Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
APPLICATION - 04-00072 - 461,475,485,505 N 2nd E - Teton River Village - Preliminary Plat
4� c ily 2exlarf P.O. Box 280 / 12 MWth CNUar Shea! f R#*wjj. Idaho $3440 «. A 4. STATE OF MMW Phm t_206) 359.3020 fax (288) W- 3022.. Planning and Zoning Subdivision Application Application for AFproval of Preliminary Subdivision Plat The attached Subdivision plan has been prepared in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations of the City of Rexburg, and the following items are shown on the plan or plans, or explanations given with respect thereto. Requirements for Preliminary Plats: All Preliminary plats shall be 24" x 36" foldable, drawn to scale, North point, dated. The following Shall be shown on the Preliminary Plat or shall be submitted separately: 1. The name of the proposed subdivision: Lek" 2. The location F-'/A S 1Q '[ 840E Acreage 12.O1'3z Number of Lot 3. The names, addresses and telephone numbers of the subdivider or subdividers and the engineer or surveyor who prepared the plat: -75Z, --oq0¢ Z 4. The name and address of all pro e�rty owners within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the subdivision whether or not bisected by a public right -of -way as shown on record in the County Assessor's office. - Place on Preliminary Plat. 5. The legal description of the subdivision. - Place on Preliminary Plat. 6. A statement of the intended use of the proposed subdivision such as: Residential - (single family, two family and multiple housing); Commercial, Industrial, Recreational or Agricultural. Show sites proposed for parks, playgrounds, schools, churches or other public 7. A map of the entire area scheduled for development if the proposed subdivision is a portion of a larger holding intended for subsequent development. 8. A vicinity map showing the relationship of the proposed plat to the surrounding area C/2 mile of minimum radius, scale optional). 9. The land use and existing zoning of the proposed subdivision and the adjacent land. 10. Does subdivision conform to present zoning? `�e 9 11. Requested zonin � 4 12. Variance Requested. Yes No ✓ (If yes, attach written request) 13. Requesting annexation to City? v 14. Streets, street names, rights -of -way, and roadway widths, including adjoining streets or roadways, curbs and sidewalks 15. Lot lines and blocks showing the dimensions and numbers of each. 16. Contour lines, shown at five (5) feet intervals where land slope is greater than ten percent (10 %) and at two (2) feet intervals where land slope is ten percent (10 %) or less, referenced to an established bench mark, including location and elevation. 17. A site report as required by the appropriate health district where individual wells or septic tanks are proposed, this shall be in the form of a letter. 18. Any_proposed or existing utilities including, but not limited to, storm and sanitary sewers, irrigation laterals, ditches, drains, bridges, culverts, water mains, fire hydrants, power, gas, street lights and their respective profiles and easements. 19. Public services and other departments. approval: (signatures necessary) a. water f. City Engineer b. sewer g. Planning Commission c. fire and police h. City Council d. electric and/or gas e. street and traffic_ 20. A copy of any proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions. (To be attached or submitted with final plat) 21. Any dedications to the public and/or easements, together with a statement of location, dimensions, and purpose of such. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: 22. Probable impact of the proposed project on the environment effect on: a. Public safety and convenience b. Fire, police, and ambulance services c. Recreation d. Schools e. Displacement or relocation of people f. Land values g. Local and long-distance travel, i.e., highway and local road impact h. Behavior of wildlife species I. Water quality and effect on underground water supply j. Method proposed to dispose of sewage k. Noise pollution 1. Air pollution m. Solid waste disposal system proposed n. Method proposed to dispose fo storm drainage waters o. Extent of increased city road maintenance, including snow removal p. Flood plain—methods proposed to alleviate effect of 100 -year flood; effect on adjacent properties q. Provisions for housing for persons of low and moderate income r. Harmony with the character of surrounding developments 23. Probable adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided a. Traffic usage b. Rights -of -way required c. Pollution effect on existing environment 24. Relationship between local short-term uses of man's economic environment and the long-term productivity. a. Existing vs. proposed tax base b. Costs to City if proposal approved (annual) 25. Measures taken to minimize harmful effects on environment a. Effects of construction activities b. Erosion control c. Stream pollution prevention d. Borrow -pit rehabilitation e. Fencing f. Buffer zones g. Replacement of parklands or farmlands 26. Is this plat plan harmonious with and in accordance with the general objectives or with any specific objective of the City's Comprehensive Plan? FOR OFFICE USE ONLY 1. Date received 2- 2 0 D y 2. Date of P & Z action 3. Action taken by P & Z 4. Date Madison County Surveyor Fees paid - (Resolution No. 249 - May 13, 2002) paid as follows: Make check payable to (Madison County) a) Subdivisions with 2 -10 lots $250.00 Date b) Subdivisions with 11 -25 lots $500.00 Date c) Subdivisions with 25 or more lots $1,000.00 Date 5. Date of Council action 6. Action taken by City 7. Date of final plat approval P & Z City Council 8. Water and sewer approval State Health Tetonliv,er oiiage Site Plea APprovel — 485 North 2 0 ' East y Cameron Gunter Jerry Hastings declared a conflict and stepped away from the table. Cameron Gunter — 1082 East 1200 South, Springville, Utah 84663 - Explained that the updated site plan was adjusted to eliminate a mixed use proposal on the back of the property. This site plan shows two buildings that will be under construction when the site plan is approved. They will have a small restaurant, bowling alley and four -plex movie theater in the main building. The addition of future buildings on the site was reviewed. Cameron indicated that they have planned for a 46 foot right of way on the South entrance to the complex which is across the street from the Albertson's parking lot entrance. The right of way will extend to the rear of the property. They have a smaller access planned for the north side of the new building onto 2 East. There will be 639 parking stalls. The plan calls for landscaping in the open areas until the site is fully developed. The site plan indicated storm water drainage would go to the rear of the property. John Millar — Reviewed the Staff concerns with the access to the property, storm water drainage, and access to the rear of the property on the North side of the building. The City would require a pumping station on the rear of the property. Chris Huskinson — Reviewed the concerns of the Fire Department with the access, fire hydrant locations and the access around the main building to the rear of the property. Cameron Gunter — Commented on the plan to develop the rear of the property in the future depending on the proposed commercial zones that are being developed for the City. Discussion on adjoining properties and the possible future access to 2nd East. Joseph Laird — Requested information on the elevation plans for the buildings in regard to the flood plain. Cameron Gunter — Commented on the elevation of the existing buildings on the site. Winston Dyer — Indicated that the new buildings would have to be one foot above the flood plain. Winston recommended that the developer review the elevation requirements. Steve McGary — Inquired of the developer where the lighting would be placed for the development. The City does not have a lighting requirement for a commercial development. Steve McGary — Reviewed the plans for a buffer to the neighboring properties. Cameron indicated that the parking on the rear of the property will not have a buffer. Cameron did not bring the landscape plan to the meeting. He will provide the landscaping plan to the Commissioners at a later date. He plans to comply with the green space requirements for Highway Business District. Winston Dyer — Inquired if the developer had worked with the Idaho Department of Transportation on the proposal. Cameron indicated that the State of Idaho Transportation Department would not require a traffic study if the developer would work with the State on the development of the site. Winston continued to discuss the traffic flow problems and the access to the development. He recommended a "right turn in" and a "right turn out" plan for the 2nd East access points. Mike Ricks — Reviewed the problems that can occur with a large delivery truck accessing the property. Discussion on the type or size of trucks that will be used to access the property. John Millar — Reviewed the parking stalls in the setback. They are allowed in the setback in a Highway Business District Zone. Discussion on the problems with traffic flow and access to the development. There was concerns for the lack of snow storage locations on the site plan. Doug Smith moved to recommend changes to the site plan as follows: 1) Coordinate with City Engineers to correct the north driveway and access 2) Add dimensions to the parking lot and parking stalls 3) Greenway allocation for beautification of the site 4) Lighting locations shown on the site plan 5) Indicate the location of the fire hydrants on the site plan 6) Indicate the street dimensions on the site plan 7) Indicate the location of the utilities on the site plan 8) Indicate the snow storage locations on the site plan 9) Provide for the drainage of storm water into the City sewer system 10) Clarify the flood plan requirements for the site 11) Provide the expected traffic flow volumes that the development will produce 12) Master plan of the fast food restaurants Steve McGary seconded the motion; Discussion on the need to complete the site plan in the appropriate manner. All voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. CITY OF REXBURG PLANNING AND ZONING AGENDA Thursday, October 16, 2003 7:00 p.m. Chairman: Winston Dyer Members: Robert Schwartz Mike Ricks - Excused Steve McGary Jerry Hastings Mary Haley David Stein Joseph Laird Randall Porter Public Works Director Finance Officer P & Z Administrator City Attorney City Clerk John Millar Richard Horner - Excused Kurt Hibbert Stephen Zollinger Blair D. Kay — Excused Madison County P &Z Commission Members who attended: Jill Sutton Portions of the meeting were recorded. Millie Andrus DaNiel Jose Mindy Virgin Ralph Robison Jan Merrell Blair Manwaring Boyd Cardon The members of both Planning Commissions and the public were welcomed to the meeting. 7:05 p.m. Conditional Use Permit for a 35 foot high sign at the Teton River Village 485 North 2 " East (Cameron Gunter) Kurt Hibbert reviewed the allowable square footage for signs on this property. Their property can have a total of about four signs. The developer wants to combine the signs into one bigger sign which would be about 36 feet tall. Since the sign ordinance requires all signs to be a maximum of 24 feet in height without a Conditional Use Permit, the developer has requested a hearing for a Conditional Use Permit. Cameron Gunter mentioned that one sign would be easier to maintain and the sign would not look so crowded at the taller height. Winston Dyer wanted clarification on the location of the sign in the development. Cameron indicated that the sign would be located near the center of the two entrances to the Teton River Development. David Stein asked about the four signs that they could have on the property. Discussion on Jack in the Box's sign. Jack in the Box is not included with this proposal because they are an independent parcel from this development. They showed on aerial map where the sign would be located. Randall Porter asked which way the sign would face. The sign would be read from the north and south directions. Winston asked for Public comments: Those in favor of the request - None Those Neutral or unopposed to the request - None Those against the request - None The Public Input for the request was closed. Discussion of how high the Sign Ordinance allows signs to be now. Joe Laird talked about when the sign ordinance was put together and how the people on the Planning and Zoning Commission then took a lot of time and thought into putting the Sign Ordinance together. Jerry Hastings moved to table the discussion; Randall Porter seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. 7:15 p.m. Countywide Planning Roundtable (Three Planning Commissions from Madison County, Rexburg and Sugar City) — Discussion on the concepts and principles that might factor into the individual Comprehensive Plans for the area. (Includes viewing a video "Save our Land, Save our Towns ") The Commissions watched the video called "Save our Land, Save our Towns ". Kurt Hibbert handed out a viewer's guide about the video. Kurt passed out a map of the City of Rexburg and Madison County. Open discussion on ideas heard from the video. There was discussion on what would help the Commissioners create the kind of community that the residents would like to see. Ralph Robison indicated that the key element is the creation of jobs. Winston Dyer commented on the booths that were set around town during the survey last summer to get public input on the Comprehensive Plan. One of the main items that received public input was the need to create more good jobs for the community. Millie Andrus talked about having shops and retail stores in Rexburg so that people from Rexburg do not have to keep going to Idaho Falls to shop for clothes. Boyd Cardon talked about having more parks and green space. Blair Manwaring commented on the aesthetics of the buildings in Rexburg. Blair indicated that places should be maintained instead of being torn down. A student commented on the need to keep the City from sprawling out. A student commented that it is good that the commissions are address these issues right now. Mindy Virgin commented on people wanting to live on bigger lots. Blair Manwaring commented that everyone wants to build in the county instead of the city due to the new impact fees that the City recently adopted. Ralph Robison commented on the City Business Park out by Artco. The Business Park is now starting to fill up with buildings after it was designed about 5 years ago. He mentioned that there is slow growth of the City instead of sprawl. Millie Andrus commented on Idaho Falls and their mess on 17' Street. She commented on the Green Belt in Idaho Falls and how there are always people walking on that Green Belt. The residents of Idaho Falls are putting their Green Belt to good use. Shawn Larsen commented on a recent annexation where the property did not have access to City water for fire protection. One property in particular was mentioned that did not have a fire hydrant close by to provide fire protection. Shawn indicated that they cannot build anything there because there is no water to fight fires. John Millar commented on the Impact Fees that are being collected to help the City pay for the City Parks as the Community grows. Boyd Cardon mentioned that the City and County should be one in planning for the future growth of the Community. Blair Manwaring commented that there are so many cars available to the public now for transportation that almost everyone uses an automobile to travel instead of walking. Stephen Zollinger asked if the County has thought about implementing Impact Fees that might match the City so residents would not build in the County because of the City Impact Fees. Kurt Hibbert indicated that it is good that the youth are here for this meeting to hear the Commissioners talk about planning issues for the future growth of the City. Randall Porter indicated a need to have open space located in the County. Millie Andrus mentioned that a lot of people say they think it is cheaper to build in the County. She indicated that by the time they have a septic tank put in and the gas it takes to get into the City, it would probably be the same amount as building in the City. Winston Dyer suggested having a representative from each Planning and Zoning Commission see the others Comprehensive Plan, Ralph Robison talked about having a meeting every six months to share ideas. Boyd Cardon seconded that idea. Once every three years does not work. They discussed the idea of meeting every six months from now on. Shawn Larsen requested that the County Commissioners and the City Council would be invited to those meetings. Stephen McGary requested that the agendas for all of the Commissions be made available to the other Commissioners of the respective jurisdictions. If they have an interest, then they can come to the meeting of the respective Planning Commission. Stephen requested a copy of the minutes from each Commission be made available to all of the Commissioners. Ralph Robison talked about how Jefferson County is growing more now partly because the Commissioners in Madison County that were on the board about five years ago did not want Madison County to grow; therefore areas around Madison County have grown more than Madison County. Mindy Virgin commented that she has learned to appreciate the Rexburg Planning and Zoning Commission and their time and efforts. End of discussion from both of the Rexburg and the Madison County Commissions. Continued discussion for Conditional Use Permit for a 35 foot high sign at the Teton River Village at 485 North 2 "d East Jerry Hastings moved to bring the Teton River Village Conditional Use Permit for sign height back off the table; Randall Porter seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Kurt Hibbert reviewed on the sign request on the overhead screen. Discussion on the Sign Ordinance. The Commission reviewed what was said before the item was tabled. Discussion on having the sign shorter. If the sign was shortened then the letters on the sign would have to be smaller or the sign would have to be wider causing less visibility. The staff requested the Planning and Zoning Commission to make it a condition in the motion that they could not come back and want to have the other 500 sq. footage of their signs. The requestor indicated that if the Planning and Zoning Commission want them to shorten the sign, the sign people would want to put up two signs instead of one sign to display all of the store's names. Randall Porter indicated a concern of letting them put up this size sign and then letting everyone else put up a bigger sign. Winston Dyer commented that this request does fall within the Sign Ordinance where the Ordinance indicates that any other exceptions would require a Conditional Use Permit. With a Conditional Use Permit, the Commission can set up certain conditions that have to be followed. David Stein talked about wanting to have this sign design in the design standards with the commercial signs so that other signs can look as good as this sign. Stephen McGary moved to grant a Conditional Use Permit for a 35 foot high sign at the Teton River Village at 485 North 2 "d East per the request with the following conditions: 1) This will be the only free standing sign at this development. 2) The sign will be placed in the center of the two entrances. 3) The same style, color, and design that have been brought before the Commission will be maintained. 4) There will be no additional attachments such as balloons or streamers placed on the sign. David Stein seconded the motion; Discussion; Question; Those voting aye Robert Schwartz Steve McGary Jerry Hastings Mary Haley David Stein Winston Dyer The motion carried. Those voting nay Randall Porter Joseph Laird Stephen McGary moved to approved minutes for October 02, 2003; Jerry Hastings seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Adjourned at 10:35 p.m. CITY OF REXBURG PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES Thursday March 18, 2004 7:00 p.m. Chairman: Winston Dyer Members: Robert Schwartz - Excused Mike Ricks Mary Haley Steve McGary Jerry Hastings David Stein Joseph Laird Randall Porter Draft ConsentAgenda: The consent agenda includes items which require formal Planning Commission action, however they are typically routine or not of great controversy. Individual Commission members may ask that any specific item be removed from the consent agenda for discussion in greater detail. Explanatory information is included in the Planning Commission's agenda packet regarding these items. Minutes from the March 04, 2004, meeting Randall Porter moved to approve the minutes for March 4, 2004; Steve McGary seconded the motion; all vote aye, except Mary Haley and Mike Ricks who were not present at the meeting. The motion carried. Non controversial items: Kurt announced a workshop on March 27' meeting in Pocatello on Planning and Zoning in Idaho. Kurt will get the information sent out to those on the commission. Heather Westenzweig, the Madison County Planning and Zoning Administrator, mentioned that the County would like to start revising their comprehensive plan this summer. Winston recommended having another joint meeting with the Madison County and Sugar City Planning and Zoning soon. Impact Area Re -Zone request from Ag -1 to Light Industrial located North of the East Moody Road and West of the Railroad Tracks, approximately 24 acres- Five Brothers Family Limited Partners. Greg Stoddard, a member of five brothers family limited partnership showed on the overhead screen where they are making the proposal. There is a business currently running on this property and they are trying to come into compliance for this business. Half of the property shows light industrial already in the comprehensive plan. Greg explained what kind of business is running on this property currently. Winston explained that this is in the impact area and the vote of the county residents on this commission counts more than the city residents. Public input: Infavor of this proposal: None Neutral: None Against this proposal: Burt Pugh, Archer, is here to represent his mother -in -law whom lives on the Moody Highway. There is light industrial property across from her house and the owners do not keep the property looking nice. They have some concerns that if the property being proposed is changed to light industrial that it might attract businesses that do not keep the property looking nice. Discussion on what the proposed property was used for previously. Discussion on buffering and how they can recommend a berm or shield. Randall Porter asked if they have a plan to have more light industrial businesses. Greg commented that they do not have a plan at this time. Mike Ricks moved to recommend to change the property to light industrial and on existing businesses and as further development occurs they recommend using fencing and other buffering and recommend this to the county