Council Member
Young seconded the motion with the understanding the City of Rexburg and Madison County
Will immediately and vigorously work together to expand the Impact Area for the City of
Rexburg. Discussion: Planning and Zoning Administrator Leikness explained this is an
annexation and a rezone request. The requested LDR2 Zone for properties against 12 West
does not comply with the commercial land use designation on Rexburg's Comprehensive Plan
Map. Council Member Erickson amended his motion to include the zoning to be LDR2 for all
parcels except property adjacent to 12 West which will remain Transitional Agriculture 1 (TAG1)
as shown on the Preferred Land Use Map.
Those voting aye Those voting naX
Randy Schwendiman Christopher Mann
Farrell Young
Rex Erickson
Bart Stevens
Donna Benfield
The Motion carried.
Council Member Schwendiman asked that Comprehensive Plan be changed as soon as
possible. County Commissioner Robison from Madison County wants to have a good working
relationship with the city. There are no bad feelings because of this motion. He asked that in
the future, proper steps are taken.
New Business:
C. Final Plat — Stonebridge, Division 4 — The Dyer Group
E
Planning and Zoning Administrator Gary Leikness explained recommended changes have been
made and Planning and Zoning Staff as well as the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend
approval.
Winston Dyer with the Dyer Group 310 North 2n East, explained the Final Plat application.
Council Member Young asked why the line was not straight. The property line curves this way.
Everything is as it was in the preliminary plat stage that was already approved with a few name
changes as recommended by Staff.
Council Member Erickson asked if the lots on the west side of Willow Creek are going to be twin -
homes. Both sides of the street will be twin- homes. There will be 4 twin -homes on the west side
and 5 twin -homes on the east side. These will be middle class homes.
Council Member Stevens asked why the set back lines on the plat have changed. Planning and
Zoning Administrator Leikness explained that it gives flexibility. It would hold them to very strict
setbacks if it were to remain on the plat.
Council Member Mann asked if being so close to the river is a concern. No, because the property
sits on a higher bluff so flooding is not a concern. Mr. Dyer said storm drainage has been built in
there and it functions very well.
Council Member Stevens moved to approve final plat for Stonebridge, Division 4; Council
Member Erickson seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried.
Council Member Erickson complimented the plats that are complete and easy to read.
D. Proposed Spring Yard Clean -up dates from March 26, 2007 to May 04, 2007:
Council Member Erickson motioned to approve these dates, Schwendiman seconds. All voted
aye. None opposed. The Motion carried.
E. Discussion on vehicle weight limits for Rexburg streets:
Public Works Director John Millar explained all contractors were stopped from going on
Millhollow Road after the City Council discussion on March 7, 2007. Research was done to see what
the county and other cities do to put weight limits on vehicles. He found that Madison County
doesn't restrict loads they just restrict speed limits to 35mph during spring break -up. This does not
work for Rexburg since most of our speed limits are slower than 35 MPH. Idaho Falls has no
restrictions. Pocatello designates certain truck routes during spring break- up where heavy truck
traffic is allowed. He spoke to the transportation department to find out what they do on state
highways and found there are no load limits during spring break -up, however, there is a provision to
allow speed limit reduction by up to 50% of what is posted if a problem is developing. In the City of
Rexburg there were about 5 areas that had problems. Millhollow was the worst of all city streets.
Other problem streets include: South e East, they plan to rebuild this road; East Main by Smith
Park, there is also a road east of the Westwood Subdivision.
10
Public Works Director Millar suggested putting designated truck routes on the books. They will
evaluate possible truck routes and use those roads that were designed for unlimited truck traffic.
Other roads will be subject to immediate restriction of axel load limits for a period of time that will
be determined by the city engineers as needed.
Council Member Stevens asked if it is just spring break -up that ruins the road and if the city can
postpone construction for a 2 -3 week period each year instead of having axel limits. Public Works
Director Millar explained that they will shut roads down if needed but it will be weather dependant.
Council Member Erickson asked if we can put time limits and actual dates on the time the roads
will be closed to construction. Public Works Director Millar explained that it all depends on the
weather, so this time period will vary from year to year. Truck routes, and axel limits will allow roads
to be shut down as needed depending on weather, it will give the city some flexibility and it will still
allow the city to have some enforcement. Actual dates cannot be put on this, but they can let all
contractors or heavy vehicles know that roads may be closed from the first indication of spring break
up until the road dries out.
Council Member Erickson asked if the contractors have any obligation to compensate damage.
Public Works Director Millar explained that because we don't have any conditions at this time, we
cannot require contractors to compensate for damage. Once restrictions are put in place, the
contractors will be liable. He will work to make a document that tells when the contractors are liable
and what kind of recourse would be given in the future by these contractors.
Council President Benfield asked if we could secure a bond from these contractors to guarantee
funds if roads are damaged. Public Works Director Millar will work with City Attorney Zollinger on
this, but we cannot make this a requirement until a policy is in place. Council Member Stevens
agreed we need something in place to get recourse if trucks are excessively heavy.
Council Member Young wanted to know if the bid on rebuilding Millhollow Road will go up. It
will go up but the cost of this will be shared between the city and the contractor.
Council President Benfield asked Public Works Director Millar to work with City Attorney
Stephen Zollinger on a policy as soon as possible.
F. Legacy Flight Museum — request for pavement and old fire truck building.
Finance Officer Richard Horner the new city liaison for the flight museum explained that the
Legacy Flight Museum is requesting a paved parking lot. The county has committed $13,000 to
cover half of the parking lot expense. They are asking the city to match this amount for the
other half of the parking lot. The work on this project will be contracted out. Council Member
Erickson asked about a fence. They will do the fence after the parking lot is done. Council
Member Erickson said this is a safety issue and a fence needs to be planned. The estimated cost
for the parking lot is $26,000 however this has not been bid. Council Member Erickson would
like the parking lot bid before a commitment is approved. Any money the city approves for the
parking lot will come out of the contingency fund. Council Member Mann asked about the
$60,000 cash in bank for the museum. This is due to the checking account that was approved by
the City Council March 7, 2007. This money has been raised by the flight museum to acquire
11
additional assets for the museum. The Tabernacle Museum Committee would like the old fire
truck building moved so they can use the space for a different use. They would like this done in
the most cost effective way possible.
Report on Projects John Millar
A. Discuss and accept South Arterial Bid:
Public Works Director John Millar reported on South Yellowstone Arterial. Two things need to
happen to move the project forward. 1) The project was bid by only one bidder and their bid was
10% over the allowed amount in the engineers' estimate; therefore the City Council has two options.
The city can accept the bid as bid or the city can turn down the project. Due to the 10% overage on
the single bid, LTAC (Local Highway Technical Assistance Council) will have to approve or
disapprove the bid in their meeting tonight. Public Works Director Millar expected approval from
LTAC. 2) The project costs will have to be compiled to include all expected costs including signage,
right -of -way, etc. The total estimated cost is $6.3 million with anticipated grants coming though
LTAC for $5.2 million. The unfunded amount will need to be funded through the city for 1.75
million. As of today the city has spent $954,000 out of the street budget. These funds have been
taken out of the operating revenue from the street department. Funds are still intact for budgeted
street projects. The University is supportive of the project. Their contributions will be in the form
of cash or land. The University has contributed $173,000 to be applied back to monies the city has
already spent. The city can go ahead with this project without affecting projects already committed
for construction in the city budget. Once the city accepts the bid, there are cost items that can be
reduced in the bid (i.e. grade of asphalt material saving about $35,000 without affecting life or
durability of road; cast bridge instead of a build in place bridge saving about $100,000; eliminating
some of the fencing; eliminate the "state specification lithium" additive to concrete for sidewalks
reducing the $79 /square yard cost. The state lithium requirement is no longer in place.) The
funding from the grant requires a pedestrian bicycle pathway (sidewalk) for urban areas per federal
regulations.
State law requires the city to accept the winning bid from H -K Contractors Inc. 6350 S Yellowstone
Hwy in Idaho Falls, before bid components can be revised to reduce costs. Idaho Transportation
Department (ITD) has to approve the bid award after the city has approved the bid award.
Council Member Mann moved to approve the bid with H -K Contractors Inc.; Council Member
Schwendiman seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The Motion carried.
B. Review status of bids on city projects:
Public Works Director John Millar discussed the new bids for replacing the sewer line in allies
behind city hall. The city received three bids: Jerome Bowen $145,000; K -4 $221,000; 3 -H $320,000.
The large variety in bids was a concern. In discussion with Jerome Bowen, he is confident he can
work with his bid of $145,000 and do a quality job for the city.
Council Member Erickson moved to approve the bid by Jerome Bowen at $145,000; Council
Member Stevens seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The Motion Carried.
12
Financial Officer Report Richard Horner
G. Monthly Budget summaries
Finance Officer Richard Horner reported on the five month budget report. Approximately
42% of the budget may be spent depending on expenses. Some departments may be a little
higher.
Council President Benfield asked what the 59% under miscellaneous single departments was
covering. This is the airport fund where a grant was received to buy land to expand the no -fly
zone. The grant has not yet been received, so this amount will be amended at the end of the
year. The Street Department is only at 14 %. Most of this budget is scheduled for big capital
projects that haven't happened yet. These projects will begin in the next three months. Parks
and Recreation are at 66% instead of 42 %. This is due to the Legacy Flight Museum because
they bought and sold a plane. They made $30,000 on this sale. This budget will need to be
amended by the end of the year as well.
Council Member Stevens asked about the Building Safety Department at 18 %. This is because
a contingency was put in the budget for another inspector.
Council Member Young asked about a parking lot to the north of 7`'' South. Public Works
Director John Millar said there is a parking lot being built to accommodate 600 cars. It will be
across from the temple. The water will go out onto 1" East.
Calendared Bills and Tabled Items
A. BILL Introductions: - NONE
B. First Reading: Those items which are being introduced for first reading. — NONE
C. Second Reading: Those items which have been first read.
1. BILL 981- Creation of LID 37
City Engineer Keith Davidson explained that Mariah Avenue and Pioneer Road are in the
process of installing sidewalks. They are still working on the sprinkler system. A meeting will be
scheduled for the Parkinson's; who's property on Shoshone Avenue was damaged. The
contractor for the meeting is Depatco. They will determine who is responsible for the damaged
curb, gutter and sidewalk. The property at 265 South 5`'' West has 16 feet of asphalt driveway. A
concrete sidewalk will not be required on this part of the property.
Public Works Director John Millar explained on corner properties such as the Rasmussen's
property at 550 Terra Vista Ave; homeowners are not receiving full benefit of building curb,
gutter and sidewalk. The city has discussed paying a portion of these costs on these types of lots.
There are approximately 91 properties that could be involved in this group. If there is a corner
lot that is a buildable lot with no current building on it, the city will not subsidize these lots, as
this will become the builder's responsibility at the time a building is put on the property.
13
Council Member Stevens asked if the properties by World Gym are developed. Most of it is
not, so this will be developed by the developer. A policy to help with curb and gutter but not
sidewalk was suggested.
Public Works Director Millar said a request for the city to pay for up to 50% of the sidewalk
on the non -used part of the homeowners' property could be justified.
Council Member Mann asked if the city subsidized curb, gutter and sidewalk 50% on these
lots; where the money would be budgeted. Public Works Director Millar said it will come out of
the street budget. The property owners would be required to maintain the curb, gutter and
sidewalk and any repairs required after it has been initially put installed.
Council President Benfield asked for the costs on the 50% proposal. City Engineer Davidson
explained that 6 properties are involved. There is not a current estimate, but he will work on
getting one for the City Council.
Council Member Mann motioned to consider LID 37second read; Council Member Young
seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The Motion carried.
D. Third Reading: Those items which have been second read. — NONE
Tabled Items Those items which have been the subject of an affirmative vote to a
motion to table: - NONE
Calendared Items:
April 04 — City Council
April 05 — Planning and Zoning
April 18 — School Board Meeting at 6 p.m.
April 19 —joint City and County Meeting at 6 p.m.
April 19 — Planning and Zoning
April 27 — Pride Day at 7 p.m.
May 25 — Lunch and a two hour drive around for Rexburg 201 from 11a.m.- 2 p.m.
Old Business NONE
Mayor's Report
Council President Benfield reviewed the Mayors Report on his recent activities.
Council Member Young moved to go into executive session pursuant to State Statute 67 -2345 to
Consider property acquisition; Council Member Stevens seconded the motion; Roll call vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Farrell Young None
Randy Schwendiman
Donna Benfield
Bart Stevens
Christopher Mann
14
The motion carried.
Executive Session:
Executive Session ended.
Adjournment
Council President Donna Benfield
For Mayor Shawn Larsen
Attest:
April Howard
Deputy City Clerk
15
Planning & Zoning Minutes
March 1, 2007
12 North Center Phone: 208.359.3020
Rexburg, ID 83440 www.rexburg.org Fax: 208.359.3022
OF WT,XB VR
F �7
v �
„ o
CITY OF
REX
0
Americas Family Community
Com missioners Attendin
Rex Erickson —
Council Member
Winston Dyer — Chairman
Ted Hill
Thaine Robinson
Dan Hanna
Charles Andersen
Mike Ricks
Mary Ann Mounts
Mary Haley
Randall Porter
David Stein
Chairman Dyer opened the meeting at 7:04 pm.
City Staff and Others
Gary Leikness — P &Z Administrator
Stephen Zollinger — City Attorney
Jimmy Barrett — Assistant City Attorney
Natalie Powell — Compliance Officer
Emily Abe — Secretary
Chairman Dyer recognized Commissioner Joe Laird, who died in an automobile accident a couple weeks ago.
He recognized the great contribution he made to our community as City Engineer and as a long standing member
of the Planning & Zoning Commission. Rexburg is a better place because of the efforts of Joe Laird. Our
condolences, thoughts and prayers are with his family at this time.
Roll Call of Planning and Zoning Commissioners
Thaine Robinson, Charles Anderson, Randall Porter, David Stein, Winston Dyer, Mary Ann Mounts, Mike Ricks,
Mary Haley, Ted Hill, Dan Hanna
Minutes:
A. Planning and Zoning meeting — February 1, 2007
Corrections:
-P. 5 — Indicate "None" after agenda items where there was no business.
-P. 5 — Under the discussion on a joint meeting with the County and Sugar City, list the possible agenda
items that were discussed.
Dan Hanna motioned to approve the minutes for February 1, 2007 as amended. Mike Ricks seconded the
motion.
Mary Ann Mounts, Randall Porter, and Mary Haley abstained.
None opposed. Motion carried.
Compliance
A. Rexburg Housing Sign Qessica Pace)
Natalie Powell introduced a letter from Jessica Pace from Rexburg Housing requesting permission to leave a
temporary banner located at 460 South t ad West up until April 31, 2007, due to bad weather.
Mary Ann Mounts said there were nice days last week when there was no snow and they could have taken it down.
Mike Ricks motioned to have the banner taken down by March 15, 2007, or further action will need to be taken.
Mary Ann Mounts seconded the motion.
None opposed. Motion carried.
David Stein asked Natalie Powell for an update on the dormitory style housing situation in Low Density
Residential areas and Hidden Valley Subdivision.
Natalie Powell said as she receives complaints that this is going on in the homes, she takes out copies of the
Ordinance specific to the zone they are located in, so the owners are aware of the compliance issue. When they are
located in a zone that allows this with a Conditional Use Permit, she works with them to get them through the
Conditional Use Permit process. When they are located in zones that do not allow dormitory style housing at all,
she asks them to move. The people in the home in Hidden Valley subdivision are moving. She said she is aware of
about 25 of these situations throughout town.
Chairman Dyer suggested we look into the federal guidelines on time limits we can give these people to move out
of their homes.
Mary Haley asked if there is an ordinance that requires refrigerators in yards to be chained shut or have their doors
removed. Natalie Powell said she would look into it and let the Commission know.
Public Hearings
7:05 pm — Conditional Use Permit — 710 S. 5"' W. (Terry Madsen) Cancelled
7:15 pm — Conditional Use Permit — 346 W. 2 nd S. (Bryce Owen)
Bryce Owen: 259 Melanie Drive; Applicant for this proposal. He said his uncle owns the property, and he is the
general manager. They are interested in creating a facility that will allow social and recreational activities for people
with mental and physical disabilities. They want to strengthen family relationships by encouraging parents and
siblings to interact with all of their family members, including those with physical and mental challenges, through
providing ability- appropriate social and recreational activities during evening and weekend hours. They do not
intent on having anyone stay overnight, and they will have family members accompany the children. They plan to
have staff members there to assist as they go hiking, bowling, etc. These activities will be held in the evenings and
on the weekends, since these hours can be the most difficult for parents. There are a lot of agencies that provide
services during the day, but not at night when families can come together to participate.
Thaine Robinson asked if there are two buildings involved. Bryce Owen said he wants to use both the properties.
No one would live in the homes. He outlined the property on the map.
David Stein asked how many clients will be there at one time. Bryce Owen said there could be 15 to 20 maximum
bodies there at any one time. David Stein asked what would keep them from having 50 people there at one time.
2
Bryce Owen said it is not big enough to fit any more there. He does not know about any state ordinance that
regulates this.
Chairman Dyer asked if there was any kind of licensing from a public health or regulatory agency they would need.
Bryce Owen said he did not know.
Mary Haley asked how this will be paid for. Bryce Owen said they will get donors and grants. The families may
have to pay a fee, but these decisions have not been made yet.
The Commission discussed whether the facility would be a not - for - profit entity.
Chairman Dyer asked if most the activities would be held on site or off site. Bryce Owen said the activities that
would be held on site would be music and art related. The others would be held off site. This program would not
involve any counseling or therapy.
Dan Hanna asked what the property is currently used for. Bryce Owen said there are 34 students living there now.
Chairman Dyer complimented the applicant on the completeness and the organization of the application. This is a
model application.
Chairman Dyer opened the public input portion.
In favor:
Angie Owen Another applicant. This use is very much needed in this family- oriented community to help them feel
more included.
Neutral: None
Opposed:
Fred Caulder 244 Steiner Avenue. I have lived and owned property at this address for over 35 years. I live within
three quarters of a block of the subject property. I also own a piece of property at 377 West 2nd South which is
kiddy corner across the railroad tracks and is within 150 feet of the subject property.
Here tonight we have a proposal to have the Planning and Zoning Committee issue a Conditional Use Permit to
allow the owners of the property located at 346 West 2nd South to provide physical facilities for families with
mental and physically challenged students to meet, support, and socialize with other families who have similarly
challenged students.