commissioners. David Stein seconded. All aye none opposed. The two county representatives are for this proposal. Conditional Use Permit for a Monopole Cellular Communications Tower at 117 North 2 °d East -AFL Telecommunications Greg Ford with AFL Telecommunications in Salt Lake City, went over what was proposed before. The proposed monopole is now moved back so it is not as noticeable from North 2' East. The radio equipment will be located in one of the storage facilities. It will still be an 80 foot monopole. The commission is pleased that they took in considerations from the Planning and Zoning and City Council on moving and changing the appearance. David Stein asked about interference with the other pole. He commented that there would be no interference. Kurt showed the distance on the overhead screen. He measured the poles from the curb. Public input: Those in favor: None Against: Written input: Winston read a letter from Carolyn Phillips from Shoreline Washington. Close public input. Winston Dyer commented on being pleased with the planning process by the applicant. David Stein commented that this is a better proposal and it meets their concerns. Randall Porter asked how this proposal goes with the ordinance that is being put together on cell towers. Stephen Zollinger talked about what this ordinance entails. The ordinance mainly mandates cell tower clustering. Mary Haley made motion to accept this plan as submitted to us for approval with the changes made and recommend this to the City Council. Mike Ricks seconded. All aye. None opposed. The motion carries. Conditional Use Permit for a duplex on each lot of a proposed lot split and Variance for a 10 foot back yard setback pending a lot split at 252 South 5` West - Andrew Clark Andy Clark, 252 S. 5' W., showed where the proposal is. They are proposing for two conditional use permits. First permit is for their current duplex to come into compliance. The second permit would be for a lot split. Their present home has been rented out as a duplex before they bought the home. Andrew is also asking for a variance for a 10 foot setback. The current setback is 20 feet. That leaves only 26 feet to build a building on this lot with a 20 foot setback. Conditional Use Permit on the current Duplex Public input on the current duplex: Infavor Neutral Against: Val Dietrich, 685 S. 5000 W., representing Bill Henderson. He is opposed to a three of the proposals. He commented that Bill Henderson asked for four plexes before and was turned down. He mentioned that parking and access was a concern. He presented a petition to the board of those that are against this proposal. Close public input. Discussion on the existing duplex and if it meets staff approval, There is enough parking for this request. This was brought up to the life safety standards. Stephen McGary made a motion to grant the conditional use permit for the existing duplex facing South 5' West. Jerry Hastings seconded. All aye none opposed. The motion carries. Conditional Use Permit on the lot split Andy clarified that they want to develop this lot because it is a big lot. Public Input Infavor: Jeff Zollinger, he is for this proposal. He thinks the house will look like it will fit into the community and with the subdivision. Mark Hymas, 650 Cook Ave., lives in the Henderson Subdivision. He would rather see this lot developed and he would like to see something looking nice. He thinks this is in accordance with the subdivision. Neutral: None Opposed: Dan Nedrow, son of Glenis Nedrow who lives at 270 South 5`' West, commented that they are concerned of the conditional use permit because they do not want an apartment in that area. Val Dietrich, 685 S. 5000 W., representing Bill Henderson, is opposed to this because it does not meet the requirements of a setback. Written input signed by Rich Andrus. Winston read through the letter that is against the proposal. Rebuttal Andy Clark clarified that the letter is addressing a zone change and they are not asking for a zone change. A duplex is allowed under a conditional use permit in a LDR1 zone. Public input closed. Mary Haley asked if they do not have to grant the applicant a conditional use permit. Stephen Zollinger explained that it can be turned down only for reasonable reasons for conditions. If he cannot meet those conditions then they can deny the request, not the conditional use. Jerry Hastings commented that they should put a condition that would require that the duplex look harmonious with the rest of the homes in that area, then that would protect the look. Discussion on setting a condition that requires the access to be on Henderson Ave. or put conditions on the parking. David Stein made a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a split lot at 252 South 5`' West and that the conditions placed upon this conditional use permit would be that the house face Henderson Ave., the back yard on the south side is screened with screenings, and the duplex and design be compatible of the single family nature of the Henderson Subdivision, that the building be similar of the design that is brought forth by the applicant which would include things such as pitch roof, Architectural detailing similar, separate entrances and garages, and front yard setback that meets similar to the Henderson Subdivision. Stephen McGary seconded. All aye. None opposed. Motion carries. Variance request on the split lot Kurt Hibbert reviewed over what the setback requirements are. The applicant is asking for 10 foot setback. The requirement is 20 feet. If the applicant goes by the 20 foot requirement then that leaves about 26 feet to build a home. He is asking to be able to expand a build -able area in this lot 10 feet to the south. Public Input: Infavor: Andy Clark, 252 South 5`' West, commented that he is willing to have the side yards be 30 feet which would give more yard space. Neutral: Mark Hymas, 650 Cook Ave., a resident of the Henderson Subdivision he would preferred that is be setback to 10 feet to make the duplex be more appealing to the subdivision. Gordon Tychsen, 214 South 5' West, would rather see the house facing the Henderson Avenue than sitting in long ways. Val Dietrich, 685 S. 5000 W., commented that the setbacks are set for a reason and they are for everyone to follow. Opposed: Dan Nedrow is concerned with the rules and regulations that are in place. If they allow the setback to be less then there is no reason why they can't allow any other requests. Public Input closed. Winston went over what is in the ordinance about variances. David Stein commented that this property lot was changed when a street was put in the side of it. Jerry Hastings commented that he could build a 26 foot wide house, but it will look better if it was wider. Discussion on if they approve this then they can't disapprove other requests. Randall Porter made motion to table this request until the next meeting because there is a lot of other business on this agenda. David Stein seconded. All aye. None opposed. Preliminary Plat for The Meadows Condominiums Phase 1 and Phase 2 Asset Amalgamation, Joseph Harding- Design Intelligence, Scott Spaulding Scott Spaulding showed on the overhead screen Phase 1 and Phase 2. There are already four 4- plexes built and four 4- plexes are in the process of being built. There was a concern by the commission with the access into the complex and if there needs to be two accesses because of the amount of units. Discussion on fire hydrants and sprinkler systems. Discussion on if they have everything that they need to have to approve a preliminary plat. Scott asked if it is necessary to do the architectural design. The commission needs to have elevations that demonstrate that they meet their architectural standards. The request was rejected due to not enough information. Preliminary Plat for Robert Sipherd- Millhollow Subdivision 2- South Millhollow Road John Millar reviewed the subdivision on the overhead screen. They are proposing this to meet current City standards. They were required with putting a note on the plat the variance to building set back requirement will not be granted. Mike Ricks asked if there will be any widening of that road. John Millar commented that the council is working with the owners along Millhollow Road, Richard Smith commented that Millhollow Road is the narrowest residential street in the City of Rexburg. He recommended requiring language be included that Mr. Shipherd can not average the setbacks which he created 30 years ago as to create a new setback which is closer to the road. Mike Ricks moved to accept the Preliminary Plat for the Millhollow Subdivision 2 with the conditions that they have full setbacks on the front of the property and that they are going to be made aware of the required 34 foot setbacks and there will be no averaging and no variance to building setbacks. Mary Haley seconded. Discussion on what to call this subdivision because there is already a Millhollow Subdivision. It was decided to call it Millhollow Subdivision 2. All aye. None opposed. Final Plat for Teton River Village- 485 N. 2 " E. Ellsworth- Paulsen Construction Terry White, Harper - Leavitt engineering, representing Ellsworth Paulsen. Winston asked why the step around easement was not changed. They changed the easement to move over so in lot 3 it is big enough for the building and parking to go into this lot. Discussion on the sign not being finished. Mary Haley made motion to approve final plat and recommended that the final plat be approved by the City Council. David Stein seconded. All Aye, none opposed. The motion carries. Annexation of properties on South 5`" West, East 7` North, and South Yellowstone Highway Kurt Hibbert showed 3 separate parcels on the north side of town proposing annexation. Discussion on the neighbors around the property talking about the annexation. On the south side of town next to Taylor Chevrolet will be in request with the Ted Whyte proposal. Kurt explained what zone they are going to be proposing. Jerry Hastings moved that the Brian Partridge, Joyce Huskinson, and Randy Fogle properties to be noticed for first public hearing for possible annexation into the City of Rexburg. Mary Haley seconded. All aye, none opposed. Discussion on south side of town. A neighborhood from the south side of town has been meeting and they know that when the south arterial comes in, then they will be looking at annexation. They are starting to talk about what zoning they would like to see there. Rex Erickson commented about the discussion at City Council the night before. They were concerned with the Ted Whyte annexation because it will make an island that will not be part of the city. They are trying to talk with those that are created within that island. David Stein made a motion to move forward to public hearing for annexation of these 2 properties keeping in mind that there has been a pre- annexation hearing with City Council and they voted that it moved forward with the appropriate process for annexation. Mary Haley seconded. All aye except Mike Ricks because of the island that would be created within the City from this proposal. Councilman Erickson presented Ted Whyte with a plaque of years of service of seven years serving on the Planning and Zoning Commission. Comprehensive Plan Draft Kurt Hibbert showed the proposed map to the commissioners. The Mayor would like to see this go to public hearing as soon as possible. He would like to split the city by elementary schools into neighborhoods to have the public hearings. Kurt Hibbert went through the map. Scott Eskelson, an attorney from Idaho Falls, was present on behalf of Mrs. Gale Taylor and her family trust. Heather with county talked about the access and site issues along with landscaping issues Winston Dyer commented on maybe getting the Impact Area expanded. Next month the council will meet with the county and Sugar City and they will be bringing that issue up. Raymond Hill asked if there was a definition of mixed use. Kurt commented that there is not a definition for that right now and that they want to get public input for this. Discussion on when to have these meetings with the neighborhoods and how to handle these meetings. Randall Porter suggested holding these meetings where they vote. There is already a voting precinct map. Winston Dyer talked about having the first meeting in May. Discussion on having 30 minutes before the start of the meeting, have an open house things so the commission can talk with the public. Adjourned at 12:05 a.m. KttF:tR CI T () P REXBURG ,'lrt.eriius i:artrill'Cn;nrr2t.rify� PLANNING & ZONING MINUTES 19 E. Main (PO Box 280) Phone: 208 - 359 -3020 x326 Rexburg, Idaho 83440 Fax: 208 - 359 -3024 www.rexburg.org planning @rexburg.org January 5, 2006 Commissioners Attending Rex Erickson — Council Member Winston Dyer— Chairman Ted Hill Mary Ann Mounts Mike Ricks Charles Andersen David Stein Thaine Robinson Joe Laird Mary Haley Randall Porter City Staff and Others Kurt Hibbert — P &Z Administrator JaNell Hansen — Secretary Chairman Dyer opened the meeting at 6:59 pm Roll Call Mary Ann Mounts, Randall Porter, Ted Hill, Mike Ricks, Winston Dyer, Charles Anderson, David Stein, Thaine Robinson. 1. Minutes December 29, 2005 minutes tabled until the January 12` meeting. Joe Laird and Mary Haley arrived at 7:04 p.m. 2. Public Hearings A. 7:05 P.M. — Rezone request from MDR1 to CBC at 330 West 1 S ` South — (Interwest Cabinet) Presentation by Clint Galbraith owner of Interest Cabinets at 64 S 3 W. He would like to build a new production building and use the current production building for storage. Thaine Robinson asked what the current zoning for the manufacturing portion is. Kurt Hibbert said it is Community Business District. The existing building is located on property that is zoned commercial. The property he would like to build the new manufacturing building on is zoned MDR1. Clint Galbraith is requesting that be changed to CBC. Clint Galbraith said the property was purchased in 1997 and is currently vacant. Chairman Dyer asked Kurt Hibbert for a zoning map showing the adjacent property. The property west, north and south is zoned MDR1. Adjacent to the north is commercial as well. David Stein asked Kurt Hibbert about CBC zoning which is designated for shopping facilities with a minimum acreage of 5 acres. Kurt Hibbert responded that they haven't gone through and changed any of the property rights for what used to be Highway Business District. So everything that was allowed in HBD is allowed in CBC. He said this is the best zone. If we were to take in a different zone, then it takes into question the rest of the block. He feels it should be consistent. David Stein asked what was located to the west. Clint Galbraith responded that there is an owner occupied house. He is negotiating to purchase the property the house is on. After that there is another house. The house after that is a rental. Chairman Dyer asked why the general business district as opposed to CBC. Looks like a better fit for the General Business District rather than the CBC. Kurt Hibbert concurred. The reason he advocated CBC was solely based on the premise of the domino affect rather than have just a spot down there. Applicant just needs a commercial zone to operate his business and would be willing to take whatever zoning the commission feels is best. Mary Ann Mounts felt it would fit into light industrial. In Favor Amy Carol 707 S 5` W. Looking at the comprehensive plan map, the block is going to be commercial. Whether it's CBC or GBD doesn't matter as long as leaving it doesn't prohibit the business of Interwest Cabinet. Neutral None Opposed None Chairman Dyer closed the public input portion. Mary Haley stated that this business has been there a long time before zoning laws were established. She doesn't think that CBD is what we should go with. GBD is better. Mary Ann Mounts wanted to know what use it would be listed under. Carpentry is listed under CBD. She feels it should be light industrial. Kurt Hibbert said that now they have more districts to choose from whereas before there was CBD and everything else. The way the ordinance was adopted was to protect the property rights of the commercial business owners was to lay out all the uses when we transitioned the ordinance to CBC. Over time we thought they would be split out to have high to low intensities so Wall -Marts and Snowshacks aren't side by side. That is work yet to be done. In this case, we do have a legal conforming use. If it were there I would recommend light industrial or manufacturing. Chairman Dyer said since the 926 code has been adopted, there haven't been many applications. Randal Porter questioned why it would complicate things further to make it light industrial? Kurt Hibbert thinks it would be best to transition it to be commercial for our comprehensive plan. Randal Porter asked what they tell the next applicant who wants to bring in a commercial business in the CBC. Kurt Hibbert said the difference in this situation is that this is an existing legal conforming business. The next applicant will be a new one and you can guide him wherever you want. The zone change is in conformance for the comprehensive plan. Mary Ann Mounts said she doesn't feel comfortable. If a use is nonconforming, and it is grandfathered in, it's our obligation to discourage growth, because growth is limited. Either we have to make this conform or it is nonconforming. It's barely conforming in light industrial where it says furniture. The closest thing in the CBC is carpentry, wood flooring installation. It doesn't fit. Mike Ricks didn't think the first time that everything would be listed. For this application it should be zoned the same. The two parcels should be zoned the same. If a later date comes that we need to change the zoning that wouldn't interfere with his business, then it should be changed. Kurt Hibbert said the applicant stated that he would not expand his manufacturing onto that site. He would only use it for storage. Steve Zollinger said it doesn't matter which building is used for storage. If it wasn't in Highway Business District then it isn't allowed in CBC. You need to decide what zone you want cabinet makers need to be in. If CBC isn't where you want them, then zone it what it should be and he can do exactly what he is asking to do. Don't allow him to use it wrong. Mary Ann Mounts gave the example of Zollinger Construction. They wouldn't be able to expand, they would have to move. Chairman Dyer agreed with Mary Ann Mounts. He is in favor of zoning it, but he wants to make sure it fits, is legally supported, and that the rest of the block transitions the way they had envisioned in the comprehensive plan. David Stein asked if this was allowed in the old HBD. Randall Porter said it was in the ordinance two years ago. Mary Ann Mounts said she didn't see cabinet making anywhere Chairman Dyer referred to Section C on Page 217 and asked if anyone found where this fits in the land use table. Ted Hill asked if there were any other cabinet making shops in the city limits. Mary Haley said there was Yates Cabinets. Clint Galbraith said Majestic Woods was over across from the school offices by Kmart. Mike Ricks said Yates Cabinets was just annexed into the city at the last meeting Steve Zollinger counseled the commissioners to not try and force it into a zone. If this doesn't fit the definition in CBC, then don't make the mistake of calling it CBC. Chairman Dyer asked for a recommendation from Steve Zollinger. Steve Zollinger responded that millwork should be in the uses and didn't know why it had been dropped. A zone should be designated and by the railroad tracks is a great place for a millwork. Chairman Dyer asked Kurt Hibbert to include millwork in the ordinance. Randall Porter asked Clint Galbraith if he used the railroad. He responded that he didn't. Kurt Hibbert said there is light industrial (referred to the zoning map) down the block. Light industrial follows the railroad. Chairman Dyer asked Clint Galbraith if there was a problem with tabling the issue for one or two meetings. Steve Zollinger said it might be three meetings because February 12th is the first time they can consider a comprehensive plan change. Right now the comprehensive plan foundation isn't designed for expansion. It would be into February if you want to change it to light industrial. There may be a transitional zone, which is a commercial zone, available in light industrial and commercial. It can be added it to the ordinance which would be in two or three meetings. Chairman Dyer said that would be the case if it was a comprehensive plan change. He said there maybe a change in the ordinance to consider different uses. They want to make sure it's legal and consistent with the transitional neighborhood. Randal Porter motioned to table issue. Mary Ann Mounts seconded. 