First let me make sure I have the facts right:
The operating hours will be between 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday.
The students to be served will be between the ages of 5 years to 18 years and are mentally and physically challenged.
Some of the classes suggested to be offered are: art, dance, theatre, music, physical activities and outdoor activities.
Additional class curriculum is alluded to. There will also be a lot of opportunity for socializing.
There will be at least one trained employee at all activities. There will be a receptionist available during normal
business hours.
Ample parking is to be provided.
The eventual projected operating capital needed to operate this organization will be between $30,000 and $50,000
per month. These funds are projected to come from grant applications and established foundations as well as from
personal and business donations.
I assume the above facts brought forth are accurate and correct.
The proposal presented here tonight is a very carefully presented and well thought out presentation. The presenter
wants you to believe there are many positive and beneficial reasons why this new business should come to Rexburg.
I fully support this new business and wish the new owners success in establishing this much needed school for the
mental and physically challenged students in our area.
There are however, some additional issues that have not surfaced that need to be discussed before we proceed.
PARKING:
The presenter has pointed out there is ample parking for the anticipated traffic flow. The depth measurements of
these two properties are relatively deep, and there is a lot of room for parking. However the parking needs for this
type of school will be much greater as compared to the parking needs of multiple apartments of which this property
is presently zoned for. It is probable some public bussing from the local school districts and privately owned
transportation companies will be used, but mostly the students will be delivered to the school in a ratio of one car
or van for each student. In other words if you have 20 students attend classes then you will have need for 20
parking spaces. If you have 35 students attend classes then you will have need for 35 parking spaces and on up and
up. If school buses are used, and they surely will be, then by law traffic is stopped in both directions as students
load and unload causing traffic congestion. Wheel chair ramp loading and unloading could cause even greater
traffic congestion. The need for a lot of parking is greater for this type of school than for an ordinary school
Conclusion: Traffic flow will drastically increase in this neighborhood because it is a school and because of the
nature of the school.
BUSINESS:
The term being used to designate this proposition is Not - For -Profit Organization. The reason for this unique
terminology is probably to soft -pedal and perhaps cover up the fact that this is going to be what could be
considered a large business. The funds to operate this organization as specified, "will come mostly from grant
applications through established foundations as well as from personal and business donations."
It is broadly known governmental administrations both, on a national basis and on a state basis are eager for
programs such as, No Child Left Behind and many others, to take off and to be successful. They are most anxious
to get this type of school established in this area and you can be assured they will be eager to endow this business
with financial stimulation. It is proposed by the owners that eventually $30,000 to $50,000 will be needed on a
monthly basis to operate this business. That projects out to $600,000 a year. Six hundred thousand dollars as
operating capital on an annual basis is a huge amount of money. If looks like a duck, if it sounds like a duck, if
waddles like a duck, it must be a duck.
Conclusion: Because of the large projected financial income this operation is and should be classified as a large
commercial business.
SCHOOL:
The Mission Statement of H.A.V.E F.U.N. is stated as follows:
Strengthen family relationships by encouraging parents and siblings to interact with all of their family members
including those with physical and mental challenges through providing ability- appropriate social and recreational
activities during evening and weekend hours. Families will be able to meet, support, and socialize with other
families with similar situations.
Classes to be taught in this setting are: Art, dance, theatre, music, physical activities, socializing, and outdoor
activities. The door is left open for other class curriculum to be added in the future. This is not all bad, in fact, it's
a good thing. Let's stop a minute and take a look at what is happening however. The presenter is very careful not
to give you the impression that a school will be established. The term "School ", in fact, seems to be very
appropriate.
In order to have a school you need: (1) a place of teaching, (2) a subject to be taught, (3) students that are available
and willing to be taught, (4) teachers that are qualified to teach.
Conclusion: This institution, qualifies in all four requirements. Therefore it is a school In fact it is a "Private
School" since the ownership is private.
ZONING:
When you purchase a piece of property in the City of Rexburg you automatically receive a zoning designation that is
part of the ownership right of that particular property. i. e. the properties in the area we are talking about are zoned
as MDR 1. This means family dwellings and medium density apartment dwellings are allowed. All other types of
dwellings and businesses are excluded.
4
There has been a lot of money and effort spent to convert these two homes into multiple living apartments. It
makes a lot of sense to leave these units as they now exist. They are money making apartments. Locate the
proposed school in a different location in Rexburg where the properly is appropriately zoned and reap the rewards
of income coming off from two businesses instead of one.
When Ricks College became a four -year university a few years ago, there was an immediate need for additional
housing in the city of Rexburg. The 9 block area west of the campus, From 2nd West to the canal on 4th West and
1 st South to 4th South, was immediately impacted. There was a rush to convert family homes into apartment for
students. Under the MDR 1 zoning guidelines this was and is appropriate. In the future it is a sure thing more
homes in this area will be replaced by apartments because of the need for additional student housing.
The main reason we are here tonight is that the MDR 1 zoning designation attached to the two subject properties is
being challenged. There is a request for a conditional use permit to be issued by the Planning and Zoning
Committee to allow this large business, which is also a school, to function in our neighborhood. The property
owners in and around this neighborhood are opposed to this proposition. We feel if the Conditional Use Permit is
to be allowed it would be the start of additional businesses and perhaps schools to be built in our area. You might
compare this to dropping a rotten apple in a barrel of good apples. The effect of this business if it were to be
allowed in our neighborhood would have a bad and negative effect on our property values.
CONCLUSION: In the end, the whole area will be adversely affected and the duality of our neighborhood will go
down hill. It will also adversely affect the property values of our highly valued possessions Our homes and our
apartments.
RAILROAD:
The proposal indicates there is a need for better fencing around the outskirts of the property. There is no mention
in the proposal that the property adjoins the road track on the west side. Probably the thinking is that better
fencing is required so the students will be protected from the dangers of the railroad. This certainly is good
thinking. The problem is building a school next to a railroad track is not a good idea in the first place. A railroad
track is a magnet for children to play on and around. In spite of warnings, instructions, and threats children are
drawn to a railroad track to play. It's just a fun place to be. There is the possibility that a student sometime,
somewhere, somehow will slip under the radar and go and play in harm's way of an oncoming train. In this case,
where you're dealing with mentally challenged students, the possibility of slipping under the eyes of supervision is
even greater. What a tragedy it would be if a mentally challenged student got injured or killed by an oncoming train,
while attending school located next to the railroad track. Placing a school next to a railroad track is using poor
judgment. The only school that could justifiably be located next to a railroad track is a lockdown prison.
I contacted my insurance agents and inquired about the cost of liability insurance for students in a school located
next to a railroad track. He indicated the cost of insurance is based upon the factors of risk. In the case of a school
being located next to a road track the insurance cost would be prohibitive, clear off the charts. I wonder if the
proper home work has been done on this issue.
We as property owners in the neighborhood have no objection for this private school coming to Rexburg. We
think it is an excellent business opportunity and a good idea. The objection we have is locating the school at the
proposed location.
Let me review our objections:
1. Traffic flow would greatly increase in our neighborhood.
2. It would introduce business zoning into a residential area. This means the flood gates for big business to
infiltrate the area would be opened wide.
3. Property values in dollars and cents would decline. The very thing we as property owners have been struggling
our guts out for years to own and to get paid off would decline.
4. It would allow a school to come into an area that is not zoned for a school.
5. Issuing a conditional use permit allowing a school to be built next to a railroad track is poor judgment. It's like
allowing the owners of the school to put big bucks in their pockets while setting up the conditions so mentally
challenged students can be exposed to death and destruction on the railroad track.
Members of the Planning and Zoning Committee please cast your vote for the right reasons! We can still have this
much needed School right here in Rexburg. Just not at this proposed location for the reasons we have discussed
here tonight. Thank you!
5
Corey Sorensen: 154 S. 3rd W. This is a great idea, but this is not the best location. Kent Hillman, another
property owner, also asked for his name to be in opposition to this proposal. This area is mostly single student
housing. Their worry is that this will turn away tenants. This proposal will make it harder for them to keep their
apartments full. They feel that putting children with special needs next to single housing is not a good idea. There
are better places in town for this facility.
Frank Jenkins 256 W. 4`" S. He owns the 12 -plex across the road from this proposal. This is the wrong location
for this facility. This area is predominantly student housing for BYU- Idaho. He is worried about the age of the
students at this facility. He has a disabled boy, so he knows about what goes on in these facilities. Safety is a top
priority. 2 nd South is a through street that a lot of traffic has to use. The railroad track and canal are also safety
concerns. He phoned around, and Health and Welfare didn't know anything about this facility. They will have to
have a license to run this kind of a facility. He likes the idea of the facility, but not in this location. There will have
to be an inspection and a license. He is opposed to this in this location.
Written Input•
Letter from Dennis Ramsey owner of the six plex next to the property, neutral to the proposal.
Letter from David W. Evans of MDE Investment Company, LLC, owner of Woodshed Apartments across the
street, opposed to the proposal.
Rebuttal:
Bryce Owen said he would like to clarify some misconceptions. They will have the required licenses. It is most
convenient to do this in this location because his uncle owns the property. It is in close proximity to Porter Park,
which would be a great facility for them. If they are able to have BYU -Idaho interns, it is within walking distance of
the college. They are not going to make big money with a big business. They lived in this area, and never once did
their children go to the railroad tracks. He appreciates the support of the idea of having this type of an agency in
town. They would love to have this facility in Rexburg.
Chairman Dyer closed the public input portion.
Gary Leikness said on January 18, 2007, the Commission classified this use as a conditional use within the zone.
Schools are also allowed in this zone. He said a conditional use is something that is allowed in the zone, but needs
to be looked at a little more carefully to help it fit in. It is a use that someone buying a property can expect to use, if
they can make it fit in with reasonable conditions of approval. He has analyzed this proposal as a conditional use,
and has suggested possible conditions of approval relating to office hours, noise, etc. He compared this facility to
one he worked at once in Provo, Utah. This facility was located across the street from single family homes, and
there were no vacancies in the homes that he was aware of. The facility he worked for was able to get grants for
United Way vans, which he saw as an impact to the neighborhood. He suggested a condition of approval be that if
they have these types of vehicles, they shall be fully screened from the public right -of -way. The facility he worked
for was within walking distance to a park, which was a huge benefit for the clients. The clients were always an
upbeat group. They did not interact very much with the residences, but when they did, it was positive. Because this
zone is not our most restrictive zone, but is a transition zone in residential areas, a mix of use is healthy.
Charles Andersen asked Gary Leikness if the facility he worked for was licensed. Gary Leikness said he believes
that once you get funding through United Way or similar agencies, there is a lot of scrutiny involved.
David Stein asked if we are able to put conditions of approval on this regarding family members being present.
Stephen Zollinger said you could put a condition with relation to ratio of clients to supervision. We might not be
able to make it mandatory that family members be present.
G
David Stein asked about the parking situation, there being 26 cars. Gary Leikness reviewed the parking
requirements in the ordinance.
Mary Haley said as she investigated the property, she noticed snow has taken up quite a bit of the parking in the
area. The island in the middle is not holding all the snow. People might be parking on the street.
Chairman Dyer referred to the Development Code, Article 6.13(F), which gives authority to the Commission to
grant certain Conditional Use Permits. The Commission decided that since this proposal does not exactly fit into
any of the listed uses, they should make a recommendation to City Council, who should make the final decision.
Chairman Dyer said the question before the Commission is "shall the Commission recommend to City Council to
approve, deny, or approve with conditions this Conditional Use Permit ?"
Chairman Dyer said he is personally acquainted with the Owen family, and he can ensure that there is nothing
disingenuous about this proposal. They do have a challenged child, and they are looking for opportunities to meet
and network with others of similar situation, and for a chance to get out of the home and have positive experiences
with others.
Mary Ann Mounts said she does not see anything thing that would cause us to not recommend this. This is an
allowed use with conditions. If we don't think the conditions can be met, we can deny it. Otherwise, it is an
allowed use with conditions. She spent 5 years working with life skill students in school; going bowling, out to eat,
skiing, etc. She can say that this is a compatible use in this neighborhood, for these children to get together and
spend time with each other and with their families. If you say this is a school, schools are allowed in this zone also.
The comment was made that it is zoned for students, then why not these students? Why can they not fit in with
college students? They fit in fine, they are just students. She sees nothing about this that would turn away tenants
from their complexes. The opposite would be true. This will not be a "mental health facility." This is for people
with mental and physical disabilities to get together and spend time with each other and their families. She loved
the time she spent working with these students. She sees no reason why this would be not be compatible with this
neighborhood. The middle school is located next to railroad tracks, and the new high school is will also be close to
a railroad. There was also an open canal next to the middle school when it was built.
Mary Haley said the Development Workshop is located within a block of Smith Park. It is nice to see people
using the park for what they were intended. People are accepting of these disabled people. They are a part of our
community, and we need more facilities like this.
David Stein said he thinks this is an appropriate use, and we need to place appropriate conditions of approval on
this proposal. His biggest concern is parking. There is a risk of high traffic flow. We need to restrict it to the
proposed hours. A parking plan needs to submitted to the city and approved. He wants this to become what it is
proposed to be.
Randall Porter said he endorses what the other Commissioners have said. He has had some experience working
with these children, and the experience has been positive. Other facilities on major streets have not had problems
with traffic, safety, or property values. His one concern is licensing, with ratios of supervisors to clients.
Mike Ricks asked if this will require a business license. Stephen Zollinger said it will be required to have a business
license, and will require a building inspection for safety. He asked the Commissioners to attach a use category to
this, for parking regulation purposes.
David Stein said the professional services designation for parking regulations would probably be appropriate,
which is 5 spaces for 1000 square feet of building.
II
Mary Ann Mounts motioned to recommend to City Council to approve the Conditional Use Permit for 346 West
2 °a South with the following conditions:
1. Trash receptacles should be fully screened from the public right -of -way and should not be visible from
adjacent residential property.
2. There should be no outside storage of material or equipment unless fully screened form public right -of -way.
This screening, if in it self is deemed objectionable by affected property owners, should be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Commission or designee.
3. The hours of operation, other than general office usage, as proposed by the applicant shall be adhered to,
unless future modifications are made and approved by the Planning Commission. The hours of operation
shall be limited to:
a. Monday - Thursday 6pm -8pm
b. Friday 6pm -9pm
C. Saturday 9am- 5:30pm
4. If the City receives noise complaints in excess of two, on separate occasions, within a period of 30 -days, the
applicant is required to come before the Commission and address the issue and explain how it will be
resolved. If the situation becomes chronic (i.e. more than two visits before the Planning Commission in a
12 -month period) revocation of the conditional use permit may be warranted.
5. Vehicles that are used in conjunction with the use, e.g. vans or similar, shall be fully screened from the
public right -of -way.
6. A site plan reflecting all conditions of approval and incorporating all City standards, e.g. landscaping,
parking, etc. shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to the issuance of a building permit.
7. Commercial lighting standards per the City's development code shall be adhered to.
8. Parking shall be held to the requirement for Professional Services (Physician), or 5 spaces per 1000 square
foot gross floor area.
9. Applicant shall comply with all State, Federal, and local regulations.
Dan Hanna seconded the motion.
Mary Ann Mounts amended her motion that the ratio of supervisor to client be 1 to 3. Dan Hanna seconded.
None opposed. Motion carried.
7:30 pm — Annexation /Rezone —1076 S. 12''' W. (Kerry Schneider)
Kerry Schneider 1716 N. 900 E. Ogden, Utah. They are proposing the annexation of a number of properties. He
pointed out the properties on the map. Multiple property owners are seeking annexation. They want to get this
annexed into the City without pockets of non- annexed properties around them. They want to master plan their
property. They would like LDR2 zoning with an 800 foot wide commercial strip along 12''' West. They believe
there will be demand for residential and commercial around the new high school. They want to develop affordable
entry -level housing. The impact zone runs through their property and makes it hard to master plan their property.
They would like the entire property annexed. They understand that the County has concerns with annexing outside
of the impact area. He said they did contact the County on 3 separate occasions to let them know what they were
applying for.
Thaine Robinson asked how close the city services are to this property. They are extended to about halfway down
this proposed property. Gary Leikness showed this on the map. Kerry Schneider said they will eventually have to
have a lift station for the sewer.
Dan Hanna asked if they can proceed with their development and plans at this time if they do not get the Southern
part of their properties annexed. Kerry Schneider said they have bought the property based on a price that assumes
the city will annex the property.
Ted Hill asked what the Preferred Land Use map shows for this property. Gary Leikness pointed out the area on
the Comprehensive Plan Map. The property is designated Low- Moderate Residential Density and Commercial.
Randall Porter asked how many homes can be placed on the property. Kerry Schneider said the property is a total
of 147 acres, so approximately 325 homes could be built on this property.
Gary Leikness showed the property on the map, and the Comprehensive Plan Map designations on the property.
He pointed out the City limits, the impact area limits, and the proposed annexation limits.
Chairman Dyer opened the public input portion.
In favor:
Darren Klingler 1230 S. 12 W. He owns part of the property in question. He is in favor of the annexation,
because these developers are going to pay for the city services to be extended. The City would be crazy if they
didn't take these developers up on it.
Kirk Ricks 1266 S. 12 W. He has a man whole in his front yard, so he's in favor of the annexation.
Neutral:
Brent McFadden 5335 N. 6000 W. He represents Madison County as the Planning & Zoning Administrator. He is
concerned that this is not all in the impact area. This is legal, but we have a problem when we start extending past
the impact area. He sees no problem with the developers stopping at 2000 South and designing their subdivision to
the North. They will do this anyway. They will design the South part of the property separately, because of the
road. There is no problem with the annexation, but they would like to see it follow the procedures of expanding the
impact zone prior to the annexation. The letter in the packets is from the County Commissioners. They see this as
being developer- driven, and not good planning.
Ralph Robison County Commissioner. He said Brent indicated the County Commissioners' feelings on this
annexation. We should follow proper procedure in the effort to get along from one entity to another.
Opposed:
Bruce Howell 2625 W. 2000 S. They operate a small specialized drilling operation on their property. They do
fabrication and consulting on specialized projects. He rented the property in 1973. They purchased it a few years
later. They later put in a large shop on the property. They are concerned that their business base is worth more
than their home is, by a considerable amount. They are not against the annexation or development of the property,
but it shuts them off from ever being able to sell their property as a small commercial home -based operation. They
sometimes employ as many as 50 people on projects off site. They have been there long enough to be
grandfathered, and they have built up to be more of a commercial operation. With the John Deere complex on 12`''
West, they believe the commercial was moving towards them. To put this residential strip in cuts them off from it.