3 None Opposed. Motion carried. B. 7:15 P.M — Rezone request from HDR1 to CBC at 258 South 2 nd West — Stonegate Rexburg, LLC. (Rexburg Housing) Presentation by Kurt Hibbert — The Rexburg Housing main office is zoned High Density Residential (HDRI). This office needs to be brought into conformance because it is a nonconforming use at this location. A zone change would make it so their office was functioning as commercial use. Chairman Dyer asked Kurt Hibbert to describe the adjacent uses. Kurt Hibbert responded that north is beauty salon, south is a single student housing unit, and south of that is Taco time. West is a single student housing complex which is managed by Rexburg Housing, Chairman Dyer said they need to decide what that block is going to be Mary Haley asked if Taco Time was the only one in conformance. Kurt Hibbert said the single student house is also conforming. In Favor None Neutral None Opposed None Chairman Dyer closed the public input portion. Chairman Dyer said they zoned this anticipating HDR because of the proximity to campus. He said if it is transitioning then a zone change may be necessary. The comprehensive plan shows commercial. Thaine Robinson felt the other nonconforming businesses should also be zoned. Kurt Hibbert said parcels can't be added, but the owners could be contacted later. David Stein thought commercial business district would be more appropriate. Mary Haley concurred with David Stein. David Stein motioned to recommend to City Council to change the zoned property from HDRI to General Business District (GBD) recognizing that it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Charles Anderson seconded. None Opposed. Motion carried. C. 7:30 P.M. — Conditional Use Permit in HDRI to go from 24 units to 25 units per acre at Pioneer Road and Mariah Avenue. The development name is Copper Creek Development ( OneWest Builders L.L.C.) Presentation by Don Christopherson with Onewest Builders who is representing Vista Delago Partnership. They own property on Pioneer Road. They are requesting a density change from 24 to 25 units per acre. This is an apartment community for married students. The concept plan is for six, 24- 11 plex buildings and three, 12 -plex buildings. There will also be a club house. The three, 12- plexes are Phase 1 of the development. There will be a total of 180 units. The proposed name is Copper Creek. Kurt Hibbert responded that the CUP is covering two issues: 1) the density change to include the 25`'' unit, and 2) the approval to build a 24 -plex. A CUP is required to build a 24 -plex or larger. See page 37 High Density Residential (HDR1), 3.9.010. You are allowed to go up to that, but beyond that you need a CUP. Mary Haley suggested an additional sentence be added at the end of 3.9.010 to include the higher density allowance with a CUP. Mary Ann Mounts would like the parking on the inside rather than outside. Don Christopherson responded that there will be berms as a buffer. In Favor None Neutral None Opposed None Chairman Dyer closed the public input portion. David Stein said this is the time to put conditions on it if the property owners to the north were concerned about the HDR zoning. He was unsure what the proposal is now in terms of buffering. Ted Hill asked if there were high density units on east side of their property. He also asked if they were going to build a fence. Don Christo hp erson said yes, the Kartchner project was on the east. He said it would be a pre -cast river rock wall that will section together. There will be a parking area on that back side. They have also considered down pro lighting proposal. Chairman Dyer responded that this lighting was a requirement. Kurt Hibbert said they are well on their way to design conformance. They have copies of the code. Regular submittals of building and site plan will be done. Mary Haley motioned to grant a CUP to Copper Creek Development, with the stipulation that they comply with Article 6.13 in Chapter 6, Page 179 of the ordinance and that we understand that it is a CUP to increase 1 unit per acre. Reason being is that it doesn't change the general atmosphere of adjoining neighbors and doesn't create any more hazards. Mike Ricks seconded motion. Kurt Hibbert asked if the motion included the building size. Mary Haley amended the motion to stipulate that the CUP be granted with the idea that the presented concept plan be changed very little, if any, with the granting of the CUP and that the 24 -plex be allowed. Mike Ricks seconded the amendment. Chairman Dyer acknowledged that the concept plan was submitted to Planning & Zoning on 1.5.2005. David Stein mentioned that the concept plan doesn't have concrete fences and he feels the motion should include that. Mary Haley amended the motion to include the developer's idea that a pre -cast cobblestone looking fence be required on the north side of that property. Mike Ricks seconded the amendment. None opposed. Motion carried. 3. New Business A. Concept Plan for Muir Dairy property NE of Rexburg in the Rexburg Impact Area. (Titan Development) Presentation by Nathan Brockbank 6480 S 900 E, Salt Lake City, Utah. He discussed the idea of developing the Muir property. It would be a mixture of 8000 square foot lots with garden style homes and town homes on the property. It is about seven tenths of a mile from sewer and water which would be costly to get it to the property. For that reason, they are making application for the LDR2 zone. They are intending to offer water and sewer. He wanted to know if they should go forward with the request for a zone change. They made application last month and they were advised to come tonight and show the commissioners their development plan. All are single family homes. Included in development would be playgrounds with expensive playground equipment. Also would include lots of landscaping. Kurt Hibbert clarified that this property is by the Stonebridge subdivision on 7` north in Rexburg. The pond is owned by Gary Summers (see the map). This parcel is north of the city limits. Charles Anderson asked if the lots are 8,000 square feet because the application shows 10,000 square feet. Nathan Brockbank responded that they would be 8000. Chairman Dyer asked if there was a need to change the zone. Kurt Hibbert said that there was a conflict with density. Nathan Brockbank clarified that there would be 86, 8,000 square foot lots and 97 garden style homes, so roughly 180 homes on 50 acres. Mary Haley asked what a garden style home is. Nathan Brockbank responded that they aren't a twin home. They can be attached but most are detached. Mary Haley said there are more attached than detached on the plan. David Stein asked for a drawing of what they will look like. Nathan Brockbank said he didn't have one. Chairman Dyer clarified that what the applicant would like is input so he can get a feel of the commissioners concerns if it comes as an actual proposal and if there would be stipulations so they can plan better. He said if the commissioners are going to look at this kind of density they would want it on city utilities. He felt this would fit better as a planned unit development. Steve Zollinger said the Planning & Zoning Commission would make a recommendation to the county commissioners rather than to city council. Madison County doesn't have a planning and zoning commission. Joe Laird asked Steve Zollinger what the situation was of providing services outside the city limits. Steve Zollinger said it is not a given but it is an allowance. John Millar would make a recommendation if it is in the City's best interest. The council has authority to grant on a case by case basis. Charles Anderson asked if this would be a phased project. Nathan Brockbank said it would probably be 4 phases. Randall Porter voiced concern about the homes being complimentary to each other. He encouraged a design plan that can be worked complimentary to each other. He also noticed the distance between the 2 twin homes and the single residence homes looks like such a small distance. Nathan Brockbank responded there would be about 25 feet in each backyard so there would be 50 -60 feet total between homes. David Stein mentioned the idea is to have smaller lots and larger community area. Nathan Brockbank concurred. Thaine Robinson asked if receiving services meant they would be consenting to annexation. Chairman Dyer said they would be consenting to annexation but it may or may not be annexed at that time. Kurt Hibbert said if this property were to develop that we would want to increase density to allow services out to the property. Chairman Dyer stated that the feasibility and economics of this project is the developers planning issue. There will be an appreciable cost in extending those utilities. He asked if they wanted to get a development agreement to recover the costs. Nathan Brockbank responded that the only way it will happen would to be to have a development agreement. He doesn't fully know the cost to do this. He just wants an idea from the commissioners if the concept plan was workable or not. If not, they will go a different direction. Mary Haley said they have had some other developers come in and show us something like this and they change the zone and they decide it wasn't feasible but the price of the property doubled over night. The commissioners aren't looking for that. That is our hesitation. Nathan Brock responded that this property will not double because the sewer and water is so far away David Stein said he would rather do more planned unit developments than how we are doing it. In Driggs they have a huge planned unit development with very specific design criteria and it looks great. Joe Laird if this property was in the flood zone. Ted Hill responded that the flood plane runs though it. Joe Laird said that would need to be looked at carefully. 4. Non controversial Items Added to the A eg nda A. Valley Wide Cooperative Sign PowerPoint presentation by Dave HoKum CEO of Valley Wide Cooperative at 1177 E Main. This was brought to council before and he felt there was no negotiation. Since then more businesses have developed and it has grown since we brought this to the council for a variance in the sign ordinance. Unfortunately, since some businesses have been built, the current Valley Wide sign is not visible. Their plan is to put a sign up for the entire business park. The sign would say Valley Wide Co. Op., and advertise the other businesses below. The current sign is as high as current ordinance allows. They don't think the ordinance takes into account the variation in the business community. The speed limit is faster out there than on main street. They need a sign that accommodates that flow of traffic. They are also trying to attract business off the highway. They told businesses they wanted monument signs rather than pole signs. But if they had a presentable one unit sign that would advertise all the businesses, it would service what they need to advertise. There would be one large sign rather than every business putting up its own sign. They would like a sign similar to the Teton River Village sign. But the 24 feet height limit won't accommodate all the businesses nor will it stand out enough. If the commissioners concur then he will put together a plan and present it. If the 24 foot limit is non - negotiable, then he won't waste his time on designing one. 7 Mary Haley felt this business has stretched its concept plan. So she is very hesitant to change any ordinance or give any variance to a company that has stretched to the limits to what was originally discussed. Dave HoKum said he discussed this issue with the store manager. Mary Haley responded that this must be more than discussed because the parking doesn't meet what was agreed upon. Chairman Dyer concurred. Mike Ricks asked how the placement fits in with the highway right of way and the site of people being able to stop behind the sidewalk before they enter on to Highway 33 for their line of sight. Dave HoKum responded that it wouldn't be any close than what the chiropractic office is. He presented this just as a concept. Stone structure on the bottom so you could see under it. Thaine Robinson addressed the number of telephone poles that are on that road and asked if the city do something underground with those poles. He felt it was one of the causes of the problem. Chairman Dyer responded that it had been discussed and it was close to a 6 digit figure to do it. David Stein asked what size of sign they felt they needed. The ordinance says the signs can't be taller than the tallest building. There would have to be a variance granted by City Council. Chairman Dyer said an agreement was made with Teton River Village that they wouldn't put signage on each business. Dave HoKum responded that he didn't foresee every circumstance. Randall Porter asked if the ordinance changed after Teton River Village put up their sign or if they requested it. Chairman Dyer responded that it was done before. Steve Zollinger said the ordinance reflects what David Stein said. The sign can't be higher that tallest building and the maximum is 30 feet. The biggest problem for Valley Wide will be the power lines. The sign can only be 15 feet from the sag. The sag on a 60 kilovolt line is probably 5 feet and you would have to be 20 feet away from that. The Hard Hat Cafe sign is 3 inches away from allowed maximum and it's not much over 24 feet. Randall Porter said that the signs are small enough that if you are going past at 45 mph you can't read it. You can't read the Teton River small signs now unless you are stopped. Dave HoKum responded that their sign will have half the number of signs as the Teton River sign so they will be able to be bigger. Randall Porter mentioned that the sign applications for Americinn and Stones were not approved the way the applicant wanted. He asked Kurt if there was a workable solution. Kurt Hibbert responded that he would like to see consolidation. However, the question that needs to be answered is if there is a reason on US 20 to treat it differently from other streets. Randall Porter said they wanted signage that was low profile. Mary Ann Mounts said she was against changing the height requirements based on speed limits. Her favorite cities all have small signs. Steve Zollinger said they do have the opportunity to get a 30 foot sign but it's up to the commission. The current proposal won't work because of the wire issue. He said there was a solution if the commission was willing to give him the option. Mary Ann Mounts said she was willing to look at a proposal. David Stein said the last sign proposal made by Valley Wide was that the Shell station sign was larger and it was hurting their business. He would look at a proposal regarding sign consolidation. Mary Haley said the only way she could approve it is if they maintain restrictions on interior pole signs. Randall Porter made the suggestion to make the sign wider rather than taller. David HoKum responded that the chiropractor office blocks the view, but it could be a combination of both taller and wider. He feels he needs 30 feet maybe a little less. Steve Zollinger said Utah Power has a chart that measures the sag on the line and they can calculate it. Chairman Dyer asked the applicant if they had addressed his concerns and given the proper input. David HoKum responded that there seemed to be a lot of contention and asked what the mechanism would be to address those issues. Steve Zollinger said Natalie Powell, the enforcement officer, would set up a meeting with the Valley Wide manager to address those concerns. Chairman Dyer said enforcement had been previously sent out and issues weren't resolved. He made reference to the bone yard out on the highway. That wasn't the plan presented. Mike Ricks commented he is not opposed to a single sign that advertises all businesses under the 30 feet if it is located so that it doesn't block the flow of traffic. Joe Laird said the sign at the Teton Plaza is directing traffic back into an area that has no streets. The Valley Wide is an entire subdivision with street names and everything, so they can be addressed just like any other street in town. He isn't sure there is a need for a large sign advertising all the businesses. He would rather have monument signs rather than a large sign with smaller signs that can't be read driving down the street anyway. Randall Porter concurred. He tends to look for the property rather than a sign. He felt it is too dangerous to try to read signs. Dave HoKum responded that he whole thing as a unit attracts attention. It needs to be designed so it beautifies. As people travel or stop they have the opportunity to read the smaller signs. They are trying to represent the business park. He doesn't feel people will drive back there just for fun. A small sign might not catch the attention of someone driving 45 mph. He felt they needed something to draw attention. Thaine Robinson commented that gas stations typically need more signage. Chairman Dyer said the commissioners don't have a consensus on a solution. Other applicants have asked for signage that the commissioners have made comply with the ordinance. The Teton River Plaza only added a few inches. He suggested Dave HoKum come in with some ideas of concepts. The commission has to have reasons for why they would allow a sign larger than what the ordinance allows, because others will come in and want to know why the sign was granted. B. North Annexation of Impact Area Kurt Hibbert referred to the annexation map showing the new city limits. He said the Heinz property and the Farm Service Building were left out of the annexation. Council has advised me to start processes on several islands that need to be cleaned up because they don't like the islands. In subsequent acts they will need to be cleaned up. 5. Enforcement David Stein asked how the lighting ordinance was being implemented. He is concerned about barn lights (i.e. Rexburg Motor Sports and Madison County Implement). Kurt Hibbert responded that it was the light trespass that was precluded. Light can be shone on the structure but not up into the sky or into the neighbor's yard. The lighting ordinance administration is in with the Public Works Department. 9 David Stein asked Kurt if he was comfortable that public works was implementing that ordinance. Kurt Hibbert responded that he was not. Meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. 10 CITY OF REXBURG April 07, 2004 7:30 P.M. STATE OF IDAHO ) County of Madison ) ss. Present were the following: Pledge to the Flag Mayor: Mayor Shawn Larsen Council Members: Financial Officer P &Z Administrator City Clerk: PFC: City Attorney: Paul Pugmire Donna Benfield Nyle Fullmer Rex Erickson G. Farrell Young Garth R. Oakey Richard Horner Kurt Hibbert Blair D. Kay John Millar Stephen Zollinger Roll Call of Council Members All Council members were present for 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 the March 17, 2004 meeting B. Minutes from the March 31, 2004 meeting C. Approve the City of Rexburg Bills Council Member Pugmire moved to approve the Consent Calendar; Council Member Young seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Public Comment on issues not scheduled on the agenda (limit 3 minutes) Marlena Belnap — 1150 Widdison Lane — mentioned that she was made aware of a decision conveyed to her by her attorney that a motion has been filed with the court to reconsider a recent court decision concerning the Idaho Statute on City annexations. The recent decision of the court which denied a law suit against the Cities of Rexburg and Challis is being challenged in the motion to reconsider. Marlena read a statement concerning the citizen's right to vote on a City annexation process in the State of Idaho. New Business: A. Final Plat for Teton River Village — 485 North 2 nd East Ellsworth- Paulsen Construction Council Member Erickson reviewed the Plat and indicated that Planning and Zoning had approved the Plat with conditions to correct a road width for access to lots at the west end of the Plat. Council Member Erickson moved to accept the Plat for Teton River Village as drawn; Council Member Fullmer seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. B. Preliminary Plat for the Meadows Condominiums "Phase 1" and "Phase 2" Asset Amalgamation, Joseph Harding — Design Intelligence, Scott Spaulding Scott Spaulding — Design Intelligence — reviewed the plan to purchase additional property to the south of the development that would allow a second entry into the subdivision. They have shown cross roads in the development due to the length of the subdivision. Council Member Fullmer asked about the agreement to purchase the south property. The deal to purchase the property will close in the next two weeks. Council Member Pugmire reviewed the location of the proposed location for the new exit which is located on the southwest corner of the development. The north end of the property will have to use the south exits. Scott indicated that future developments to the north of this development may provide the opportunity of additional accesses to the property from the north end of the development. Council Member Pugmire was not comfortable with the current access provided in an emergency situation that is only available on the south end of the development. Scott indicated that the Plat is difficult due to its length. He reiterated the possibility of a future development to the north providing additional access. Council Member Pugmire mentioned that it is an unsafe design and he indicated that "If it meets our code, then our code is inadequate ". 2 Council Member Erickson concurred that the Fire Department has the same concerns. Scott indicated that the property has been approved for development in another site plan without the addition of the loop roads. Council Member Erickson was concerned with the layout of the project; however if it meets the code his concerns would not rule. Council Member Oakey mentioned that the project could be tabled. Council Member Oakey moved to table the request until the 21" of April. Council Member Pugmire seconded the motion; Discussion: Council Member Pugmire reviewed the proposed land purchase for additional access to the development. Scott reviewed the need to approve the first phase of this preliminary plat and address those concerns in the final plat. Paul asked where phase one ended. Discussion on approving the preliminary plat for phase one and two. Council Member Pugmire would not agree to approve phase 3 and 4 without access to the north. Council Member Oakey asked to reword his motion to have the approval of Phase I and Phase II of the Meadows Condominium Subdivision contingent the following: 1) Review and approval of the Fire Department; 2) Acquisition of the land on the south end of the development for the purpose of providing a 2 nd access into the development; Council Member Pugmire seconded the changes to the motion as noted; Discussion: All voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Public Comment (Continued) on issues not scheduled on the agenda (limit 3 minutes) A student at BYU -I requested time to explain his complaint with a booting company that is booting cars on private parking lots. Eric indicated that he was from Rigby; however, he is staying at the Breckinridge apartments. He is concerned about the booting policy for the apartment owners. His car has been towed at least three times. He mentioned that he has been targeted by the booting company. He has friends that have also been booted. Mayor Larsen indicated that the Booting and Towing Ordinance is being considered by the City at this time. He asked Eric to provide a written statement concerning his complaint with American Towing. He mentioned that Daren is the contact for American towing. The Mayor noted that Eric had been booted in several places where he has been visiting. Mayor Larsen mentioned that this Ordinance will be worked on in future meetings. C. Establish Date for Rexburg City Budget Hearings: Richard Horner reviewed the calendar that was provided in the Council packet. The Budget hearings are scheduled for July 14 to set the tentative 2005 Budget. Each City Department will have budget reviews May 17th -21 st, 2004, concerning the preliminary budgets. The City planning and budget review meeting for the summary budget will be held on June 09 The Budget Hearings for the preliminary budgets are set for August 00 for the first reading of the Budget Ordinance and August 18 and September 01 for the second and third readings. The County needs the schedule for the budget hearings conveyed to them by April 30 Council Member Pugmire concurred with Richard, indicating that there is a need to have three readings of the City Budget. Council Member Benfield moved to adopt the schedule for the Public Hearings on the 2005 Budget; Council Member Pugmire seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Richard Horner reviewed the Cost of Living raises in recent years. The proposed Cost of Living raise for the CITY OF REXBURG employees in the upcoming year is 1.9% which would be applied on September 01, 2004. The Cost of Living calculations are done by the Consumer Price Index from the US Department of Labor. Council Member Young moved to adopt the Cost of Living raise to be 1.9% for the year 2005; Council Member Oakey seconded the motion; Discussion on the Cost of Living increases. This past year it was 2.6 percent. Discussion on the Cost of Living calculations. Council Member Erickson indicated that the Cost of Living is going up more than 1.9 percent. He would consider this a pay cut. Council Member Garth asked Richard if he used averaging. Richard indicated that he has used averaging; however it is not consistent. Continued discussion on the manner in which the cost of living is forecasted. Richard mentioned that employees are reviewed for merit raises every two years for up to 4 percent. Richard discussed the recent cost of blue cross rates 13 percent and Delta Dental rates up 22 %. The employees are changing from delta dental to they will keep for one more year. Question: All voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. D. Review Rexburg City Employee Health Insurance options — Richard Horner Mayor Larsen reviewed the concept of the employee using the Cost of Living raise to pay the increase in the Dental premium. Richard Horner mentioned that "employee only" coverage is covered at 100 %. There is a $13.00 dollar increase on a $24,000 income for a family. Council Member Fullmer moved to accept the Employee's Committee recommendation on Dental and Health Insurance increases; Council Member Benfield seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. E. Early Spring Clean up days — Staff Press release created due to an early spring: Rexbwg, ►D, March 2% 200* Beginning on March 28, 2004 and running thru May 28, 2004, the City of Rexburg Sanitation Department will be doing curbside removal ofyard waste and related materials. The pick -up of the materials will be made the same day as the normal sanitation pick -up. There is no charge for the yard waste pick -up during the spring cleanup period. Brush or limbs must be bundled and in less than four foot lengths. Any hauling after May 28, 2004 will be charged X30 -80 per hour, depending upon the size of the load and equipment needed. Also, any hauling requiring a backhoe or loader will be charged an additional fee. Please do not put yard waste, sand, or gravel in your garbage container. These materials will be picked up with your yard waste. Council Member Oakey moved to approve clean up period from March 28, 2004, to May 28, 2004; Council Member Benfield seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. F. Golf Board Report - Russ Benedict (Deferred to a future meeting) G. City Park Fee adjustments —Staff The Council discussed the issues related to having a fee for the use of shelters at the City Parks. Council Member Young expressed the need to keep the Park facilities affordable to the residents. He mentioned that the City should subsidize the Parks for the public. Council Member Erickson agreed with Council Member Young; however, the reservation for shelters at the Parks is for big family gatherings. The cost of these reservations for that purpose is understandable. Shelters can be used for free if they do not make a reservation. He reviewed the need to clean up after a large public gathering. It can take several pickup loads to remove trash and debris after a large family reunion. He is not concerned with asking for a fee for family reunions. Richard Horner indicated that the parks are the last entity to receive funding from the budget. The cleanup of the shelters is not covered by the budget. There are a lot of out of town requests for the shelters. It is necessary to charge for shelter reservations to allow scheduling. Council Member Young asked about the Tabernacle fees. It is significantly more based on the time and the clean up needs. Can we do that at the City Parks? The Council discussed the costs for cleaning up the City's Parks and Tabernacle building. Some events at the Tabernacle are fund raising events. Council Member Oakey asked about the refundable proposal in the rental fees for the City facilities. Council Member Pugmire indicated that the City could charge differently for city resident's verses non city residents. Council Member Oakey mentioned the problems with dogs getting into the trash. Larger garbage bins are available for some locations. Council Member Benfield recommended a smaller increase in the fees to encourage out of town people to come into the community for commerce. Council Member Erickson mentioned that the policing of the cleanup at the Parks would be difficult. A shelter and lights for the day are provided for groups who pay for the reservations. Richard Horner mentioned that the University students bring large groups to the shelters. Mayor Larsen mentioned that the community wide events do not get a charge for the shelters. Council Member Oakey indicated that the City Parks and the Recreation Department are being subsidized by the City at increased levels. Council Member Benfield moved to have $25.00 for half days at the shelters and $40.00 for full days; Council Member Erickson seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. H. New Plumbing Inspector under the Building Official Val Christensen indicated that the retirement of Delynn Edstrom from the Water Department will be at the end of April. The State requires the Plumbing Inspector to have a State Plumbers' Certification (license). The position will take 75% of one person's time for inspections and the remainder of his time (25 %) will be spent on cross connections. Therefore, the position including the workload of the cross connections and plumbing inspections will be placed under the Community Development Department. This will facilitate the timely inspections for issuing Certificates of Occupancies. The City had 14 qualified applicants and five were interviewed for the Plumbing Inspector position. Brad Johnson from Blackfoot was selected for the position. Mayor Larsen mentioned that part of this salary is paid by plumbing permit fees. In the past two years, the plumbing inspection fees have covered this positions salary. Brad has accepted the position. Council Member Erickson asked if any of the applicants were local applicants. The Personnel Committee was involved in the decision. Public Hearings None 9 Old Business A. Professional Plaza; common area designation — City Attorney Zollinger reviewed some background for this issue, Some of the confusion that has existed over the years has come from the inconsistency in which the City has applied the Zoning Ordinance to this area. The City Council asked to have Staff provide a possible solution to the inconsistencies. A 25 foot setback on both sides of the street would create a very strange street. The road would be 8 feet 2 inches wide at the Peterson property on the north end of the street if the proper set backs were imposed. The Engineering Department recommended that the entire area be designated as a City Street with multiple non compliance properties. City Attorney Zollinger recommended separating the area into two different classifications. Mayor Larsen thanked the Sparhawks for bringing this issue to the City for resolution. He asked the Council to move forward with equal treatment of the properties. He recognized the efforts of the Sparhawks and recognized the different applications for this property. It did not meet the street requirements when it was created. The Council discussed having a fence to buffer the residential properties. A redwood fence was installed to buffer Ron Bird, who is adjacent to the Professional Plaza. The possible solution given by John Millar was discussed as shown below: "Action Proposed: Designation of the area as a street, parking lot or a roadway." Staff Analysis: Professional Plaza Setback Date 4/7/2004 4/7/2004 Foundation Drip Line 1 Rexburg Properties 4' 2' 2 SSS Partnership 7' -2.5" 6' -10" 3 SSS Partnership T -2.5" 6' -10" 4 North West Real Properties 7' 4' - 8 " 5 Strobel Dirk 10' 8' - 3 " 6 Archibald D. Gary 7' - 1 " 5' -7.5" 7 Smith Douglas 26' - 7 " 24' - 8 " 8 ITEETH T -6.5" 5' -7" 9 Targhee Medical Plaza 15' - 4 " 5' - 1 " The area does not meet the street definition in the Ordinance. It is too narrow. 7 John Millar provided a Possible Solution: "It is acknowledged that Professional Plaza is a Street and is to be signed as such. It is also acknowledged that the above setback deviations exist, that no additional deviations will be allowed in the future and that setback requirements for future structures will not allow the use of setback averaging." Council Member Benfield reviewed the street signs for the area. A Harvard Avenue sign is located on the north end of the Professional Plaza and the interior addresses for the buildings have a Professional Plaza address. Council Member Pugmire reviewed the problems of having nine non conforming use properties in the Professional Plaza verses one non conforming use property. City Attorney Zollinger explained that if the City designated the area as a parking lot, the south portion of the Plaza would have between 36 feet to 39 feet of area for a City parking lot; the north part where Doctor Peterson's office is located would be a non conforming site. The Council discussed on the non conforming use designation of the properties over time. Council Member Pugmire asked about John Millar's solution. The Ordinance would have to be precluded in this case and list the properties in the Plaza as non conforming to the Ordinance. The Council discussed the setbacks for the buildings and the roadway. Council Member Pugmire moved that the City property between Main Street and First South in the Professional Plaza be designated as a City Street called "Professional Plaza Street" with the current list of buildings be designated as nonconforming uses if they do not comply with the setbacks to the street in the Ordinance; and have those buildings entered into the record as "non conforming use "; and that no future nonconforming uses be allowed in the Professional Plaza; and that the set back averaging not be allowed from Main Street to First South on the "Professional Plaza Street ". Council Member Fullmer seconded the motion; Discussion: the setback will be 25 feet by Ordinance 725, as amended. Council Member Fullmer asked how the nonconforming uses will affect tracking the nonconforming properties. Dr. Heiner's property is not in this subdivision and would not be listed as a nonconforming property. Val Christensen mentioned that this information can be tied to the parcel on the new property tracking software. Dr. Archibald was concerned about having his property listed as non conforming. All voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Council Member Pugmire thanked the Sparhawks for their efforts and the packet they put together on the issue. B. Third Reading - 917 Planned Residential Ordinance Mayor Larsen reviewed the Ordinance and its intent. The Ordinance has not been changed since the first reading. Council Member Erickson moved to accept the third reading of the Ordinance 917 and adopt the Ordinance; Council Member Pugmire seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. C. Second Reading - Tree Ordinance 919 The Council discussed the need for a Tree Ordinance. Council Member Fullmer moved to consider the Ordinance 919 as second read; Council Member Pugmire seconded the motion; Discussion on having a red line copy of the Ordinance to indicate any changes made to the original draft; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. City Council Report: A. Farrell Young reported on a "6 weeks" display of "Yesterday's Tomorrows ". The event will be held from May 1 st to June 1 st. The grand opening will be held May 8th with bands and rocket launches. There will be a dinner for dignitaries and entertainment from the Bar J Ranch entertainers. Copies of the agenda for the event are available if you contact Council Member Young. Mayor Larsen indicated that Marsha Bjornn was the Council Member that initiated this event. B. Donna Benfield reported on the Traffic Safety Committee. She asked City Attorney Zollinger if motorized transports like skate boards and scooters are prohibited on City Streets. Attorney Zollinger indicated that it is not prohibited at this time. Council Member Young asked if the City could issue tickets for youth that ride motorized modes of travel. Attorney Zollinger indicated that 50cc and under that are operating less than 25 mph are not regulated by the State. Council Member Benfield mentioned that the University students are using 7 th South by the University as a coasting hill. They are getting behind pickups for a start to go down the street. She asked if the Council should address this issue. Attorney Zollinger indicated that you can stop it as a traffic safety issue. He mentioned it could be a misdemeanor on private property or private streets. Attorney Zollinger mentioned that l it West and Center Street are not dedicated City Streets. Council Member Benfield mentioned that Millhollow Road is used for similar recreational traffic in the dark. This is a hazard for traffic in the dark. The neighbors are concerned with the danger of this practice. Attorney Zollinger indicated that there have been arrests for riding garbage cans down Millhollow Road. 0 Council Member Benfield discussed crosswalk issues and lighting issues that are planned for the next Traffic Safety meeting. She asked John Millar for options on 4 way intersections and crosswalks. The Traffic Safety Committee suggested moving parking three slots away from a four way intersection. Some locations need to have a 5 foot painted set back and there needs to be parking signs added to additional streets. Council Member Benfield asked if the Whoopee Days fees for use of the City Golf Course could be exchanged for exchange of funding as was done in 2003. Could we do it again? The item will be brought up at the next meeting. Council Member Pugmire asked to have the Golf Board review the request at tomorrow nights meeting. C. Rex Erickson — None D. Paul Pugmire Golf Board is meeting tomorrow night to finalize a new nine at Teton Lakes. The police department review is continuing. They have learned an awfully lot. There were questions on the Salary survey. They are boiling down and crystallizing where the Committee is headed before a public report is made available. City Attorney Zollinger indicated that the Chief of Police Archibald is recovering from a broken back. It will take 3 to 6 weeks for his recovery. The Chief can not sit down for a meeting. He is doing remarkably well after a falling on his back in the office during a remodeling project. Council Member Pugmire asked Richard Horner to schedule a meeting for discussion of the salary survey. It was scheduled for next Wednesday the 14 of April. Council Member Pugmire asked about the proposed rule changes for the Council. Discussion of the current rules that the Council is operating under. The rule changes are only a suggestion. Council Member Erickson thought it was very helpful to have rules of order to follow. He preferred simple rules for conducting business. They are different from the current procedures that the Council is following. One of the proposed rule changes is eliminated the need to have a second for a motion. Council Member Pugmire discussed a portion of the proposed rules. The third reading of an Ordinance would be the reading for making changes to the Ordinances. He suggested having it on a night with a light agenda. 10 E. Council Member Fullmer reviewed an exhaust evacuation system in the Fire Department that goes to the open air. It will automatically detach from the fire truck when the truck leaves the fire station. The cost would be about $102,000. Council Member Fullmer moved to ratify (accept) the bid the Fire Department has received for this exhaust evacuation system for the Fire Department with the condition that performance and payment Bonding be put in place; Council Member Pugmire seconded the motion; Discussion: Richard Horner mentioned that it was under budget by about $20,000.00. Boyd Cole was the winning bidder. The installers and representatives are from this area. Question: all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. F. Garth Oakey reviewed the meeting with the Parks and Recreation Committee. Most of the discussion was on getting information on a City swimming pool. The Council discussed the new City Teton Dam Marathon add in the Chamber publications. The Mayor hopes that it will be a successful event. Mayors Report Mayors Youth Advisory Committee is working on the Madison County Pride Days (clean up days). The City has received a $150 grant for the Arbor Day celebration, which requires $50.00 in matching funds. There will be 40 trees that are four feet tall donated to the City by the Madison County Soil Conservation District for Arbor Day. The first Madison County Pride days will be April 30 in the late afternoon starting at Smith Park. Council Member Benfield applied to Wal -Mart for a $500 beautification grant for trees, or flowers or bushes. The Council discussed the upcoming National celebration of "The Day of the Child" on (April 30 A Mayors proclamation will be read at the next Council Meeting. The Council discussed some of the priority projects for April 30 Pride Days: 1) Digging up the dirt in the flower beds on Main Street 2) Smith Park beautification 3) Planting trees 4) Carousel beautification Mayor Larsen reviewed a proposal to have leadership training for students involved in the Mayors Youth Council. The Association of Idaho Cities (AIC) annual Convention was reviewed by the Mayor. He proposed to invite 15 local students from Madison County to Leadership Training from June 16 to June 18 Five of the fifteen students may be picked from the Mayors Youth Advisory Council. The Association will have buses pick up the students and take them to Boise. The City Council meeting for that week (June 16 will be held the prior week on June 91h 11 Idaho Transportation Letter: Mayor Larsen and John Millar met with Tom Cole concerning Transportation issues. The Mayor mentioned a Regional meeting (Teton, Madison, Jefferson, & Fremont counties) with the Idaho Transportation Department. The meeting will be held in Rexburg on April 28 in the morning. Department Heads of the Idaho Transportation Department will be attending the meeting. Council Member Benfield indicated that there will be a meeting next week at 12:00 p.m. at the Chamber forum. The Idaho Transportation Department will review their summer projects. Mayor Larsen asked Hanna Bird to be confirmed as a member of the Traffic Safety Committee and Dan Kettle as a member of the Golf Board. Council Member Pugmire moved to approve Hanna Bird as a member of the Traffic Safety Committee and Dan Kettle as a member of the Golf Board; Council Member Benfield seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Council Member Benfield asked about a planned meeting for the Beatification Committee. Council Member Erickson mentioned that a lady from Rigby is asking about the entrances into Rexburg. She requested some more effort be applied to the beautification of the Rexburg entrances similar to the Rigby entrances. He indicated that these projects would be good to offer to the Youth Committee. One entrance to the city could be worked on for a pride day. The Idaho Transportation Department paid for some of the Rigby improvements on Hwy 20 and the City of Rigby has the responsibility to mow the grass. Council Member Erickson mentioned that the Main Street entrance would be a perfect opportunity for the first project. He indicated that another person asked about the proposed City Park in the Palmer Addition. John will coordinate the efforts for this City Park with Gene Palmer. Mayor Larsen thanked Council for attending additional City Committee meetings. He reviewed the upcoming meeting of April 15 with Planning and Zoning Commission at 6:00 p.m. and the neighborhood meetings on the 22 of April at Adams and the Middle School 7:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. These meetings will be an open house type meeting for the Planning and Zoning Commission with Council representation. They will be the precursor to the Public Hearings on the Comprehensive Plan for the City. The second meeting will be on the 29 of April at 7:30 p.m. at Kennedy and Lincoln Elementary Schools. He reminded the Council of the upcoming Pride Days event which coincides with the Madison County Pride Days on the 30th of April which is the National 12 Arbor Day Celebration. Council Member Benlield mentioned an upcoming spring forum to update City Officials on the new legislation. City Attorney Zollinger indicated that his neighborhood is collecting money for sod in the new City Park for the Evergreen Subdivision. They will pull water out of the canal to water the Evergreen playground area. Mayor Larsen mentioned the idea of having a "welcome to Rexburg sign" at the Evergreen City Park including a fence around the canal adjacent to Main Street. Report on Projects & Quick Wins Next time Tabled requests a. Commercial Design Standards (remain tabled) b. Proposed Booting Ordinance 911 (remain tabled) c. Contract with the Development Workshop for 3.06 acres (remain tabled) Update on Projects John Millar reviewed ITD meeting on diagonal parking for Main Street. The letter came last week from ITD indicating a willingness to work with the City on the proposal. The Transportation Department will allow one more year for the City to come up with a proposal. He mentioned the review of the City parking lot issues by Tom Hudson. A State Statute indicates that the parking on Main Street could be required to change to diagonal parking due to safety issues. John Millar indicated that Smith and Porter Parks will have paved bike paths. The Council discussed the routes for the bike paths in both City Parks. John Millar mentioned that a Grant application for a Landscape median for 4 blocks of Main Street from 2nd East to 2nd West is available from the State Transportation Department. They require 3 to 4 years lead time before the Grant can be funded. They require a City Council Resolution of support requiring parallel parking. The April 22, 2004 drop dead date for a decision concerning the parallel parking issue was pushed back a year. Evan if the project is funded, the City can maintain diagonal parking by turning down the funding for the Grant. The landscaped median project is about a half million dollar project. Mayor Larsen asked the Council to approve a Resolution for the Grant request to beautify Main Street. 