They are also concerned that if this property is annexed, they will be on the end of the city. They don't want
everyone turning around in their driveway when they find they are at the end of the city. They are also concerned
about their water rights. There is a ditch along the road, and he wants to keep his water rights. He would like the
area South of 2000 South to have the option of being commercial or residential. He is afraid this will devalue his
property.
Written Input•
Letter from Brent McFadden and the Madison County Commissioners neutral to the proposal.
0
Rebuttal:
Kerry Schneider said in all the other developments they have done, they have had to pipe irrigation, because they
can't just shut someone off from their water rights. Concerning the other issue with the turn around, there are not
going to be any homes facing that road. They will have internal roads, and no driveways would face the main road
at all. He said when they went to City Council, they were told that the City knew development was going to move
West and South. They were instructed to take this to the next step. Also, they did not intend to step on anyone's
toes. They want a result that is beneficial to everyone.
Chairman Dyer closed the public input portion.
Chairman Dyer declared a conflict of interest in that he is employed by the applicant elsewhere in town. He
excused himself from the table.
David Stein was selected to act as chair for this issue.
Gary Leikness said we do not have land use designations outside the impact area, so it would be premature to
rezone this to anything. He presented a pie -chart of current preferred land use designations in the impact area. He
said the County, Sugar City, Rexburg, and BYU -Idaho have just hired a land use consultant that will help us steer
development in the city. This area is prime for analysis and suggestions. If these areas were annexed, he would
suggest leaving the areas designated as Commercial on the Preferred Land Use Map as Transitional Agriculture. He
also recommended that if the land outside the impact area were annexed, that it remain at the same zoning it is
currently zoned. He noted that adjacent land use conflicts are common when you expand into the County area.
The Commissioners discussed protocol for annexing into the County.
Thaine Robinson said he believes in order. We should wait for the County to increase our impact area before we
annex the land outside it.
Mary Haley said we have had a problem coming regarding good commercial and industrial property in our town.
She would be in favor of annexing as far as the impact zone, but leaving the rest of the property in the County. She
would like to make room for industrial and commercial zones.
Mike Ricks said he feels we should not extend past the impact area. He would be in favor of only annexing what
is inside the impact area.
Mary Ann Mounts motioned to recommend to City Council to annex only the area of the proposal that is inside
the impact area, to allow the new planner to determine the best land use in the area. She motioned we zone the
portion that is designated on the Comprehensive Plan Map as "Low- Moderate Residential Density" as LDR2, and
leave the portion that is designated "Commercial" on the Comprehensive Plan Map as Transitional Agriculture 1
(TAG1). Thaine Robinson seconded the motion.
None opposed. Motion carried.
Winston Dyer was restored as Chair.
Chairman Dyer declared a 5 minute break.
10
8:00 pm — Conditional Use Permit — 347 W. Main (Woodshed Properties)
Kevin Snell of Woodshed Properties, LLC, presented the proposal for the Conditional Use Permit at 347 West
Main Street. The property is zoned Medium Density Residential 1.
Thaine Robinson asked where the accesses are. Kevin Snell pointed these out on the site plan.
David Stein asked why this proposal is before the Commission as a Conditional Use Permit. Gary Leikness said he
interprets the Medium Density Residential 1 (MDR1) zone allowing a 4 unit building, per development, as a right.
The zone allows 5 and 6 units as a conditional use. He wonders if this is even allowed in the zone at all.
The Commission discussed this proposal and how it fits into the Medium Density Residential 1 zone. They
understood the zone as allowing up to 16 units per acre.
Kevin Snell said they want to create individual townhouses to be sold to individual families. They will eventually
have 36 units with 36 families, each owning their own unit.
Stephen Zollinger suggested this proposal would need to come under the Planned Unit Development ordinance.
Mary Ann Mounts motioned to deny this application because it is the wrong process. The applicant needs to re-
submit a proposal under the Planned Unit Development ordinance. Mary Haley seconded the motion.
Mary Ann Mounts amended the motion to include that the City will take care of any costs to re- notice. Mary
Haley seconded.
None opposed. Motion carried.
Unfinished /Old Business None
New Business
A. Final Plat — Valley View Division 6, Phase 3
GM Leikness said Bart Stevens was unable to make it to the meeting. The GIS department has highlighted a few
technical issues that will need to be addressed before the plat is signed. Substantively, this final plat is in compliance
with the preliminary plat previously approved, so staff recommends approval.
The Commissioners discussed the street names and how they correlate with each other.
Chairman Dyer said the issues the GIS department pointed out will need to be fixed before anyone signs the plat.
He said it is disconcerting to have this much of a concern at the final plat stage.
David Stein motioned to recommend to City Council to approve the Final Plat for Valley View Division 6, Phase
3, with the condition that the staff review issues be resolved prior to the plat being signed. Dan Hanna seconded
the motion.
None opposed. Motion carried.
11
B. Final Plat — Valley View Townhomes, Phase 1
Chairman Dyer declared a direct conflict of interest and excused himself from the table.
David Stein was selected to act as chair for this issue.
Winston Dyer The Dyer Group, 310 N 2 E, Ste. 153, the authorized representative of DSC Investment. This is a
proposal for approval of the Final Plat for Valley View Townhomes, Phase 1. The Preliminary Plat was previously
approved through P &Z and City Council for the entirety of the property. This proposal embraces the Westerly
portion. This particular piece has 2.9 acres and 7 lots proposed. These lots are to be single - family twin homes,
which is consistent with the LDR2 zone. He pointed the area out on the map. Lot 7 on the plat is a non-
conforming lot, and is therefore not developable. This piece could be turned over to the city in the future for the
development of the water tower. Lot 1 is deemed to be a common area for the remaining five (5) ownerships.
There will be a utility and road easement through the plat. The access road to 2nd East has been turned to square up
to 2 East for safety reasons. The five (5) developable lots are sized so twin homes can be built, and then split
down the middle for separate ownership. There is a roadway access along the back. The buildings will front to this
road, and will back to 2 East. However, the appropriate front yard setback will be held from 2nd East. This
development could result in an increase of 18 pupils in the schools. It would generate up to 12 cars in the peak
hour. It will increase the tax base and help develop a challenged piece of land. It is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the residential use of the area. Staff comments say there is no flood plain designation on
the plat, and this is because there is no flood plains anywhere near this property.
Gary Leikness asked if there were any access restrictions for lots 2 through 6, and if there should be a condition for
lot 7 to be dedicated. He said he is concerned with the private access easement along the back side of the lots. It
approaches Sunrise Drive it that area, which will be a future extension to the East. He recommends that access not
be a road access, but the access follow the curve to the 2nd East connection. Winston Dyer said that is the intent.
Gaa Leikness said his understanding is that the entire approach of Tower Road will be improved, as well as half
street improvements on Tower Road abutting lot 6.
Mary Ann Mounts motioned to recommend to City Council to approve the Final Plat for Valley View
Townhomes, Phase 1. Mike Ricks seconded the motion.
None opposed. Motion carried.
Winston Dyer was restored as Chair.
C. Development Code Revisions — TAG1 and TAG2
Gary Leikness presented staff's proposed amendments to the Transitional Agriculture 1 (TAG1) and Transitional
Agriculture 2 (TAG2) zones. The Commission discussed these proposed amendments.
The Commissioners set the public hearing date for the TAG1 and TAG2 Development Code revisions for April 5,
2007.
D. Sign Height Requirements along Interstate Interchanges
GM Leikness said they have the potential to bring to the Commission an ordinance that allows a varying sign
height standard for properties near the highway interchanges. It has been brought to the City's attention that signs
near the highway may be less visible to travelers with a sign height of 24 feet. It has been requested that we review
12
the sign ordinance to see what changes, if any, can be made to requirements for signs in these areas. He presented a
proposal with several options of how to increase sign height and size along the highway interchanges. The proposal
included some pros and cons of changing the ordinance. He asked the Commissioners to take the proposal home,
review it, and let him know how they feel about it.
The Commissioners discussed this issue.
Mary Ann Mounts suggested we amend the ordinance to give the housing complexes specific time periods in the
year when temporary banner signs are allowed. It is too difficult to regulate these banners under the current
ordinance.
Chairman Dyer asked the Commissioners to come prepared to the next meeting to articulate their concerns and
positions on these matters. They will deliberate and debate the sign ordinance issues.
Non controversial Items Added to the Agenda:
Gary Leikness said the County, Sugar City, BYLT- Idaho, and Rexburg have decided on a planning consultant firm
out of Salt Lake City. He said hopefully the consultant will include the Commission through the whole process.
Chairman Dyer encouraged the Commissioners to be supportive and cooperative in this effort.
Stephen Zolhnger said the school district is also involved in this process.
Gary Leikness asked if March 28 would work for the joint meeting with the County and Sugar City. This is a
tentative date. The Commissioners said this date would work.
Gary Leikness said he would like some feedback on the PUD ordinance as soon as possible. Some developers are
waiting for the ordinance to be adopted. He asked them for their feedback in writing.
Chairman Dyer suggested we make this an item on the next meeting's agenda. He asked the Commissioners to
give their input to Gary before this date.
Report on Projects None
Tabled requests None
Building Permit Application Report None
Heads Uu
A. Conditional Use Permit — Henry's Fork Plaza Church (Mark Paulsen)
B. Variance — Head Start Building — 55 W. 2 ° N.
C. Annexation /Rezone — 701 S. 12 W. (Blair Heinz)
Chairman Dyer adjourned the meeting at 11:48 pm.
13
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that a Public Hearing will be held before City Council of the
City of Rexburg, Idaho, Wednesday, March 21, 2007, at 7:20 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of
the City Building at 12 North Center, Rexburg, Idaho, regarding a Conditional Use Permit
(07 00026) for a metal and physical health facility at 346 West 2nd South, Rexburg, Idaho. The
property is currently zoned Medium Density Residential One (MDR1).
On March 01, 2007 the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the
Conditional Use Permit (07 00026) for a metal and physical health facility upon City Council's
approval.
The city code governing this request is ORDINANCE No. 926
"DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF REXBURG, IDAHO"
(ADOPTED FEBRUARY 16th, 2005) and Amended June 21, 2005
The said parcel is located at 346 West 2nd South in Rexburg, Madison County, Idaho, and more
particularly described as follows:
Parcel 1:
Beginning at the Southeast corner of Lot 2, Block3 of the Southend Addition to the Rexburg
Townsite, Madison County, Idaho, and running thence North along the East line of said Lot and
the projection thereof, to where same intersects the East line of the Oregon Short Line railroad
right of way, thence in a Southwesterly direction to where same intersects the South boundary
line of the aforesaid Lot 2 in Block 3 at a point 8 rods more or less West of the point of
beginning, and thence East 8 rods more or less to the point of beginning.
Less and excepting therefrom the following: Beginning at a point 165.00 feet South of the
Northeast corner of Lot 3, Block 45 of the Original Rexburg Townsite, Madison County, Idaho,
and running thence West 33.00 feet to the Oregon Shortline Railroad East right of way; thence
North 30 °30'00" East 65.34 feet along said right of way; thence South 56.02 feet to the point of
beginning.
Parcel 2:
Commencing at a point 15 rods West of the Southeast corner of Lot 1 in Block 3 of the Southend
Addition to the City of Rexburg, Madison County, Idaho, as per the recorded plat thereof and
running thence West 5 rods; thence North 10 rods; thence East 5 rods; thence South 10 rods to
the point of beginning.
At such hearing City Council will hear all persons and all objections and recommendations relative
to such proposed permit. The City Clerk will also accept written comments at City Hall prior to
4:00 p.m. on March 20t 2007.
This notice is given pursuant to the provisions of Section 67 -6509 and 67 -6511 Idaho Code, and all
amendments thereof.
DATED this 2n1 day of March, 2007.
CITY OF REXBURG
Blair D. Kay, City CleSk
Y �'
Published: March 06th, 2007
March 17th, 2007
Findings of Fact
City of Rexburg
12 North Center Phone: 208.359.3020
Rexburg, ID 83440 www.rexburg.org Fax: 208.359.3022
„
C I T Y OF
REXBUTtG
— mss= - - --
Amertia's Bi ntily C;annnu mfz
Bryce Owen — 346 West 2n South
Conditional Use Permit
1. On January 29, 2007, Bryce Owen presented to the Rexburg Planning & Zoning
Coordinator a Request and Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a recreational
facility for the mentally and physically disabled located at 346 West 2 South.
2. On February 12, 2007, the City Clerk sent the Notice of Public Hearing to be published in
the local newspaper for February 14, 2007, and February 24, 2007. A notice was posted on
the property and sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the above mentioned
property.
3. On March 1, 2007, Bryce Owen presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission for the
City of Rexburg his Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a recreational facility for the
mentally and physically disabled located at 346 West 2 South.
Chairman Dyer referred to the Development Code, Article 6.13(F), which gives authority
to the Commission to grant certain Conditional Use Permits. The Commission decided that
since this proposal does not exactly fit into any of the listed uses, they should make a
recommendation to City Council, who should make the final decision.
Chairman Dyer said the question before the Commission is "shall the Commission
recommend to City Council to approve, deny, or approve with conditions this Conditional
Use Permit ?"
Mary Ann Mounts motioned to recommend to City Council to approve the Conditional
Use Permit for 346 West 2nd South with the following conditions:
1. Trash receptacles should be fully screened from the public right -of -way and should not
be visible from adjacent residential property.
2. There should be no outside storage of material or equipment unless fully screened form
public right -of -way. This screening, if in it self is deemed objectionable by affected
property owners, should be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission or
designee.
3. The hours of operation, other than general office usage, as proposed by the applicant
shall be adhered to, unless future modifications are made and approved by the Planning
Commission. The hours of operation shall be limited to:
a. Monday - Thursday 6pm -8pm
b. Friday 6pm -9pm
c. Saturday 9am- 5:30pm
4. If the City receives noise complaints in excess of two, on separate occasions, within a
period of 30 -days, the applicant is required to come before the Commission and address
0 0
the issue and explain how it will be resolved. If the situation becomes chronic (i.e. more
than two visits before the Planning Commission in a 12 -month period) revocation of the
conditional use permit may be warranted.
5. Vehicles that are used in conjunction with the use, e.g. vans or similar, shall be fully
screened from the public right -of -way.
6. A site plan reflecting all conditions of approval and incorporating all City standards, e.g.
landscaping, parking, etc. shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
7. Commercial lighting standards per the City's development code shall be adhered to.
8. Parking shall be held to the requirement for Professional Services (Physician), or 5
spaces per 1000 square foot gross floor area.
9. Applicant shall comply with all State, Federal, and local regulations.
Dan Hanna seconded the motion.
Mary Ann Mounts amended her motion that the ratio of supervisor to client be 1 to 3.
Dan Hanna seconded.
None opposed. Motion carried.
4. On March 21, 2007, Council Member Erickson moved to approve Conditional Use
Permit with the conditions set up by Staff and the addition condition of a fence to be built
the full length of the property on the west side of the property; Council Member Young
seconded the motion;
Those voting Aye
Farrell Young
Rex Erickson
Bart Stevens
Christopher Mann
Those voting NaX
Randy Schwendiman
The Motion carried.
0 0
Planning and Zoning Department �o�V.EXBVAg C i T Y O F
STAFF REPORT � 70 REvnT G m
XBV1\
12 North Center garyl@rexburg.org Phone: 208.359.3020 x314 ry E Q Americws Family Community
Rexburg, ID 83440 www.rexburg.org Fax: 208.359.3024
R
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit, file # 07 00026
APPLICANT: Bryce Owen
259 Melanie Drive
Rexburg, ID 83340
PROPERTY OWNER: Same
PURPOSE: Request to operate a mental and physical health facility.
PROPERTY LOCATION: 346 West 2 nd South
Rexburg, ID 83440
PROPERTY ID: RPROOSE0034640 and RPROOSE0034691
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Moderate -High Residential Density
ZONING DISTRICT: Medium Density Residential 1 (MDR1)
APPLICABLE CRITERIA: City of Rexburg Development Code (Ordinance Code 926)
§ 6.13 Conditional Use Permits
AUTHORITY § 6.13 (F) (7) "All other conditional use permits may only be granted after
review and recommendation by the Commission and approval by the City
Council... "
I. BACKGROUND
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit to convert an existing multi - family building to a
facility that can, as the application states, "strengthen families who have family members with
mental and/or physical disabilities by providing evening and weekend activities such as art, dance,
theatre, music, physical, outdoor, etc."
At the January 18, 2007 Planning Commission meeting the Commission determined that the
proposed use, though not clearly defined, should be categorized as a "conditional use" within the
MDRI zone.
Land uses that require conditional use permits are allowed within a zone if, through reasonable
conditions of approval, the use and/or facility will not adversely impact the neighborhood and
Case No. 07 00026 Page 1
•
L`
community of which it belongs. Therefore, the City, upon receipt of a CUP request, should review
the proposal and either approve, deny, or approve with conditions.
II. SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject property is 27,390 square foot (0.63 -acre) lot located (and accessed) on W 2nd South, a
45 -foot paved local street. The site is approximately 360 -feet west of Porter Park.
The surrounding neighborhood is a mixture of single - family homes and medium density multi - family
dwellings. Immediately adjacent to the property are multi - family dwellings.
III. ANALYSIS
The following are the criteria for granting a conditional use permit. Some of the criteria is followed
by staff's analysis. A conditional use will:
a. Constitute a conditional use as established in Table 1, Zoning Districts, and Table 2, Land Use
Schedule.
The proposed use was determined by the Planning Commission at the January 18` 2007
commission meeting to be a conditional use within the MDRI zoning district; therefore, this
criterion is met.
b. Be in accordance with a specific or general objective of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the
regulations of this Ordinance.
The City's comprehensive plan has designated the subject property as Moderate -High Density
Residential. The zoning district of MDR1 is an allowed used within the comprehensive plan
designation of Moderate -High Density Residential, therefore this criterion is met.
c. Be designed and constructed in a manner to be harmonious with the existing character of the
neighborhood and the zone in which the property is located.