13 Council Member Oakey moved to approve a Resolution to demonstrate the City's resolve to pursue the funding for the ITD Grant; Council Member Erickson seconded the motion; Discussion: The Council is keeping their options open for the planning and beatification of the downtown area. This grant is about $500,000 with a 7% matching fund from the City. Mayor Larsen explained that a meeting with Tom Cole in January indicated that the timing for the grant application will be up in about 10 days. The State accepts up to four proposals per year. The City could look at a January 31, 2005 deadline for another proposal. The Mayor would like to work on four proposals per year. This Resolution will be due before the next Council meeting. All voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. John Millar reviewed the bids that were opened for the Scada System. Wheeler Electric was the high bidder at $251,610.00. The low bidder was Arco Electric for a bid of $229,535. The funds have been budgeted. Council Member Fullmer moved to approve the contract for the Scada System with Arco Electric for $229,535; Council Member Oakey seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. John Millar mentioned that the Idaho Transportation Department is still working to install a traffic signal on Main Street at 12 th West near the Valley Wide Cooperative. It has been delayed a few months; however, the plan is to complete the light this year. John Millar brought in a water flow metering device that costs $1,100 dollars. The flow meter will be used to sell water to contractors out of fire hydrants. There will be fines levied for violations (taking water without metering). The meters will be available for sale to the contractors. John mentioned that the City could take a $1,100 deposit for the meter and refund $1,050 less repair costs when the meter is returned. Last year (2003) the City collected about $8,000 for water used out of the fire hydrants. Council Member Benfield mentioned that water is a valuable commodity. John Millar mentioned that fire hydrants and water lines can be damaged when the water flow is suddenly shut off at a fire hydrant. Council Member Fullmer asked if the City could handle the proposed Temple Site with water and waste water. The Church may use existing wells in the area to service the Temple grounds and some facilities on the BYU -I Campus. He reviewed the discussion with the Church on completing 7 th South. 14 John Millar mentioned the planed construction of a walking path near the Temple Site. Council Member Fullmer moved to go into executive session concerning possible litigation; Council Member Benfield seconded the motion; Those voting ave Those voting nay Paul Pugmire None Donna Benfield Nyle Fullmer Rex Erickson G. Farrell Young Garth R. Oakey The motion to go into executive session carried. Executive session Executive session ended Council Member Fullmer moved to remove the American Sign request from the table and have it on the agenda for April 21, 2004; Council Member Oakey seconded the motion passed; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Council Member Young requested that the Swimming Pool discussion be entered on the agenda for April 21, 2004. Discussion on how items get put on the agenda. The Mayor controls the agenda for City Council. Adjournment 15 CITY OF REXBURG PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES Thursday, April 15, 2004 6:00 p.m. Special Meeting: City Council /P & Z to Discuss the Design Corridor along US 20 Meeting Commenced 6:05 p.m. Attending: Shawn Larsen, Mayor Planning & Zoning City Council Members Chairman: Winston Dyer — Excused Rex Erickson Members: Robert Schwartz — Excused Donna Benefield Mike Ricks Farrell Young Mary Haley Paul Pugmire Steve McGary- Excused Garth Oakey Jerry Hastings David Stein - Excused Joseph Laird Randall Porter Mayor Larsen: Opened the meeting. The two items in this work meeting to address with planning and zoning are the Commercial Design Standards, Ordinance 907 and just to bring you up to date, I know 7 was first read back in November and it talked about commercial design standards, at that time as first read there was a moratorium put on commercial buildings in excess of 36,000 sq ft. for 180 days, or until this ordinance passed. There was a lot of concern on this new ordinance by the new council and so the purpose of this work meeting is to give Planning and Zoning Direction on how to proceed. The second issue is a US 20 Highway corridor. Kurt, I'm going to ask you to give us a brief background on the purposes of commercial design standards. Kurt Hibbert: Most of you are aware this last year the City of Rexburg implemented and passed ordnance on design standards on multi family housing. We are seeing some tremendous impact of that now in the city. All of the multi family apartments being built right now are having those design standards applied. The intent was to get away from the barracks looks that are happening around town, the big boxes, to give some architectural significance and feeling to the building and get a better street scape. The designs standards require the eyes to the street section, in that, what does it look like from the street, does it have good presentation, or do we have the butte end of the building out by the street an eyesore internal to the property we had to develop or had done that. The natural follow up to that was Commercial Design Standards were on new building commercial development so that the desire on the part of the council instructed Planning & Zoning to start looking at that and from the commissioners had a subcommittee gathering information on what P & Z's are doing and what they have done as far as commercial design standards. The prototype of what they actually set forth in the ordinance came out of an Oregon development Code which is widely applied to many small cities in Oregon. They are kind of generic; they are mostly varying design standards. There are two types of design standards, some are prescriptive and some are descriptive, they describe what you want but they don't make if law. Prescriptive is design standards are law you have to comply. Most of the things in Oregon was a descriptive type, I would like to see this kind of development and is describes as general feeling and aura, but it didn't say thou shelt do this but the expectations were set forth. Generally speaking that is what compelled that. One of the things that has been discussed I know in our work meeting with the City Council and the Planning & Zoning that we had there was an original approach to the design standards there was no definition between the central business district and the highway business district. The good Conesus that those two should be treated differently and now with our downtown consultant that we are working with there was a lot of talk that what ever happens with our downtown consultant that whatever the downtown standards should be coordinated with that downtown planning process, there was some thought that was and maybe we could discuss that and what your ideas are there. But is in case from my perspective that could be very beneficial to break the design standards in the commercial zone by zone rather than one broad brush. Mayor Larsen: How many zones are we talking about then? Kurt Hibbert: Right now in the existing ordinance there are only two. Highway Business District and Central Business District. Mayor Larsen: But in the rewrite of the zone? Kurt: We will break the Highway Business District into three zones, I can't remember what they are right now but basically they are a regional shopping type zone, a bigger big box type zone a step down from that, and a neighborhood, kind of have a graduation scale. Mayor Larsen: Our downtown commercial business district would be in what, in the neighborhood. Kurt: It is its own zone. The central business zone will be preserved. Mayor Larsen: So that will be preserved and the highway business will be split into three. Kurt: It is a tapering complexity of use, it high end a big shopping mall, big box type developments, stepping down to maybe what we have on like on 2 nd E right now, the down to a neighborhood business district that could be a specific use in high density residential or mixed with housing, something like that. The design standards that could be created are applicable zone by zone. So you can have different standards by different levels of complexity. Farrell Young: The way it was originally when it was written wasn't it descriptive rather than prescriptive. Kurt Hibbert: Yes, 90% of it plus was descriptive. Mayor Larsen: There was some real concern on the council of the description? Kurt: Yes, whether the descriptions were where we wanted it to be or not. That is why it was out on the table was because of that discussion, take this out, put this in, we like this, we don't like that. The of the ordinance to get something on the table so the discussion could start and without that document it is very hard to know what we are discussing. But leaving that aside, those are the general concepts, we would like to proceed in the development of design standards, maybe you can just do them one zone at a time as we march through this, leaving the central business district to a future point and time when Tom Hudson & Co. And the downtown people can get their planning process completed and what they want to do and we can address that in conjunction with that. In general does that answer what you wanted me to address Mayor? 4 Mayor Larsen: I guess I would like to know the feeling of the council, do we want commercial design standards, should be throw out 907 and start new and break them down by these business districts or what's the feeling? Garth Oakey: I feel like by breaking it down into 3 zones like you mentioned you could do more prescriptive right, than descriptive and we would gain greater control over that area and have a less likely chance of them building something we didn't like out there. Is that right or is that wrong. Farrell Young: The businesses that I have talked to are really really shy or hesitant about having anything placed upon them that would be so restrictive, they don't like the idea of being told they have to build grey or green or have certain kind of vegetation in front of it. It was just so specific that I really worried and that was the tone of this letter from Erick Erickson. He was really concerned that they were just too picky about details and so he says, we live in America, shouldn't a business have a right to choose the way he wants his business to look or do we have to fit into a keyhole or do we have to fit into a prescribed pattern that makes our whole city look like it did in 1890 or 1910 and you know the Historic Preservation Committee is working on a really nice plan to give some uniformity to the downtown area to make it look, so it doesn't loose it's personality from years gone by so that is one perspective and the other perspective is the businesses don't want to loose their individuality and their ability to choose and put their business forward the way they want to put it forward and not have the city say you have to do this and you have to do that. There is some feeling out there. Garth Oakey: If it was descriptive, more descriptive than it was in the past, what are some of the problems that have occurred because it has been descriptive rather than prescriptive? ? ? ? ? ?: You just can't enforce it. Group Discussion Mayor Larsen: Look at apartments, there is a perfect example of when we didn't have design standards. We were getting apartments, we were getting a lot of complaints saying why is the city allowing them to build those types of apartments, basically the barracks look. The decision was made to pass design standards for multi family homes or multi family complexes and I can tell there are some are just squeaking by. But you can tell they have put the shutters on and they put an awning over the door and different things to comply with that that was because we made the decision when I was on the council to put in design standards. I recognize we don't want to keyhole everyone into this is the way we want it to look. On the other hand if we don't have any sort of standards then we are beholding to looking like every other community. Mike Ricks: I was thinking Mayor, and Councilman Young the problem our ordinances left latitude from point A to point Z for the people to do their building in. We come in a whole lot of these people that are taking advantage of the community by coming in and cleaning the gravy and then leave us with a problem in 10 years a serious problem, the buildings will fall down, how can we do this, some builders and there are a lot of them in this community, you can turn them loose with this much of a latitude, some builders come into this community and we don't want to give them anymore latitude from point A to point B you don't want to give them clear to Z, because they will take advantage of us. So from the planning and zoning that is where this is coming from not all of them but just takes 2, 3 or 4 to take make a mess of the whole thing and that is what we are trying to do, I guess the only way to stop that is to be more specific maybe and give as much latitude. Garth Oakey: I have questions concerning that part of it. Part of it you want to do prescriptive, like the building codes: how far apart the 2x4's, how deep the footings all that type of thing. Where as the cosmetic part of the building you could leave it to more descriptive. Is it that fair to say that or are there parts of it that you want to be more specific on those other parts? What do you think? Mike Ricks: The building codes are only on safety, the International Building Codes, it is safety oriented. It doesn't do anything, the people upstairs flush their toilets upstairs and you can hear it the next three apartments all the way down to both sides. Is that quality? The Building Code does not address that. Mayor Larsen: I guess the burn goes on the fire. Farrell Young: I think it is a good idea to think about the Highway 20 overlay corridor to improve out entrances into the city and to get rid of some of the debris that is accumulating along the freeway out there, if we put it all together we could really improve the entry into Rexburg and passing by out there. Just passing by the city they will say hey there is a community that has some pride in it. Mike Ricks: The other thing, we are looking on P &Z kind of the direction we have been going I don't know whether it is right wrong or indifferent I think everybody on the Planning Board has a different idea on that. So far most of our commercial developments has been on the corridors type and stuff into town if use that as the business district or the commercial district then we are going to have these problems that we are discussing that may not look attractive as it would to have some nice homes on the corridor. I guess my question is are we cutting off our nose to spite our face when we are putting the business development on the corridor roads into the community because some of them will be using the big box type look in some of those businesses and you know they could be that and that may of may not be as attractive as a person would like. I don't it's a big ball park. This is something to think about. Joe Laird: Let's go back to the design standards for a moment, I think we have a good example of buildings just being built, on the river you have Jack in the Box, as the one example, is that what we really want along the main street of Rexburg. Right beside of it the rock fascia on the buildings and on the side this type of thing I think you can project the same number of oh what a terrible looking building when you go to Idaho Falls for example or any big city you the used car signs in the bright red and yellow and this type of thing. We need landscaping that will make it more appealing. Farrell Young: I think what we are dealing with here is what is appealing to one isn't appealing to another. I don't see anything objectionable to the Jack in the box, other people do. There are a lot of things that we try to tell somebody what looks good it may not look good in their mind and so you are dealing with personalities and you are dealing with other people's ideas and sometimes it is hard to legislate those kinds of things but I agree with you. Rex Erickson: I don't like this 907 at all I think it has some real bad flaws in it, the way it is written and what it is trying to do. Farrell Young: Do you think it is a good idea to have an ordinance like that, could we correct the flaws? Rex Erickson: I'm not sure it is even needed, I think that some things, but the design part of it, I disagree with in the fact that every has there own, unless you are a designer or a man who makes a living designing, design does not mean as much to many other people as it does to one like that. I don't know where all this came from, but there is just some things in there, this keeps referring to historic Rexburg, that we want to preserve Rexburg historically. Will 0 somebody tell me what is historic Rexburg? The church is the only thing that is historic about Rexburg, that is what started Rexburg and that is what was historically was the church. The way the town was laid out everything was from the church. What else historically has happened in Rexburg since Rexburg was here. We had the flood that solved a lot of problems we had. But as far as actually being a historic city, we don't have a lot of history, we don't have a lot of historic things in Rexburg, we have some nice older homes that could be kept and all. This goes through here and just continually talks about historic vales, historic parks sense of place and all of that, now the only person that I know of that can appreciate for the enhancing of its natural and historic sense of place. Not that has to be a design engineer that comes up with a statement such as that to put in there, you and I would never dream that up, I don't think anybody around this table would ever dream up those kind of statements and put into an ordnance unless it was a design engineer. Rexburg historic resources are vast. Name me what the historic resources of Rexburg are that are vast, we have great farms, great agricultural area, but what historically draws people to Rexburg, to see Rexburg and to spend any time in Rexburg historically, other than the flood. Donna Benefield: The Carousel Rex Erickson: You see what I'm saying. Mayor Larsen: I don't disagree, we need to either, instead of going off of 907, and I think we need to come to a decision of the council of whether commercial design standards are a good thing or a bad thing. If they are a good thing to what extent, I personally think it is a good thing to have design standards, it has helped us in the multi family housing, we are getting better aesthetically pleasing structures going up because of the ordinance we put into place. ] think we can do the same thing with our new commercial buildings. I'll go back to the Jack in the Box because there are communities that I go into franchises there is not just one plan that they lay down, they have 3, 4 or 5 in their back pocket they can say I can build A, B, C, or D, but if you really want I can build these. So I think we need to decide what we want in our community, what we will accept and what we won't accept. Rex Erickson: That is why we have Planning & Zoning Board. I think the Planning and Zoning Board can control that. I think they can control what is built. Mayor: If it meets the ordinance it will be built, they can't control, and they can't answer yes or no on the spot because they have reviewed the ordinances. Garth Oakey: I have one other question about this, concerning things like, Kroger came in and bought Smiths & Fred Meyer's, so they had two stores across the street from each other, they emptied the Smith's out in Pocatello, is sitting empty no one can come in and bus divide that building or break it up so that it can be used in other ways, it is basically only good for another grocery store and they don't need another grocery store down there. So I think it is good that we have something in place that allows changing that building or fixing it or something in the structure. I think parking in an important issue it should have so much parking, fire codes those things are those already covered. Donna Benfield: They are all covered aren't they? Garth Oakey: How much is covered and how much isn't and those kinds of issues. Mayor: When I was down recruiting sunbirds, I stopped by a community in Arizona that has design standards and talk about a thick manual they have a think manual and design standards, here is what we would like to see built in our community. That is the fastest growing area in the United States; they have 17,000 people move into that valley in the Phoenix area every month. Donna Benfield: What you just said, here is what we would like our community to look like. When we first read this 907, I thought is was much more prescriptive than descriptive that is the way it came at me first and I thought no, no, no, no, there is no way we should tell the independent businessman how to run a business, what it should look like, what size it should be, what color it should be on and on and on. I thought that was exactly what were doing was telling us. But what I have learned is: no it is descriptive; we were saying this is what we think we would like it to look like now we are not saying you have to do it that way. So I have come back from a little bit where I was more to the middle you might say and what you just said is here is what we would like it to look like. I wouldn't be opposed to a design standard if we wrote it instead: here is what we would like our community to like look, but if you want to build something else that are your privilege and your right. Rex Erickson: If it is written that way it is alright, if a company right now picked this up that was planning on coming to Rexburg, it would discourage them. If I was an investor and picked that up, plain as it is it would discourage me from coming to Rexburg, I don't like that. Mayor Larson: Garth brings up the point that if it is a big box building it needs to be able to be sub divided. That is something you could require, if you are building a building over X amount of square feet that is something that would have to be able to be sub divided. There needs to be a break up on the fagade. Mike Ricks: But that is all you have to say, you don't have to say. Randall Porter: We talked about Jack in the box, I don't know if you guys can remember back when Martell Grover had his home across from Adams school building, I guess Martell's home was victim of the flood then he sold that piece of property to someone who put up a steel farm building right there on that corner. Washington Federal is there now but they completely changed the fagade they built over it, do you remember what it looked like? It was a steel farm building. To come to your point Donna, we could say we prefer to have an attractive building there to fit into compliance just to make the community look better but if he says no I'd rather have my steel farm building and I'm going to build it, then what are we going to say? Now that is one example, another example is right next to me, where my office is, there was a fellow there that had an electronic store called Tito's. Tito decided he wanted to paint his bricks on the front of the building red, what and blue. It really looked bad, no offence to Tito, he is a nice man, but if we say we prefer you not to take every brick and paint it red, white or blue on the front of your building but, it is your building, you can do what ever you want, but we prefer it look a different way. These people are going to bring their own taste, their own culture, and their own experiences from other communities and apply them here in Rexburg. Donna Benfield: But we didn't have any design standards at that time. Randall Porter: Exactly right, that is why we need one now. Donna Benfield: But if we did say that this is the way we prefer it, maybe he would have gone that way. Randall Porter: Who knows? But if it is a little more prescriptive than what you saw originally, but maybe a little less that what you are talking now there maybe we can find a comprise, but I don't think we can rely on our discussion tonight to carry into the next 5 — 10 years or the next 100 people that are on planning and zoning. I think if has to be down on paper and I think it needs to head off those kinds of things, because I don't want to go on 2nd East and see another farm building put up on a corner like that. C, Rex Erickson: Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with some controls on that sort of thing, but I do have some serious problems with the way that some of this is written that talks about some of the stuff that means absolutely nothing to me. Randall Porter: Was this brought in from some place else? Jerry Hastings: Randall that actually came in from David and he went around and spent quite a bit of time, went to Hailey, went to different historical towns and I think I see where Councilman Erickson is coming from. He picked those up and that was the wordage that was in there and it went through. Frankly, this was pushed through to give the City Council some guidance. I think all our group needs are the tools. We have to have the tools, every time we try to stop something, you have been there, the mayor has, we try to stop something I think the Planning and Zoning Commission, we are an out spoken bunch, but when it comes down, I really believe the ideas that come out of it, the intent are good. So what happens is, the minute we get to the point where we no there is something we want to stop, or something we want to change, we can't do it. That is the frustration, I don't know that I would call it frustration but that is what has driven this. From my personal stand point I think it should be, but you know Randall has a perfect point, that is what I was sitting here thinking. Your remember the old Pamida Store? Now would you like that Pamida Store down here on Main Street or in our main business district, you know. My home town is in Wyoming, it has a Pamida Store. It looks like garbage; it has a metal building, with all windows in the front it just doesn't speak to the community. My desire would be for us to practice some way. Randall Porter: You have someone that owns Pamida, that lives in gated community somewhere in San Francisco who knows where else and he puts a metal building as cheap as he can build it in Rexburg, Idaho. He doesn't have to drive by and look at it ever, the guy that owns the Jack in the Box, in Teton River Plaza, he lives in a gated community somewhere, and he doesn't care. You can argue the point whether we have a historic city or not, some people say we have something, with a few examples, but we sit at a historic moment right now. Because with the growth of the city we have already been caught behind the 8 ball on a lot of things that have been built and we are dissatisfied with the look of a lot of the projects that have gone in and so I think, in my 6 -8 months experience on the Planning & Zoning what I'm hearing we have a historic opportunity right now to put in place some things that will correct some things that have already happened, we are going to have to live with the things that have been built right now, but I think in 15 -20 years some of them are going to be falling over, I think. But we can prevent that from happening from this point forward, so I look at this as maybe this is the genesis of what people will look back 50 years and say back in 2004 when they came up with these ordinances that really they have a look, or maybe we need to think in terms of making a look and so that people will look back at this time and say that's what happened and that is why have this look we have today. Farrell Young: Speaking of a look from somebody who has been away the community quite a while, I came back and I saw a new look in Rexburg. When I look at the Standard Journal, I look at Rudd and Co. I look at Thatcher's Law Office. It seems to me there has been kind of an overriding influence that tells people to fix up your business and make it look similar. Did that come by design or by accident? Did they decide to make them look alike with that stucco look? Donna Benefield: They each independantly decided to do it. Randall Porter: Someone put stucco on the building looked good to someone else and he did it too so on & so forth. 7 Mayor Larsen: That is a good argument for design standards if one person does something and then they see that it looks good, I think you will get builder after builder say OK, that looks good. Donna Benfeld: One company after the other thought the stucco looked good, Standard Journal that looks good, so Rudd and Company said wow, that looks I want to do it, then Alliance Title said I like the looks of that I want to do it and then so did Rigby and Thatcher. More than one person thought it looked good. It's all the way to the counseling center at the other end of Main Street, where it really looked bad at that one end and now it is looking better, but the perfect example there was a dozen people that thought there business would look better if it looked like that, but in the design standard the engineer that you are talking about said no stucco allowed. Garth Oakey: That is the thing I disagree with in here, if it gets too restrictive for everyone. Mayor Larsen: I want you to look at this, would we want a building that would look like this or like this. (Showing pictures) I look at what they have done here and this is extensive, I would like to say here that Ordinance 907 that was our first try, lets give our Planning and Zoning and The Creative Community Development Department, let's give them a focus, maybe that focus is to look at design standards a lot of them being descriptive, with some prescriptive design standards. Fewer details break them up by zones, by commercial zones on a new zoning and then come back, come back to the table with a document saying OK. Then we can look at that document this is way too detailed. Rex Erickson: I thought we did that very this around the table. Mayor Larsen: We did it on planned residential development PUD. Rex Erickson: I though we did it on this and this came back almost word for word as the original one was. Rex Erickson: This is the original nothing and changed. Group: It must have been Planning and Zoning, Nyle Fullmer: That was the PRD Kurt: We did have a meeting with a general discussion just like this with some focus and some agreement, in fact we wrote them down and there was some unanswered questions particularly in this ordinance applies to the broad brush strokes over all the commercial districts we didn't have consensus to break it down, and the question I'm really getting the direction on tonight is we want different standards by zone. If everyone has consensus on that what the Mayor is saying I think we can accomplish this really quickly. We will apply design criteria zone by zone. We have three new commercial zones coming for highway business districts that will be tapered more complex uses. I think that relatively quickly I would defer again to the City Council and the Planning & Zoning Commission. I really feel that we need to be careful in approaching the central business district right now until this downtown planning is done. I think that planning in concert with the consultant and what they do downtown. If they come back with really strong recommendations then we will need to orient our design standards to those recommendations. Mayor Larsen: Here is another area I think we agree on, is that we have talked about a separate a committee for design review and the feeling I think amongst the City Council let's keep that in Planning and Zoning, maybe have a sub committee of Planning and Zoning we don't want to create another bureaucracy. Donna Benfield: Could I just add one thing, I spend some time with Tom Hudson, we walked around and looked at the downtown and his suggestions were all descriptive. He said no way would he like to see or would he ever suggest the prescriptive, he said if you come up with design standards that's find in suggestions like Steve has done, he really liked what Steve Oakey brought out and said if you are thinking of remodeling and putting a fagade on maybe this is a suggestion. He said but always a suggestion never this is what a must is. Mayor Larsen: However Igo back to this, I would say, this isn't just a suggestion, I don't want that. Donna Benfield: But I think there is a comprise, I think that is something we would want to do and maybe not so hard on the other end or something. Mayor Larsen: How about we come to this conclusion. Group Discussion Mayor Larsen: I think that give you direction Kurt. This is the Planning and Guidelines Manual from Surprise Arizona, it gives you lighting, street cape, lots of pictures, and if I were a developer I would think OK that is what the community is wanting. Randall Porter: I agree with the Mayor, I think we should be moving more in this direction is that a guideline or is that an ordinance. Mayor Larsen: It is a guideline, however in their ordinance it refers to this document. Randall Porter: Let's get some pictures on ours. Group discussion. Mayor Larsen: I think that gives us direction, I think the next step round be the guidelines or the design review standards come before the Planning and Zoning they can look them over and make suggestions on what Kurt has put together and then they can come to City Council and the City Council can review them. I'm not sure what happens, when we first read Ordinance 907 does it just Blair Kay: You can make changes on the 3rd reading, you can come in with a completely different wording, it is not appropriate to do that on the 2nd reading. The risk we run is that we will read an ordinance that we know that we are going to change. Group Discussion Mayor Larson: Let's move on to the design corridor on US 20. Kurt how do you see that tying in, go ahead and pass that out. (Copies of maps) Farrell Young: Are you talking about the streets coming into town or the freeway itself? Kurt: I want to answer that right off. This is Jefferson Davis Highway corridor; this is how they defined their map. As you see it wasn't just the highway corridor, they actually included area of cross streets and extended the design standard to the other areas it just doesn't extend along the main areas going North and South. This is similar to our community in that sense, it has interchanges and you could extend a block or two out off the interchange and apply the standards if so you could draw the line however you would like it as far as the overlay itself. The sample document is nothing more than a document that refers to how the design standards would be applied, but it refers in the document in section 1. 5.4 where to a Highway 20 corridor design manual, where you would have to in the ordinance itself you would have to have specific design criteria by zone that would be applied inside that overlay area. So like if you have an industrial parcel you may require a 10 foot wall that was concrete along the coo rider it could be a landscape burm or landscaping whatever the Planning and Zoning Council defines as the visual treatment that would in that zone, it could vary, a residential zone would obliviously would have a different treatment than an industrial zone. But we C have both zones bordering 20 so we would have to come up with something that would seemingly work as you went down. In this document they had set backs and they dealt a lot more than just the visual treatment. The thing that they did do is they talked about landscaping requirements, trees, burms; we currently have burms out on certain properties with landscaping that draw sections and say this is the typical section, should have trees this big on it. Whatever we came up with, but that is required and what I would think is from city limits to city limits and however you drew the boundaries in between that would be special design review criteria any development would have a special on their site plan approvals would have this special overlay review on that site plan. Mayor Larsen: Do we have property that is not in the impact or in the city that is along that corridor? Kurt: Outside the city limits? Yes we do, you might take these same criteria to the county and ask them to adopt a similar thing and if they felt they could do the same thing so it would all tie in together. Mayor It would make sense if we adopt something. Rex Erickson: When this was originally brought up. It was concern as of how it looked coming in from the south. One of those is the Meadows Condominiums and the one's on the east side of the street (Highway 20) that was what was originally was to avoid having that type of look. We were going to extend it the whole length, which was the original idea. We never did talk originally about coming off those going down streets. Kurt Hibbert: That has come up sense that very question; whether or not you could extend it down to include beautifying the entrances, in that corridor. The discussion was not doing certain industrial uses down in Bonneville County that people are really offended by and would rather not see that happen along our corridor. Farrell Young: You have seen out by the transfer station where is has turned into a cement dump. Joe Laird: You have about' /4 mile from Hitt road south towards that on the east side of the freeway where you have stacks of junk here. Mayor Larsen: You set a good standard in fact you did set the standard there on that entry way and so that is what the Planning and Zoning tried to follow in the future development there but Nyle Fullmer: My understanding is that he is trying to raise that out of a flood plain and that he has allowed people to bring fill in so that he can the utilize that property for a commercial entity. It's not just a dump, my understanding is that BJ's going to go out there and grad that and then construct a facility of some kind, so it's not just going to be a big dump area. Jerry Hastings: One of the problems too is you have the housing that backs up to freeway, you can go out there after a wind storm and see garbage cans all along that fence. I don't think that is the kind of thing you want to see. Mayor Larsen: One comment I would make on this is we put this in ordinance corridor; it makes us responsible for our own entry ways, if we want our corridor to look nice, and we also have to take some responsibility on our entrances to the city. Kurt Hibbert: Mayor that would just require an individual development by zone and we could certainly do that. Mayor Larsen: How would the council feel about that? Highway corridor standard by zone, light industrial this is the standard if you fall into this highway corridor overlay basically, you have certain standards by zone. Kurt how many zones? 10 Kurt Hibbert: All the multi families that border US 20, we multi family, we have single family, we have highway business district, cultural zoning; we have to figure out what we are going to do with each development type in each of those zones. Farrell Young: I agree the city needs to take their fare share of the responsibly to spruce up entryways off the freeway. Joe Laird: I thing one of the things we have had quit a bit of discussion about, would apply to our proposed comprehensive plan and of this shown in yellow is industrial zone, so you can see we have a lot of industrial zone bordering our freeway and our concern was that this industrial zone from last week had some sort of established criteria for landscaping or burms or walls or whatever. It would just like that section of US 20 does between here and Idaho Falls. Garth Oakey: In this comprehensive plan we have been looking at it, is to expand our industrial zone from 2 % -9% by 2012. What do we do, where do we put that industrial area if are going to expand and we don't put it along Highway 20. We are going to have to find another location aren't we? Farrell Young: I don't think it is a matter of not putting it there; it is a matter of making it look good. Mike Oakey: They can make industrial buildings look good; they can make them look as good as a home. Mary Haley: If they can make a barn look good they certainly can make industrial buildings look good. Mayor Larson: I feel like we have given direction to both of these. What I would like to see happen both of them be brought together into a definition by zone on the commercial, realizing we still have a lot of work to do on this I think the next step is to have something on the table, then go before Planning & Zoning and have the council also have a copy of that and then go through another three readings of a new ordinance. Mike Ricks: Mayor in the process then do we still have the moratorium on the 36,000 sq foot building until we have the three readings on an ordinance? Mayor Larsen: The council needs to decide that. Rex Erickson: The moratorium was just 180 days, it ends the end of May or first of June. Mayor Larsen: The council needs to decide that and needs to put that on the agenda. Blair: The Council meeting the 21" of May. Jerry Hastings: With that I think that somehow we need to consider. I don't know how you do it. Councilman Oakey talked about Pocatello, we have the same thing in this community, what happens is these big box people come in and they build and then they move or close down and then they won't sell the property to certain individuals. The deal in Pocatello, they are cinder block buildings they can be broke up anyway, it's not hard to do that, put partichions in, change the fagade, and it is done all the time. What happens is, the guy with the investment company will not sell it because it is a conflict with another project he has or it's a conflict of business he has or if it in another business as the same as theirs he won't sell it or he overprices it because he is using it as a tax write off all those kind of things, I don't know whether there is any way, I don't have any qualms about big box buildings, but when they close it down and basically just walk off and then say, we are not going to sell to this guy that guy is going to break it into four pieces, four businesses, we are not going to sell it because that is our competition across the United States, because we sold out, we don't want him in there those are the kinds of things, I don't know how you can do it legally, that is one 11 of the major concerns of our planning and zoning. All we have to do is have a plan, even if the city says we have these businesses, we can put a redevelopment on that. There are a lot of different tools, make so that have to come to the table in good faith and work to fill that building. I know Wal -Mart, in a couple of cities somewhere has lawsuits because that is what they have done. That is the worry I have with a big building, look at Idaho Falls, because that community is growing there was a large big box that had to move, there has been two of three of them some of them haven't been filled. Rex Erickson: Anytime you have growth you are going to encounter that, I think we can minimize that don't you. Jerry Hastings: That is what I'm saying, we not going to get it totally stopped but I look at Idaho Falls, if those buildings be redeveloped and put into something or had some incentive when they move, one of them moved across the street basically, have some way to get them to come to the table and help fill them with something. Garth Oakey: Not to block development, stonewall us or stand in the way of making change. Paul Pugmiers: We should all have the concerns of visibility of access, I want to see a lot of big business in our town, when their place in the market changes, we don't want them to leave a hole in our town. Mary Haley: Should they change their plan, which could part of the requirements for doing business in Rexburg. I don't think if they plan for it before rather than taking one particular corporation making rules for them, that is where we get into trouble. If we have a plan for everyone, and everyone is treated equitably. Mayor Larsen: I would like to see on the table in the near future, design standards; corridor and exit strategy should be incorporated with that. P & Z 7:25 meeting begins Consent Agenda: The consent agenda includes items which require formal Planning Commission actions, however they are typically routine or not of great controversy. Individual Commission members may ask that any specific item be removed from the consent agenda for Commission's agenda packet regarding these items. Jerry Hastings: Acted as Chairman, opened the meeting Conditional Use Permit for an apartment complex: "Tuscany Place" (over 23 units) at 4 th South and 2 nd West — (the old Erickson Pontiac Property) Sainsbury Construction Co. Jerry Hastings: I now open Public Hearing for Testimony for and against. Tom Sainsbury: Sainsbury Const. & owner of Tuscany Place, the apartments have 48 units, 4 — 12 plexes that will house 284 young women, and a club house. (Showed a detailed drawing of the exterior of the building) Mary Haley: Is there something in progress? Tom: Yes the clubhouse. Jerry Hastings: Any one for this project, please come forward, their were no additional speakers, anyone neutral, there were none, any one against the project? Hanna Bird: We have concerns about the added automobile traffic and foot traffic on these roads. The traffic conditions on Fourth South are terrible and have already resulted in the 12 death of one person. Our concern as community members is adding a potential 284 cars to a street that is already deadly. The development looks good and will be a fine housing unit. But I want to make sure the city has the infrastructure in place before this is approved. It's appropriate to put there, it looks to be lovely, but you have to be responsible and have sufficient infrastructure to do that in a way that is responsible. Jerry Hastings: Is there anyone else that would like to speak. None, then I will close the public hearing and turn it over to the board for discussion. Kurt, do you have anything to add? Kurt Hibbert: You have to have a conditional use permit. I don't fully understand why that is there maybe sometime in Rexburg a 23 plex was considered a huge development and they wanted to look at it. But the zoning that it is sitting on already allows up to 30 units per acre so the ordinance at some point and time I would at least recommend that not knowing the full reason for why that is in there is that we remove that at someday in our next draft of our ordinances because the uses which are allowed by the Planning and Zoning exceed the 23 units on this particular parcel. That is why we are having public hearing tonight because of this section of the ordinance that has that one thing under conditional use that says buildings or developments with more than 23 dwellings. Other than that the project has been approved by all the other departments in the city and is currently under construction. Mary Haley: Hasn't this property come before us another time? Kurt: Yes. Mary Haley: Has it changed hands since then? I cannot remember why it came before us. Jerry Hastings: It was rezoned and the original design was to make those continuous buildings all the way around. That was the heartburn with the commission. Kurt: It was going from street to street and as you can see they have broken the buildings up into smaller units that conform to the design standards. Group discussion regarding entrances and exits. Kurt: The city is requiring this road to be wider with the plans for arterial street improvement. The net result of the South Rexburg arterial will be the split and allow an alternative route to what we now have only four. Jerry Hastings: Long term that intersection will probably go away in its present form. Mary Haley: There will eventually be a stop light there. John Millar: In the study in showed we would need a stoplight within 10 years, in the future we will see that as a controlled intersection. Mary Haely: More than 10 years down the road? John Millar: The study said approximately in that time frame. Mary Haley: Have they ever driven that road? Was it the state? John Millar: An independent study by Keller & Assoc. Joe Laird: Is that what the building will look like? Kurt Hibbert: I wish I had drawings of all four sides to show you, it looks great from all four sides it is very similar on all four sides to this elevation. They are offset the requirements on the design standards are to not have a rectangular building these shapes that are shown here are a footprint where in reality they just in, within this footprint, but they have all these jogs. Nancy Haley: So where the gable is that sticks out further or goes in further? Kurt Hibbert: It sticks out and on the other side it goes in. They really out did themselves as far as design standards, they really did apply them they way they should be applied and I'm anxious to see how the construction actually comes on they should set a really good benchmark on that corner, on what we should look for in the future. 