The structures are existing and the site layout is such that parking is located in the rear of the
buildings with landscaping in the front. The site layout appears to have been designed to buffer
any impacts that a multi - family structure might have on a neighborhood. Therefore, it is
anticipated that the buffer, i.e. fencing, landscaping, and setbacks, if maintained, will be adequate
in buffering the proposed use. The proposed use will generate some traffic, but traffic is likely to
be less than what is generated by a multi - family structure. Peak hours of operation for the
proposed use will generally be during weekday evenings and Saturday, which will likely not be
in conflict with residential land uses in the vicinity, in that residential peak hours are generally
between 7 -9am and 4 -6pm (weekdays). Based on the above findings, this criterion is therefore
met.
d. Not create a nuisance or safety hazard for neighboring properties in terms of excessive noise
or vibration, improperly directed glare or heat, electrical interference, odors, dust or air
pollutants, solid waste generation and storage, hazardous materials or waste, excessive traffic
generation, or interference with pedestrian traffic.
Regarding glare, heat, electrical interference, dust, air pollutants, there are no foreseeable impacts
to the neighborhood.
Regarding the potential impacts of noise, vibration, and odors, the commission should explore
these standards and determine if reasonable conditions of approval might address them. Hours of
operation will be in the evening, but no later than 8pm on weekdays and 9pm on weekends. The
requirement to adhere to the applicant's proposed hours of operation, or some modified version,
Case No. 07 00026 Page 2
0 0
might be a condition of approval. Staff has included the limited hours of operation in the
proposed conditions of approval at the end of this report.
Regarding solid waste generation and storage, excessive traffic generation, or interference with
pedestrian traffic, the Commission should determine if these standards can be addressed through
reasonable conditions of approval. Trash receptacles should be fully screened from the public
right -of -way and should not be visible from adjacent residential property. There should be no
outside storage of material or equipment unless fully screened form public right -of -way. This
screening, if in it self is deemed objectionable by affected property owners, should be approved
by the Planning Commission or designee. Staff has included proposed conditions of approval that
address trash storage and general storage occurring on the outside of the building.
The Commission should determine if through reasonable conditions of approval this criterion can
be met.
e. Be adequately served by essential public facilities and services such as access streets, police
and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer service, and schools.
If existing facilities are not adequate, the developer shall show that such facilities shall be
upgraded sufficiently to serve the proposed use.
The site is served by all essential public facilities and services; therefore, this criterion is met.
f. Not generate traffic in excess of the capacity of public streets or access points serving the
proposed use and will assure adequate visibility at traffic access points.
The roads in the vicinity appear to be functioning within acceptable levels of service. The
proposed use should have minimal, if any additional impacts than from its current use as multi-
family. The site will likely generate trips that are associated with an event rather than spread out
through a day. The site is accessed by one entrance and exit point. As people leave events they
will have to queue at the one access point as part of exiting the site which will create a steady
flow of vehicles on to the street rather than all vehicles exiting at the same.
The Commission should determine if through reasonable conditions of approval this criterion can
be met.
g. Be effectively buffered to screen adjoining properties from adverse impacts of noise, building
size and resulting shadow, traffic, andparking.
Regarding noise, the applicant states that when a client may self -abuse or resist a staff member,
some noise will be generated. The applicant also points out that this would be occasional. The
Commission might consider whether or not this is a concern that warrants a condition of approval
such as stating the number of complaints to the City on such an issue within a given period of
time that is acceptable for the neighborhood. For example, more than two noise complaints on
separate occasions within a period of 30 -days will require the applicant to come before the
Commission again to address the issue and how it will be resolved. If the situation becomes
chronic a revocation of the conditional use permit may be warranted.
The buildings are existing and are similar in scale to other buildings in the area; therefore, there
are no foreseeable building size impacts.
Parking areas are generally screened by the buildings from the front, and privacy fencing from
the sides and rear of the lot. The use of United Way passenger vans, or some similar vehicles
may used in the future. Those vehicles and any other service vehicle used in conjunction with the
Case No. 07 00026 Page 3
0 0
use should be fully screened from the public right -of -way. This screening would help maintain
the residential ambiance of the neighborhood by not allowing vehicles to be visible which are not
generally found in residential neighborhoods.
h. Be compatible with the slope of the site and the capacity of the soils and will not be in an area
of natural hazards unless suitably designed to protect lives and property.
Not applicable
L Not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a historic feature of significance to the
community of Rexburg.
Not applicable
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission take public testimony and determine if the proposed
conditional use permit can be approved, denied, or approved with conditions. Staff has proposed
some conditions of approval, should the Commission choose to approve with conditions.
Proposed Conditions of Approval
1. Trash receptacles should be fully screened from the public right -of -way and should not be visible
from adjacent residential property.
2. There should be no outside storage of material or equipment unless fully screened form public right -
of -way. This screening, if in it self is deemed objectionable by affected property owners, should be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission or designee.
3. The hours of operation, other than general office usage, as proposed by the applicant shall be adhered
to, unless future modifications are made and approved by the Planning Commission. The hours of
operation shall be limited to:
a. Monday- Thursday 6pm -8pm
b. Friday 6pm -9pm
c. Saturday 9am- 5:30pm
4. If the City receives noise complaints in excess of two, on separate occasions, within a period of 30-
days, the applicant is required to come before the Commission and address the issue and explain how
it will be resolved. If the situation becomes chronic (i.e. more than two visits before the Planning
Commission in a 12 -month period) revocation of the conditional use permit may be warranted.
5. Vehicles that are used in conjunction with the use, e.g. United Way vans or similar, shall be fully
screened from the public right -of -way.
6. A site plan reflecting all conditions of approval and incorporating all City standards, e.g. landscaping,
parking, etc. shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to the issuance of a building permit.
7. Commercial lighting standards per the City's development code shall be adhered to.
Case No. 07 00026 Page 4
0 0
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Public Hearing scheduled for February 15, 2007 at 7.15 P.M. is hereby canceled and
changed to:
"March 01, 2007 at 7:15 P.M."
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that a Public Hearing will be held before the Planning & Zoning
Commission of the City of Rexburg, Idaho, Thursday, "March 01, 2007 at 7:15 P.M. " , in the
City Council Chambers of the City Building at 12 North Center, Rexburg, Idaho, regarding a
Conditional Use Permit (07 00026) for a mental and physical health facility at 346 West 2nd South,
Rexburg, Idaho. The property is currently zoned Medium Density Residential One (MDR1).
The city code governing this request is ORDINANCE No. 926
"DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF REXBURG, IDAHO"
(ADOPTED FEBRUARY 16th, 2005) and Amended June 21, 2005
The said parcel is located at 346 West 2nd South in Rexburg, Madison County, Idaho, and more
particularly described as follows:
Parcel 1:
Beginning at the Southeast corner of Lot 2, Block3 of the Southend Addition to the Rexburg
Townsite, Madison County, Idaho, and running thence North along the East line of said Lot and
the projection thereof, to where same intersects the East line of the Oregon Short Line railroad
right of way, thence in a Southwesterly direction to where same intersects the South boundary
line of the aforesaid Lot 2 in Block 3 at a point 8 rods more or less West of the point of
beginning, and thence East 8 rods more or less to the point of beginning.
Less and excepting therefrom the following: Beginning at a point 165.00 feet South of the
Northeast corner of Lot 3, Block 45 of the Original Rexburg Townsite, Madison County, Idaho,
and running thence West 33.00 feet to the Oregon Shortline Railroad East right of way; thence
North 30 0 30'00" East 65.34 feet along said right of way; thence South 56.02 feet to the point of
beginning.
Parcel 2:
Commencing at a point 15 rods West of the Southeast corner of Lot 1 in Block 3 of the Southend
Addition to the City of Rexburg, Madison County, Idaho, as per the recorded plat thereof and
running thence West 5 rods; thence North 10 rods; thence East 5 rods; thence South 10 rods to
the point of beginning.
At such hearing the Planning & Zoning Commission will hear all persons and all objections and
recommendations relative to such proposed permit. The City Clerk will also accept written
comments at City Hall prior to 4:00 p.m. on February 28th, 2007.
9
11
This notice is given pursuant to the provisions of Section 67 -6509 and 67 -6511 Idaho Code, and all
amendments thereof.
DATED this 12th day of February, 2007.
Published: February 14 2007
February 24 2007
CITY OF REXBURG
By �4m�! Q
Blair D. Kay, City Clerk
0 0
DA
�o
CN
04
FF - 4873.00
1770 SF
SECOND SOUTH ST
SITE PLAN rA
SCALE. I" = JO'
'Pfj ce
JA'N 208?
NEW 6' OPAQUE
FENCE
9
340
FF = 4874.20
3855 SF
— Leas '4;4 " I I
1 -4
I
z
W
;t
0
W
0
�E
m
(5
Z
cf)
D
0
z
I
5
(L
co
Of
m
x
W
Of
20337.0621
DATE Jan 22, 2001
Dom By
CHECKED BY
DRB JJF
SHEET NO. 2
OF 4 SHEETS
COPYRIGHT 2001 HLE.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
ALLIANG,,: T; *:'I..i': P, e^ ,
F.O. 50': 1:F •V
Order No.:3040313559 -G
FOR VALUE RECEIVED
WARRANTY DEED
Douglas L. Drake and Persia L. Drake, husband and wife
the grantor(s), do(es) hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey unto
FIVE "T" CORPORATION, AS INTERMEDIARY FOR JAMES A. SHORE
AND SYLVIA S. SHORE AND WILLIAM DAVID OWEN
whose current address is: 5732 South 1475 East
Ogden Ut 84403
the grantee(s), the following described premises, in Madison County, Idaho, TO WIT:
Beginning at the Southeast corner of Lot 2, Block 3 of the Southend Addition to the
Rexburg Townsite, Madison County, Idaho, and running thence North along the East line
of said Lot and the projection thereof, to where same intersects the East fine of the Oregon
Short Line railroad right of way, thence in a Southwesterly direction to where same
intersects the South boundary line of the aforesaid Lot 2 in Block 3 at a point 8 rods more
or less West of the point of beginning, and thence East 8 rods more or less to the point of
beginning.
Less and excepting therefrom the following: Beginning at a point 165.00 feet South of the
Northeast corner of Lot 3, Block 45 of the Original Rexburg Townsite, Madison County,
Idaho, and running thence West 33.00 feet to the Oregon Shortline Railroad East right of
way; thence North 30 0 30 1 00" East 65.34 feet along said right of way; thence South 56.02 feet
to the point of beginning.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises, with their appurtenances unto the said Grantee, heirs and assigns
forever. And the said Grantor does hereby covenant to and with the said Grantee(s), that (s )he istare the owner(s) in
fee simple of said premises; that they are free from all encumbrances Except: Current Year Taxes, conditions,
covenants, restrictions, reservations, easements, rights and rights of way, apparent or of record.
And that (s)he will warrant and defend the same from all lawful claims whatsoever.
Dated: 11/20/2003
?"Cx
""P-� -
Dougla Drake Percia L. Drake
State of Idaho }
}ss.
County of Madison }
On this November 26, 2003, before me, a Notary Public in and for said state, personally
appeared Do uglas L. Drake and Percia L- Drake
known or idenMed to me to be the person(s) whose name(s) subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged
to me that he/she/they executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and af my offjctal teal the day and year first above
written. ,I
JQP `_
P ' No Publi c for the State
Q Q' Rest' 'gat: Iefferson Coun
q tr .
? f� •
Cnmission Expires: 01/25/08
Instrument 8 308588
REXSURG, MADISON- u N: 1
2003 -12-04 ROW
Reeorded fer : ALLIANC TITLE Fab: OW
MARILYN R. RASMU
Ea- ONI¢lo Reeordar_ - -. -=
�a�o3
ALLIANCE TITLE & ESCROW
RECORDING AND *NOTICE TO: P.O. BOX 732
199 EAST COTTONWOOD DR.- CENTERVILLE, UT 844014 REXBURG, ID 83440
CORPORATE WARRANTY DEED
FIVE "T" CORPORATION, A UTAH CORPORATION, AS THE INTERMEDIARY FOR JAMES
A. SHORE & SYLVIA S. SHORE, HUSBAND AND WIFE; WILLIAM DAVID OWEN, AN
UNMARRIED MAN, BRYCE RANDALL OWEN & ANGELA JO. OWEN, HUSBAND AND WIFE,
DON R. CHRISTENSEN & DEBORAH A. CHRISTENSEN A CORPORATION, ORGANIZED AND
EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF UTAH HEREBY CONVEYS AND WARRANTS
AS THE GRANTOR TO:
JAMES A. SHORE AND SYLVIA S. SHORE HUSBAND AND WIFE, AS JOINT TENANTS,
AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 37.33% INTEREST; DON R. CHRISTENSEN AND DEBORAH
CHRISTENSEN, HUSBAND AND WIFE, AS JOINT TENANTS, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED
37.33% INTEREST; WILLIAM DAVID OWEN, AN UNMARRIED MAN, AS TO AN
UNDIVIDED 23.04% INTEREST; BRYCE RANDALL OWEN AND ANGELA JO OWEN,
HUSBAND AND WIFE, AS JOINT TENANTS, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 2.30% INTEREST
FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION OF I.R.C. SECTION 1031 TAX- DEFERRED EXCHANGE IN
HAND PAID, THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED TRACT OF LAND WHICH IS LOCATED IN
MADISON COUNTY, STATE OF IDAHO:
COMMENCING AT A POINT 15 RODS WEST OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1 IN
BLOCK 3 OF THE SOUTH END ADDITION TO THE CITY OF REXBURG, MADISON
COUNTY, IDAHO, AS PER THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF AND RUNNING THENCE WEST
5 RODS) THENCE NORTH 10 RODS; THENCE EAST 5 RODS; THENCE SOUTH 10 RODS
TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:
EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RIGHTS OF WAY OF RECORD, OR ENFORCEABLE BY
LAW OR EQUITY.
A DEED OF TRUST IN FAVOR OF WASHINGTON FEDERAL SAVINGS, DATED 1 -26 -03
AND RECORDED 2- 11 -04, AS ENTRY NUMBER 310031 OF THE COUNTY RECORDER.
GRANTEE BY ACCEPTANCE OF THE DEED, AGREES TO PAY THE PROMISSORY NOTE,
SECURED BY SAID DEED OF TRUST, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS, CONDITIONS
AND STIPULATIONS THEREIN STATED AS IF THE MAKE THEREOF.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL OIL AND MINERAL RIGHTS, IF ANY, TOGETHER WITH
WATER RIGHTS RESERVED AND ALL RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS AND EASEMENTS
OR RECORD AS RECORDED IN THE COUNTY OF MADISON, STATE OF IDAHO.
THE GRANTOR HAS CAUSED ITS CORPORATE NAME AND SEAL TO BE AFFIXED TO THIS
DEED ON THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2004.
FIVE "T" CORPORATION, A UTAH CORPORATION AS THE
INTERMEDIARY FOR J 8 A. SHORE, SYLVIA S. SHORE
WILLIAN D D BRYCE RANDALL OWEN, ANGELA JO
OWEN, DO2 W EN & DEBORAH A. CHRISTENSEN
MicH FiBNT-PRESIDENT Instrument # 31AHO I • R MADISON, ID AHO
2004-12 -13 11:76: (C
No Pave:1
Recorded for : ALLIANCE L E AN ROW
STATE OF MARILYN R. RASMUS3 Fee: 3.00
COUNTY OF';;; EX - ORklo Recor De
ON THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2004, PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME, A
NOTARY PUBLIC, MICHAEL L. HENDRY AS PRESIDENT OF FIVE "T" CORPORATION.
THE SIGNER OF THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT, WHO ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT THEY
EXECUTED SAID DOCUMENT ON BEHALF OF SAID CORPORATION AND UNDER AUTHORITY
OF THE POWERS GRANTED TO THE SAME BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SAID
CORPORATION.
JOANIFE.��.�11
� � ND1itlM)11�IC a2/I1Fgt11AN
i 5732 SOUIh 1p5 Serf $TE 100
Ogden, Ulmh l"03
vwK EIII, 6146.20n
S • o� p062�
•
Written Input
346 W. 2n S. (Bryce Owen)
Conditional Use Permit
9
C
1
2/27/2007
Rexburg City Planning Commission
Rexburg, Idaho 83440 }
•
Re. Proposed conditional use permit for a mental /physical health facility at 346 W. 2 "' S. in
Rexburg,
Dear Sirs:
We own a six unit apartment building at 328 W. 2 hd 5, which is the property
adjacent to the property where the facility is planned to operate. All our apartments face
this property, While we ore not opposed to such a facility, especially if there is a
community need for one, we are concerned however how it will impact our tenants and
future obility to rent out our units. With the very limited information that we have, these
are our concerns;
What are the hours of operation?
• Will there be an anticipated noise factor and will the operators of the facility be
sensitive to the fact that this is a residential area?
What will the staff / patient ratio be, and will there always be supervision of the
patients on the property?
Will people be wandering around outside the facility for any reason, or will most of
the activities be inside?
Will there be a lot of traffic coming and going?
Does the owner perceive any negative impact that o facility of this type might have
on neighboring properties in a residential area acid if so is will he be willing to make changes
to accommodate concerns that might arise.
Thank you for addressing these concerns. ,
Sincerely,
Dennis Ramsey
11616 Eucalyptus Mills Drive, Chula Vista, California 92040 phone; 619 9540048
•
FED -20 -2007 02 :57 PM DAVID W. EVANS CPA
7603737263 P.02
MDE Investment Company, LLC
February 28, 2007
Planning & Zoning Commission
City Of Rexburg
City Hall
12 North Center
Rexburg, ID 83440
Re: Hearing, Conditional Use Permit 07 -00026
March 1, 2007
Dear Members of the Rexburg Planning and Zoning Commission;
MDE Investment Company, LLC, is the property owner of the Woodshed Apartments
directly across the street from this proposed use permit. Specifically, our property is
located at 355 W. 2 1d S,
We oppose the granting of this use permit based upon the fact the proposed use is
woefully incompatible, as well as out of character, with the residential Neighborhood. It
will adversely affect traffic in an area in close proximity to a park where children and
families play as well as to where they walk. Additionally, mental patients should not be
near where parks and families spend their time.
We also feel the property is of insufficient size to place a health care facility of any type.
In addition to the negative community affect mentioned above it will directly impact our
apartments and our tenants negatively. We purchased and invested in our property in this
neighborhood because of its character and positive atmosphere for the families to which
we rent. We feel the proposed usage will damage that investment and cause our families
to be "boxed -in" by traffic, railway, mental patients, and an overall .desire to be' in a
quieter atmosphere.
Your consideration to our comments is most appreciated. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
M E Inve ent ompany, LLC
By: David W. Evans
is Principal
$100 Calalbtnia City alvd, Suite 201
CaMornla Qv, CA 93505
Tel (760) $73 -1813
rax (760) 3 73- 7263