13 Joe Laird: What about parking? Kurt Hibbert: Showed the location of the parking lots. Mary Haley: What is this? Kurt Hibbert: Storm Drain Storm Drain Discussion City utilities are adequate. Jerry Hastings: Kurt everything has been addressed, the only thing we are really looking at is that we are required to give them a Conditional Use Permit based on the fact that they have more than 23 units. It would appear that the City of Rexburg has some longer range plans to handle traffic out of there. I think the island will come out, it may not put control in there, but the island will come out so it is more of true intersection. Mary Haley: John, will the island come out sooner than a controlled intersection? John Millar: Probably not, we will need to review that at a later time. Jerry Hastings: We can make a recommendation that the City of Rexburg watch the intersection closely. Mary Haley: That is a really bad intersection in the winter. Jerry Hastings: Any other comments? Mike Ricks: Mr. Chairman, I move to grant this conditional use permit for Tuscany Place. Randall Porter: 12 nd the motion. Vote was unanimous. Jerry Hastings: Going back has everyone read the minutes from the April 1" meeting? Can we vote on those? We will approve those minutes at the next meeting. Is there any agenda items? There is one, I don't know if you have seen your email in the last couple of days. Cathy Winters passed out the revised agenda. Jerry Hastings: Kurt do you want to bring us up to speed on City Council actions? Kurt Hibbert: I didn't attend City Council, Steve do you want to discuss any Planning and Zoning issues they discussed? Steve Zollinger: I don't anything specific was respect to Planning and Zoning, did you send any questions up you needed answered? Farrell Young: We dealt with Phase 1 & 2 of the Meadows of the Meadows. Steve Zollinger: There was question came up not so much at the council, but during the course of discussion of the Meadows, it came up that there had been a question about their billboard. We reviewed their billboard and it is not in violation where they have some rental and some for sale they are allowed to advertise the complex itself, it's just if they have for sale somewhere on that billboard, it would be in conflict. That is the one just crossing over the river. The billboard is not in violation. Group Discussion Jerry Hastings: Zoning compliance? Kurt Hibbert: Nothing to report. Jerry Hastings: Old business Mary: Kurt has the problem in my neighborhood been taken care of? Kurt: Which problem was that? We have several. Mary Haley: 2 nd South Kurt: No, the problem is, the definition of family does not preclude family member from moving in with each other. They are brother and sister. 14 Group speaking all at once. Mary Haley: They don't have enough parking do they? Kurt Hibbert: That is what is bringing all the complaints. Mary Haley: The have a single garage and a driveway. It may be that the fellow across the street cannot park his car across the street. Jerry Hasting: Let's go to Item A. Final Plat on Meadows Condominiums Jerry Hastings: You should have a cover letter in your packet. Is everybody familiar with this? Scott do you want to proceed. Scott Spaulding: I don't think there is a lot to tell you, the last meeting we discussed the second exit or entry on 7 S, the piece of property that was holding us up has been acquired. We have approval from the fire department on this Phase 1 and Phase 2 development. Those are the only issues that were of concern. I believe we are here to request an approval on the final so we can forward with 6. Mary: Do we have contained garbage areas? I notice that the garbage cans right now set against the fence. Bob Lamoreaux: That is part of the requirements. So they will be contained. Jerry Hastings: The second access now where you have done this building is this storage building going to be a new building built? Was that on the preliminary? Scott: Yes, we are going to have both the club house at that location and storage building and maintenance building right there in that area. We haven't shown the clubhouse. Randall Porter: I guess my question is, is that what we are approving, it that part of Phase 1 or are you going to come back. Scott: That will come back later, clubhouse and storage shed to be approved later Randall Porter: So the storage building then is informational only it is not part of Phase 1. Scott Spaulding: We do have a temporary one right now that we have on site that is an 8x12 building that we use for a maintenance building. Randall Porter: Is that in the location where this is going to be now? Jerry Hastings: What is the concern on the storage buildings? Randall Porter: I just wanted to make sure that we know Phase 1 & 2 when they come back to build this and to build their clubhouse which is going on this newly acquired property and I am assuming the road will go in at that time. Scott Spaulding: That is correct. Jerry Hastings: We are not approving that at this time we are just approving the housing part of Phase 1 and Phase 2. We just wanted to make that clear. Joe Laird: I have a question about not do much about 1 and 2 as I do 3 & 4. There is nothing at the upper end of this showing as far as any type of exit going over to the other roads which means everything would have to come clear through the sub division and back out with a great possibility of there being some clog up of the streets and no way for fire prevention or fire truck access through it. Before we go into 3 & 4 there needs to be some type street developed or plans for development on that north end. Mary Haley: Never the less this all goes out Group Discussion Jerry Hastings: Kurt when you say on this cover letter when you say counsel are you talking about the City Council? 15 Kurt Hibbert: What does it read Jerry? Jerry Hastings: The Council did request that as the adjacent land to the north of this development gets developed that the developer seek to gain an access on the north end of the development. Kurt Hibbert: That is the City Council. Jerry Hastings: That is what Joe is addressing. I'm just bringing up that your concern is exactly what the City Council required and I think at this point we would have to know that something as we move forward they will have to do that really is not germane to this. Joe Laird: Only the extent the way the buildings are going, time is of the essence type of thing they may need to get with neighbors to the west or north and get something resolved right away so that it doesn't become and insolvable problem. Scott Spaulding: We appreciate your comment there and to just let you know we have already had some discussion with the neighboring property owners and in fact we have talked with some of those who are developing in that area and as the developments develop and opportunity becomes available to us it is our intent to provide access around that north end and at the City Councils request that would be most likely one of the requirements on the approval of Phases 3 & 4, is that we have some additional access from that end. As was said it is good comments for our planning at this point and time we just asking for approval on these two phases. Jerry Hastings: Any questions? Kurt. Kurt Hibbert: Late afternoon staff reviews on this project; we have some survey issues that we don't feel comfortable with right now. They are not closing, Phase 1 & Phase 2 are not lined up. The recommendation was from the Departments was to table this until the survey data gets resolved. The other issue is none of the other condominium plats, the lots are not tied to any other, there is no survey, there is no way to map them, and they are not tied to anything. We need resolve that issue as well. The departments recommend we table this pending resolution until those technical issues are resolved. They have to be legally tied to a point and they are not right now. Joe Laird: Is their official condominium association. Kurt Hibbert: The do have a homeowners associations, that is an issue with this plat, they do need to designate areas very specifically as the common areas and that has not been done either we don't have a good definition of where are the common areas. Jerry Hastings: So basically you are saying this isn't really ready for final plat. Kurt Hibbert: It's near ready but there are still technical issues that need to be resolved. Jerry Hastings: Well I know, but it is tonight or two weeks, if the technical issues are such, Kurt Hibbert: We recommend that we table it. Mary Haley: I thought we talked about some of these issues last time, the association, Mr. Spaulding came he didn't have it two meetings ago, he came with it last meeting and I thought that we had got approval Jerry Hastings: That was the preliminary plat Mary Haley: That's true, but last time Mr. Spaulding brought the Association Covenants and Restrictions but this is outside of that. Jerry Hastings: This is legal descriptions Kurt Hibbert: There is a difference between the final plat and the preliminary plat. Preliminary Plat shows the entire infrastructure, it shows all the parking, the final plat just shows the lines. It should only show that, we shouldn't have the site plan data on a final plat. 16 Jerry Hastings: It should show the condominium property lines, should it not? Kurt: Yes, it will show those property lines. Bob Lamoreaux: May I ask a question as a very interested party here. We were really chastised for coming unprepared to the meeting about 4 weeks ago. We submitted these drawings to staff as least two weeks ago for review. Kurt Hibbert: We received these two days ago. The drawing you have in front of you we received two days ago. Bob Lamoreaux: I've had them myself longer than that and I gave them to Blair longer than that ago. My question is this I appreciate the process, I really do, what I would like to know is there anyway that we can get feed back from staff so that we can make these kinds of corrections versus finding them out at this point when we come here believing that (I'm not the surveyor) everything was prepared and everything was OK. Now we have wasted your time and again and have wasted our time. Kurt Hibbert: Scott I would like to bring it to your attention the date stamp on these plans. That is the official date stamp. You can get that feedback when staff has had time to review the documents, but when we get them two days before a meeting it's not adequate time to review the documents and time for us to get the feed back to you and to the Commissioners. That is the frustration we have as well. Scott Spaulding: We got stuck in the process because they were delivered to Blair Kay, long before that date. John Millar: You are chastising us, I'm going to chastise you further, you should know that we would not even give this the time of day to review, this is a site plan, not a final plat, you as a professional he knows what is needed, I have a hard time you chastising us for not moving on it and you don't bring the documents that we need to review. Scott Spaulding: I can appreciate your point of view too that I guess that what I was thinking was that staff would call up and say hey this thing is not ready we are not going to review it. Then I can go after my surveyor and say how come. I appreciate it; I don't want to waste your time either. Mary Haley: It seems to me that all of you better be checking with each other rather than waiting for us to check with our. Scott Spaulding: I agree, I spent probably a couple of hours in here yesterday afternoon making sure to my understanding right I didn't understand any of that. Randall Porter: Why doesn't your surveyor come with you and this same conversation, was he with you two meetings ago? Scott Spaulding: Yes he was. Randall Porter: I understand your frustrations, Scott but you have to realize that there is protocol that we have to follow. Bob Lamoreaux: I appreciate that I really do, I'm only asking, maybe it is inappropriate to ask, even if they just go it the other day, we as the owner developer, if they could give us a call and say this is not going forward. Jerry Hastings: What usually has happened, just to let you know, this group because of all the pressures had many times the staff has moved things to this group in hopes that they had the information or that they would get it in time. Much to our concern, we have received it later than we would like to have had it. I think that is why it is on there. It was on there to try and expedite it, but when we don't get the information then it is obliviously 17 going to come up at this meeting and so your surveyors, this is not the first time he has done this. Bob Lamoreaux: I agree 100 %, thank you for your time. Mike Ricks: In lieu of that I move that we table it. Mary Haley: I 2 ° the motion. Jerry Hastings: It has been moved and seconded that we table the final plat on the Meadows. Vote was unanimous Group discussion regarding through street for Meadows. Preliminary Plat for the Valley View Estates Division #5 Schiess & Associates, Kurt Rowland: Bart Stevens Bart Stevens handed out copes of the Preliminary Plat. Jerry Hastings: Kurt, we want to proceed with Valley View. We don't have your staff notes in front of us so you will have to bring us up to speed on this project. Kurt Hibbert: This is currently in review, I have talked to public works department about it, and there a few things he wanted to see on this as far as the sewer going through some of these lots and the way it connects to this new lot. We have no real concerns with this as a Preliminary I didn't have anything, but it is still being reviewed. Staff has not had adequate time to review, but it look approvable. It doesn't look like there is anything that cannot be addressed. Jerry Hastings: Will you review where the existing homes are right now. Kurt Hibbert: Showed the details on the plat. Group Discussion regarding location of homes and parking. Jerry Hastings: Was this Master Plan presented before with the first phase. Kurt Hibbert: No. Jerry Hastings: Do you have this Master Plan, Mr. Stevens. Bart Stevens: We didn't. Jerry Hastings: So this Master Plan is coming forward with this now. Bart Stevens: These roads where shown, this layout on the rest of the way down is new, but roads here, the existing sewer line and the water line that has been in for 20+ years was in this so there was no way to change this. The Master Plan from the old AMR Corp. that had these roads going all the way down through. It had Cresthaven size lots, so when we came in we had to abandon, a portion of this and had to change all of this, and we put this in with the idea that we would come down with North/South streets to give a better daylight basement situation for these homes up here. The Master Plan, from this point down, Kurt has just put that together, but the streets and that of course were all ready in. Mary Haley: Is the top of this road there now? Bart Stevens: No, it stops right here. This is Fairview, this is Fairview going down and all these homes have been there for several years. Jerry Hastings: Is this water line is existing? Bart Stevens: Yes, the water main was existing way back, we put the sewer in with this last section, it came into this point and then we took it down where the road planned and tied it in to the bottom of Cresthaven. That was all done two or three years ago. So the plans for all of that can't be changed that way. Mary Haley: You said you changed lot size, are they bigger? Jerry Hastings: Yes. Before you came on the Commission, we had a hearing and abandoned the AMR streets, right. Bart Stevens: Yes and you can see a little bit of the size of the lots that used to be here, then you see the size they have been extended to. Some of those lots were quite small, it just got to the point there was over 200 lots in this piece of ground the way it was platted. This steps it back to about 112. Group Discussion regarding church property locations. Bart Stevens: We will tie into I I eventually so that will make this situation nice to take the pressure off the people who live here going through the campus, exit the entire area through 11 S. Group Discussion regarding streets and drainage. Jerry Hastings: Are there any other questions? Joe Laird: I make a motion that we approve Preliminary Plat for Valley View Estates Division # 5 subject to staff reviews and approval. Mike Ricks: 2 °d Vote unanimous Group Discussion re: Commercial Design Standards Kurt Hibbert: I appreciate what Donna said about descriptive and prescriptive that is a key point whether you have to do it or not Suggestions: No galvanized tin buildings, no cider block buildings (can't say cinder block) Deseret Industries is Cinder Block a little paint makes a difference, put things in that make suggestions, but not be very specific. Need to give direction as to paint and not leave things unfinished. Suggest building materials. Town Meetings Peggy Hymas has done most of the work. Kurt Hibbert and Winston Dyer will split the meetings and each will attend two. The Town meeting schedule is as follows: April 22, 2004 Adams School Dave Stein Mary Haley Madison M.S. Mike Ricks Bob Schwartz April 29, 2004 Kennedy Randall Porter Jerry Hastings Lincoln Joe Laird Steve McGary 19 Randall Porter: What do we need to do to prepare for these meetings? Kurt Hibbert: Some of things we might do, I have quite a bit on input on the mixed use map as far as the mixed use zone, one discussion I want to have with you tonight was we haven't defined mixed use and yet we have it on the comp plan map. People are starting to ask what does that mean for our neighborhood and I don't have a clear definition for that right now. Is that going to be professional office, certain commercial uses, what does mixed use mean to the commissioners. How do you want to define that zone? We have applied it to the map in two places. I have had several people come in and ask me that and I have said well there still defining that and have a lot of discussion about it including certain office type uses in neighborhoods and to there is also they are developing a zone which is a professional office zone. They may not want to supplant that and call it mixed use. Jerry Hastings: My impression was that was all driven by what started at Valley, they were designed more for commercial with residential above and that type of thing. In my mind that is what I always thought of as mixed use. Randall Porter: What do you mean by that commercial with housing? Kurt Hibbert: Commercial storefronts, housing above and behind. They supply your downtown market with certain commercial areas by having people living with commercial business. ? ? ? ? ?: Remember out here where the theater is now, they talked about putting mixed use out there would put commercial up front and then go back in behind with high density housing. Mary Haley: However I don't think that is what the neighborhood in my area is thinking about with mixed use and that is where it is labeled. ? ? ? ? ? ?: Maybe we should have the map changed and call that professional office, maybe that was what the technicians were thinking. I'm not sure that does define what we are thinking of as mixed use. Mary Haley: What I'm thinking of as mixed use, when you are out on Holmes, going south you have some lawyers there that have their business in the home and they have a very subtle sign, and have made use of those homes, they still look like residential homes, that is to me the mixed use, for the area the problem area right now. Kurt Hibbert: We are talking zones, I get confused sometimes and get to thinking mixed use is a zone and it is a zone, proposed as a zone. Mary Haley: What Jerry and I are talking about and I see what Jerry is looking at in a more highly dense zone rather and an old neighborhood zone. Jerry Hastings: We are talking about two things here, we are talking about transitional which are really what you area potentially could be or any area, much like the Zollinger block. ? ? ? ? ?: It's transitional, I guess I haven thought of that in my mind as mixed use I though as you develop and want density housing around your commercial area that you have that step back where you are stepping back into high density. Randall Porter: Haven't we got that already on Main Street. Kurt Hibbert: Only in central business district is that allowed. It is not in highway business district. Group discussion Jerry Hastings: Stephen, what is the definition of mixed use in solid city areas? Stephen Zollinger: They have defined zones, similar to the Portland area, where they call our neighborhoods and each neighborhood then has its own designation within the W neighborhood zones. So they will take a mixed use zone and say within this zone they almost create PUDs by edict. Mary Haley: When we are talking about what was originally planned behind Coldstone in that area that was originally called a mixed use area. Stephen Zollinger: The general definition of mixed use is any place where you integrate commercial and residential uses into a cone. Mary Haley: So professional is not commercial? Kurt: Yes it is. The general public out that is every thing from Wal -mart, to gas stations. You really have to go down to the neighborhood business district think about things that you are describing no pavilions, small signs, looks like a house. Those type of uses blend, they are seamless you can have attorney's offices right next to home. Group Discussion regarding mixed use. Stephen Zollinger: Mixed use the whole purpose behind it is to allow single family use to continue to exist, the best example is: South and North Temple in Salt Lake City, there are mansions that are being revitalized for single families next to lawyers, doctors, and the Masonic Temple, people have elected to put their families back on the major arterial. The purpose behind a mixed use is to take a neighborhood like by old neighborhood and say look; we recognize there are only two realistic possibilities for the middle of that block. Somebody is going to push to build apartments, or we are going to allow you to go into what is called the mixed use where you single families can continue to coexist with professional looking office space, not retail, not traffic flow, but something that will put some use to that block. In the real world, mixed use is designed to preserve single family neighborhoods that are faltering. Kurt Hibbert: Need to redefine mixed use, need to get input from the people, discuss at the town meeting mixed use. Stephen Zollinger: Homeowners Associations will be given the courtesy of access. Group Discussion Winston Dyer: It is time that any item that comes before this group, even though we are being pushed for time, in fairness to you and the staff, needs to have the staff review. The packet comes to us complete, the complications that we have had here tonight would not have happened. I think it is time that if they don't meet the deadlines that they will not be on this to leave it till the next meeting. Kurt Hibbert: The commission does not want to see agenda items where they do not have fact sheets on or they do not have findings of facts. Randall Porter: Wants street address on each agenda item. Group Discussion: Regarding meeting, reviews and packet format. Wants to see the Master Plan before and along with each proposed phase of a plat. Establish a time limit of a minimum of 2 weeks in advance before a meeting for the plans to be in, need a minimum of 4 copies. Dismiss 9:50 21 rpL TO " r VER III VI L L AI-Y E l AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF REXBURG, MADISON COUNTY, IDAHO PART OF SECTION 19, T. 6 N., R. 40 E., B.M. L1 WE 1 hereby certify that sanitary restr;ctr`a requ by Idaho Code e WA TER RIGHTS RELEASE Section 50- .326 have been satin { , ' ed and this s !at is hereby approved for for recordin g b y IRR / /GA / TI /) �! 1 t,,,l/ V filing of this certificate herewith. O1STR <CT 7 STATE BOARD OF NEALTH The property included in this plat has petitioned for and been removed from all future irrigation rights. Environmental Health Specialist TREASURER 'S A ND ASSESSORS CER TI CA TF 1, the undersigned County Treasurer in and for the County of Madison, State of Idaho, per the requirements of Idaho Code 50 -1308, do hereby certify that a/l county property taxes due for the property included in this project ore current. Date: County Assessor Parcel No.s Date: Madison County Treasurer CITY ACCEPTANCE The accompanying ,,flat was duly accepted and approved by the city council of Rexburg, Idaho -'y resolution adopted this day of 20 Mayor City Clerk City Engineer 0 N 89`46' 18" E ! ! SCA L E: 1 "= 100 ! ! S ! f / 4 Oj Qc / Q j 0 , �' r 1 / � r j f � ! f I� / N 87'37'42" W / r. TETON RIVER EXA MINING SUR VE YOR 1, certify that 1 have examined this plat and find it to be correct and acceptable as required by Section 50 -1305 of the Idaho Code. Dote: Date: Recorded Inst. No. RECORDER'S CERTIFICA TE 1, hereby certify that the foregoing plot of the Teton River Village was filed in the office of the recorder of Madison County on the day of 20 at and recorded as instrument No. County Recorder 18 1000 NO STREET FOUND AL. %"6,0 CP &F j '' 02 O ni M 1.9(20 i 4 � t � i � y S 00 +13'42" E 16.54' N 89' 46' 18" E 300.00' :z ° v 1vnNQ!I t o C c N 90'00'6<" E 537.75" m N 89 5C OD W 194 95 I N 90 E _ - 20 UTILITY va E t EASEMENT t O s a � 20' UTILITY LOT 4 M EASEMENT 8.45 acres „ 4 i I CA i , A Lin 8F �r a i i 20' UTILITY' �'� ' EASEMENT sd.4i e' N 90'00'00" W 307.83' <, ` L4 + ,. \:� - - - - - - - - .1 : -E - - - - _ LOT 3 � } N ecraa °�• e _ t29 _ _ . 0.66 acres 682.50' N 88' 1842" W N 89'34'44" W LEGEND 158.44' S t' n cantro! comers FOUND CITY 8RASS CAP CP&F 62 4347 N89'51 53 "W LIN T ABLE I LINE LENGTH BEARING i L1 89.36' S 02'31'48" W L2 93.90' N 00` 13'42" W L3 86.99' N 00' 13'42" W L4 6.91' _ N 00'1342 "_ W L5 50.00' N 89'4 18" E L6 , 50.00' S 89 W L7 L8 L L10 43.49' 30 .00`_ 20.00' 42.15' S S N , S 80'24'53" 00'00'00" 90'00'00" 00`00'00" E E E E L1 -- L 12 62.15 30.50' S N 00'0 0'00" 42° 32' 31 " E W L13 47.13' N 42'32'31" W L14 20.00' N 00' 13'42" W L1 31.69 N 00'13'4 W Lib - 36.91' N 00 W L17 36.47' N 22'30'00" W L18 16.00' S 45'00'00" E L19 , - 30.31' S O0 00'00" E FOUND CITY 8RASS CAP CP&F 62 4347 N89'51 53 "W -• y � L5 wom- m ec fa TETON RiVE u --- Set 518 x30 " iron rod with ° plasti -cop marked P.L.S. 10786 (- Set 1/? x24 " iron rod with plasti -cop marked P.L.S. 10786 ---- -- Proposed Utility easements are 15' - - -- wide unless shown otherwise. P.O.B. Point of Beginning 24!x.37 _ 451.94' I P.O.B. R � FOUND CITY BRASS CAP CP&F IN rf>�� 1 20 Part of the NE X of Section 19, Township 6 North, Range 40 East, B.M., Rexburg, Madison County, Idaho described as: Beginning at a point that is on the west right -of -way of North 2nd East Street that is S 00'13'42" E, 1,7J6.17 feet along the section line and S 8946'18" W, 50.00 feet from the NE corner of said Section 19 and running thence N 89 °34'44" W, 451.94 feet; thence N 88 W, 158.44 feet; thence N 87 1 3742" W, 68250 to the easterly right -of -way of the Union Pacific Railroad; thence N 30 1 09'18" E, 494.57 feet along the said right -of -way of Union Pacific Railroad to the southwest comer of Lot 4 of the North 2nd East Church Subdivision Part I, Rexburg, Madison County, Idaho; thence N 89 °46'18" E, 741.91 feet along the south boundary of said subdivision; thence S 00'13'42" E, 16.54 feet; thence N 89'46'18" E, 300.00 feet to a point on the west right -of -woy of North 2nd East Street; thence S 00'13'42" E; 451.49 feet along said right -of -way to the point of beginning. Parcel contains 12.08 acres * o r KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that we, the undersigned ore the lawful owners of the tract of land included within the boundary description shown hereon and have caused the some to be platted and divided into blocks, lots, and streets, which plat sholl hereafter be known as the Teton River Village, to the City of Rexburg, Madison County, Idaho. BE IT FURTHER KNOWN, that we do hereby dedicate to the public, all streets and rights -of -woy shown hereon, that we also grant and convey to the City of Rexburg all easements shown on the plat and that we hereby warrant and shall defend the estate subject to such dedication and conveyances in the quiet and peaceful possession of the public or the City, as the case may be, against said owners and their heirs an assigns, and against every person whomsoever who lawfully holds or who later claims to have lawfully held any rights in said estate as of the dote hereof Owners, and their heirs and assigns, agree they will construct no permanent structure within or upon any public utility easement shown hereon, and the City and its successors, assigns or permitties shall also have the right, at Owners' or their heirs' successors' or assigns expense, to remove, cut or trim any trees, brush, ornamental shrubbery or plant which rnoy injure or interfere with the use thereof for its intended purposes. We also certify that these lots ore eligible to receive water from the City of Rexburg Municipal Water System and City has agreed in writing to serve said lots. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we hove hereunto set our signature this doy of 20 A CKNO WL EDGMEN T STATE OF IDAHO County of ------------ On this _____ day of ____ ________ _____, 20 ----- bsc Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared -_- _ known or identified to me to be the managing member of -___ the some as the free act and deed of said limited liability qQ IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first undersigned, a that executed Notary Public for the State of Idaho Residing at Commission Expiration Date: 0 F R EXB U R G SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE 1, Barry Glen Whitson, a registered professional surveyor r' e , of Idaho do hereby certify that the survey of this subdivision, designated as TETON R L was made by me or under my direction, and that said subdivision is truly and correctly s d as provided by law and in accordance with the accompanying plat as described in the Dedication. P L L A A, Date: 0 Barry Glen Whitson, P.L.S. 107' z LIEN CURVE TABLE Curve Radius Delta Length o.r ring Chord Distance C1 5.00' 67'20'00" 5.88' S1 5.54' C2 5.00' 22 1.96 N 1'1 0 1,95' C3 15.00' 45'0000 11.78' S 6 E 11.48' C4 20.00' 45*01'29 1 15.72' E 15.32' 0) i i R 75:a6 LLJ ACCESS AND „A 9� r Q Qj UTILITY EASMENT (WIDTH VARIES) t LOT 1 f 2.49 acres w W W o o I 30' ACCESS AND v v`1 UTILITY EASMENT S t t- l k`. O O S 89'3444" E 245.37` ; I I C C) LOT 2 � 0.49 acres I wom- m ec fa TETON RiVE u --- Set 518 x30 " iron rod with ° plasti -cop marked P.L.S. 10786 (- Set 1/? x24 " iron rod with plasti -cop marked P.L.S. 10786 ---- -- Proposed Utility easements are 15' - - -- wide unless shown otherwise. P.O.B. Point of Beginning 24!x.37 _ 451.94' I P.O.B. R � FOUND CITY BRASS CAP CP&F IN rf>�� 1 20 Part of the NE X of Section 19, Township 6 North, Range 40 East, B.M., Rexburg, Madison County, Idaho described as: Beginning at a point that is on the west right -of -way of North 2nd East Street that is S 00'13'42" E, 1,7J6.17 feet along the section line and S 8946'18" W, 50.00 feet from the NE corner of said Section 19 and running thence N 89 °34'44" W, 451.94 feet; thence N 88 W, 158.44 feet; thence N 87 1 3742" W, 68250 to the easterly right -of -way of the Union Pacific Railroad; thence N 30 1 09'18" E, 494.57 feet along the said right -of -way of Union Pacific Railroad to the southwest comer of Lot 4 of the North 2nd East Church Subdivision Part I, Rexburg, Madison County, Idaho; thence N 89 °46'18" E, 741.91 feet along the south boundary of said subdivision; thence S 00'13'42" E, 16.54 feet; thence N 89'46'18" E, 300.00 feet to a point on the west right -of -woy of North 2nd East Street; thence S 00'13'42" E; 451.49 feet along said right -of -way to the point of beginning. Parcel contains 12.08 acres * o r KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that we, the undersigned ore the lawful owners of the tract of land included within the boundary description shown hereon and have caused the some to be platted and divided into blocks, lots, and streets, which plat sholl hereafter be known as the Teton River Village, to the City of Rexburg, Madison County, Idaho. BE IT FURTHER KNOWN, that we do hereby dedicate to the public, all streets and rights -of -woy shown hereon, that we also grant and convey to the City of Rexburg all easements shown on the plat and that we hereby warrant and shall defend the estate subject to such dedication and conveyances in the quiet and peaceful possession of the public or the City, as the case may be, against said owners and their heirs an assigns, and against every person whomsoever who lawfully holds or who later claims to have lawfully held any rights in said estate as of the dote hereof Owners, and their heirs and assigns, agree they will construct no permanent structure within or upon any public utility easement shown hereon, and the City and its successors, assigns or permitties shall also have the right, at Owners' or their heirs' successors' or assigns expense, to remove, cut or trim any trees, brush, ornamental shrubbery or plant which rnoy injure or interfere with the use thereof for its intended purposes. We also certify that these lots ore eligible to receive water from the City of Rexburg Municipal Water System and City has agreed in writing to serve said lots. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we hove hereunto set our signature this doy of 20 A CKNO WL EDGMEN T STATE OF IDAHO County of ------------ On this _____ day of ____ ________ _____, 20 ----- bsc Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared -_- _ known or identified to me to be the managing member of -___ the some as the free act and deed of said limited liability qQ IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first undersigned, a that executed Notary Public for the State of Idaho Residing at Commission Expiration Date: 0 F R EXB U R G SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE 1, Barry Glen Whitson, a registered professional surveyor r' e , of Idaho do hereby certify that the survey of this subdivision, designated as TETON R L was made by me or under my direction, and that said subdivision is truly and correctly s d as provided by law and in accordance with the accompanying plat as described in the Dedication. P L L A A, Date: 0 Barry Glen Whitson, P.L.S. 107' z LIEN CURVE TABLE Curve Radius Delta Length o.r ring Chord Distance C1 5.00' 67'20'00" 5.88' S1 5.54' C2 5.00' 22 1.96 N 1'1 0 1,95' C3 15.00' 45'0000 11.78' S 6 E 11.48' C4 20.00' 45*01'29 1 15.72' E 15.32' a 4 ii 5 a 5 3 g 3 A Y VICINITY W ►o E , i Curve Rod-us Delta ADJACENT O*NERS Uhor ring Chord Distonce C 1 1 . CRY 01 1 tr 11 ©tllTl<' at �' } Re.arq, rono 83440 M w 100 ;,,._... b F 'POYj N '� ^ -... .___..._. ._.... _. _...... IAaxY (JI F{y... Nrq X 22 27 70 1 �L C3 1 l 1 A.petww idlomto 90077 G 2= 1 4rol7r �otrrs I s 7 1 _ PA. 90• 3W °` � �� Rparq, ldar 03400 4Fi t'arata rl• R:1 , "" COL A. Ib0atRaaa. r000 - - '� Cre•k. CoStomio 90696 -2016 .. - E 120D l 0. LDS Crown Pope tbe LOS Cnvch To• Admfn. Naln ienyr SIrM LV 'COON , I C 10-:0 W :y m Y2nr Fran RE.537 -0617 Sae Lave City. Uloh 841W JOB LOCATION Srp Gnler IL Ob•eS Fv2nd o.. fi, ` ro 5 Ea aw 976 Norm 2nd •1 Resbrp torn 83440 ydlll F 19nrt1 tit 4,otnNV Ua'r!ry Rtl 7 P WW U T 3 T 83440 21IdjN T 1�I]GS JL 4 CowHror•el• Alin. L yl e _ n 11 3YtJ = 1St f� 'p 60 Emt :•33 _ .....�, a laorw 83400 �, ;� Geuliui Dl = _� ?G) n G7 Al �Glti ur 9cr. n ;' T'a -' 9.a r1orI Ess RMa�rn9, morn 83uo Ell t'a k Et JJ ^nc w Iv -+ E 2T,i G o ` r� „� n I I n I0. unla ' "fe Co. a Gomm alcia D Rlln' r aoa l enrol; T l0 1700 Fannon stmm n N 1'h c bU�,Ytti:. S•7] t T ,., kMarpa+Ip 68107 -2010 a 4 ii 5 a 5 3 g 3 A Y VICINITY W ►o E , i TETON RIVER N 89'46'18" l� acm dRAPHid OdALE ■ • r r d• n• I Ih•h a 10 R. PRELIMINARY PLAT TETON RIVER VILLAdE A PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 65 NORTH, RANGE 40 EAST, B.M., CITY OF REXBURG MADISON COUNTY, IDAHO t9 1' FOUND AL. CAP CPAF i26ttppp 741.91' 1000 NORT S TREET EN PROPERTY LINE OVERHEAD POWER/TELEPHONE LINE SANITARY / STOR4) SEWER LINE -H WATER LINE FIRE HYDRANT WATER VALVE FOUND OR III CP&F L5 1 \..PA 0. cl CAP 19 CURVE TABLE Curve Rod-us Delta Length Uhor ring Chord Distonce C 1 1 tr 11 ©tllTl<' °lam tTTFiRY.T. I ' C3 1 l 1 1 I G 2= 1 4rol7r 1 11' I s 7 1 {t3[�iT�FFii��i t1�E�t1� 4Fi ®t COL TETON RIVER N 89'46'18" l� acm dRAPHid OdALE ■ • r r d• n• I Ih•h a 10 R. PRELIMINARY PLAT TETON RIVER VILLAdE A PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 65 NORTH, RANGE 40 EAST, B.M., CITY OF REXBURG MADISON COUNTY, IDAHO t9 1' FOUND AL. CAP CPAF i26ttppp 741.91' 1000 NORT S TREET EN PROPERTY LINE OVERHEAD POWER/TELEPHONE LINE SANITARY / STOR4) SEWER LINE -H WATER LINE FIRE HYDRANT WATER VALVE FOUND OR III CP&F L5 1 \..PA 0. cl CAP 19 CURVE TABLE Curve Rod-us Delta Length Uhor ring Chord Distonce C 1 1 tr 11 C2 I ' C3 1 l 1 1 I G 2= 1 4rol7r 1 11' I s 7 1 iota- - - 50 coNT A RCN( FOR ur� (6ory 766 -0400 Et�M E4 C� R I R �1c .IEFF C 16E1�p"' EE�NC�ER� 0 *0 FALLS, CAW e34M (706) 674 -0712 BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION 1I ppH o1 1M NE I1 of S•dion 19. To*Wip 6 North, Rap• *0 EaK. B. R94wg. MoOgon County. WOO a xI oc B•9erlep of o Point that bon the *00 rkftI - - *oy 01 Nate 2nd E SlreN Ihat b S 0O't3'42' E, 1,736.17 IW o" the section ter and S W4611 60.00 IAN from the the NE rumen Of Sold See lTdn 19 as ruai 11101011 g tltQ11 N 89'3444' *, 461.90 1 644 wwce N 64116'42' *, 16640 Teat; Orltee N 6r3r42' rA 662.40 to the 4oSrrly rlgM -M -boy of the tA'II PooYie Ro9r l wwA N 31709'18' E. 490.57 too dpq t he add right - of - *oy of Union Po IC RolYaod to the �puthl�6N corner of Lot 4 of the Natn 2nd East Chweh Sultm*pbn PM 4 ReeblMq. Madleon Ca+^tY. ldonoi thence N 09'408' E, 741,91 l og OWN the sown I)MICImr d sow slAOFridora thence S 071342' E. 1654 1461: I lrnae N 69'46'16' E. 300.00 feel to o Point on lM 14!41 right -oi d Nalh 2nd Eost SInNt thence S 0713'42' E. 46fA9 14M plp^9 Sold ^9h1- of -lloy to the point of b6glne:np. PoreM eontom 12.06 0cm N89 pe p:ll _ FOU40 CITY BRASS CAP CPAF #2hlW 18 17 — 19 20 I TIp►� BE E TdP OF FIRE 3 AT Y BOt1 OF 0'0Eµµ55 1 1IR 4 l 1 U� STORE - Now -29 ELEYATO '4669.39 t S 00' 13'42" E i Iti 16.54' SEA � '1q:�10^^�! � I �m� t>+w TETON RIVER >, n Thb pm w 19 Iona AE &too do fE•4W ir✓arte R �ktv po /60045 O&V a am r7pod L7 wbm . AW&M .2. rowing¢ lhb pnww+b Ar iorrd a M9D and Llpb! Comnw*c& 4 Lard Lair - Commaclar e �� Ra `� U O � Ili 5 Z I = Igo x w sA 20706,1561 4l w.wy 106 2004 ow * 1 a 1 sea araswr ®xar roc .0 •avers r4aS.rn X 7 7 1 -7-7-7-7-77-77 E 77 FF 3 u I L D I vG FF=4866.50 6 Ae T T T " PR()PG�L[ EUILD'M " TETON RIVER FF=486 OVERALL SITE PLAN NORM IN C, Z l REVISED PER CITY CONOADITS 0 x 0 z z z l 6 ? ma x 0 0 LU LU f-- z 03:zw(r z 0,:4 LU 0 > > Ix Z x 0 Lu LLI I.. a 0 , o ho OVERALL SITE PLAN A1.01 ^ ' / \��|W�� K�� ''--'' - NOT TO SCALE ' m / / / Lr) s ' ~ ' T�T/lK] ��|V�� . _ � - . . RIVER � _� � W LINE TABLE LOT 2 0.66 acres LENGTH / m = u rki OWNER DF-VELOPER EXISTING SSMH .uu.. "..E" VILLAGE, ". ''- — --- CAMERON QUNTER - CONTACT EXIST. V |N=48�3.O7 . . | , �~ �v W ( IN FEET ) ° ft- 2W PRELIMINARY PLAT TETON RIVER VILLAG] � O��T ��[ THE ����TU[��T ��U��T[� ��[ �[��T|��� �� PART \J| | | |L- NORTHEAST |iL-/��] ! ��L/��[� | L_|� ��� SECTION |��|� 1 O T��UU��U|D �� N���TU ��Wy�� �� [��T [� K� | ��/ TOWNSHIP ��`J NORTH, | |» [\��|�\JL- ^+�� EAST, , ��,|V|., CITY OF R MADISON COUNTY IDAHO Port of the NE 1 /4 of Section 19, Township G North, Range 40 Eost, B.M, Rexburg, Madison County, Idaho described as: Beginning at o point that is on the west right-of-way of North 2nd East Street that is S 00r13'42" E. 1,736.17 feet along the section line and S 89^46'18 VV. 50.00 feet from the NE corner of said Section 19 and running thence N 88r34'44 VY. 451.94 feet; thence N 88`18'42 VV. 156.44 feet; thence N 8737`42 VY. 582.50 to the easterly right-of-way of the Un�on Pacific Railroad; thence N 3909'18 E. 494.57 feet along the said right-of-way of Union Pacific Railroad to the southwest corner of Lot 4 of the North 2nd East Church Subdivision Port |. Rexburg. Madison County, Idaho; thence N 89^46'18" E. 741.91 feet along the south boundary of said subdivision; thence S 00713'42 E. 16.54 feet; thence N 89r48'18 E. 300.00 feet to o point on the west right-of-way of North 2nd East Street; thence 3 00r13'42 E. 451.49 feet along said right-of-way to the point of beginning. Parcel contains 12.08 acres FOUND CRY BRASS CAP C'P&F #264347 18 �-FOUND AL, CAP CP&F #26aQO� 7 4 1 _91 ' / _ � LEGEND PROP[R[Y L|�[ ^ ` 1000 IVORTH S T - ---- - -------____ _ Ld 18' 387.83' BENCHMARK ELEVATION TOP OF ARROW ON TOP OF FIRE \ HYDRANT uJ ��UTHRLY BOUNDARY OF \ _ _ O'DELLS FURNITURE STORE - NGVD-29 ELEVAT = 4889.39 S [1[*1 3 E 16.5 4 / L7 5 F��34�44 [ -_ L� -- ' � l ' '` | �� 4�[�—� Emw"~= . N E���ENT ��'E���E � ' ~ C14 NOT LINE TABLE LOT 2 0.66 acres LENGTH BEARING OWNER DF-VELOPER EXISTING SSMH .uu.. "..E" VILLAGE, ". ''- — --- CAMERON QUNTER - CONTACT EXIST. V |N=48�3.O7 . . | L9 118.96T S 89 E LLJ 3: ( IN FEET ) ° ft- 2W PRELIMINARY PLAT TETON RIVER VILLAG] � O��T ��[ THE ����TU[��T ��U��T[� ��[ �[��T|��� �� PART \J| | | |L- NORTHEAST |iL-/��] ! ��L/��[� | L_|� ��� SECTION |��|� 1 O T��UU��U|D �� N���TU ��Wy�� �� [��T [� K� | ��/ TOWNSHIP ��`J NORTH, | |» [\��|�\JL- ^+�� EAST, , ��,|V|., CITY OF R MADISON COUNTY IDAHO Port of the NE 1 /4 of Section 19, Township G North, Range 40 Eost, B.M, Rexburg, Madison County, Idaho described as: Beginning at o point that is on the west right-of-way of North 2nd East Street that is S 00r13'42" E. 1,736.17 feet along the section line and S 89^46'18 VV. 50.00 feet from the NE corner of said Section 19 and running thence N 88r34'44 VY. 451.94 feet; thence N 88`18'42 VV. 156.44 feet; thence N 8737`42 VY. 582.50 to the easterly right-of-way of the Un�on Pacific Railroad; thence N 3909'18 E. 494.57 feet along the said right-of-way of Union Pacific Railroad to the southwest corner of Lot 4 of the North 2nd East Church Subdivision Port |. Rexburg. Madison County, Idaho; thence N 89^46'18" E. 741.91 feet along the south boundary of said subdivision; thence S 00713'42 E. 16.54 feet; thence N 89r48'18 E. 300.00 feet to o point on the west right-of-way of North 2nd East Street; thence 3 00r13'42 E. 451.49 feet along said right-of-way to the point of beginning. Parcel contains 12.08 acres FOUND CRY BRASS CAP C'P&F #264347 18 �-FOUND AL, CAP CP&F #26aQO� 7 4 1 _91 ' / _ � LEGEND PROP[R[Y L|�[ ^ ` 1000 IVORTH S T - ---- - -------____ _ Ld 18' 387.83' BENCHMARK ELEVATION TOP OF ARROW ON TOP OF FIRE \ HYDRANT uJ ��UTHRLY BOUNDARY OF \ _ _ O'DELLS FURNITURE STORE - NGVD-29 ELEVAT = 4889.39 S [1[*1 3 E 16.5 4 / L7 5 F��34�44 [ -_ L� -- ' � l ' '` | �� 4�[�—� Emw"~= . N E���ENT ��'E���E � ' ~ C14 NOT 3 LOT 2 0.66 acres 0.49 acres OWNER DF-VELOPER EXISTING SSMH .uu.. "..E" VILLAGE, ". ''- — --- CAMERON QUNTER - CONTACT EXIST. V |N=48�3.O7 . . | pOVVER/TL(LPH0NL i|HL --------w^-/--------�S[LR L|NE ||YDR�N7 4� °w VyxTFK �ALYF ��� �� ��� SOUT AMERICAN FORK UTAH 84003 (801) 758-0404 TETON RIVER SURVEY AND ENGINEER HARPER - LEAVITT ENGINEERING Ki&8 LEAVOT - SURVEYOR JEFF FRE|BERG - ENGINEER 985 N. CAPITAL IDAHO FALLS. IDAHO 83402 (208) 524-0212 /. This property lies in Zone Af - showvr on FEMA Insurance Ru&* x&ro Pone/ 167099 0020 D. Base Flood Elevation = 4865-00, 2. Zoning. This property is zoned = HBD and Light Commercial J. Land Use - Multi-foni /Comn7mncia/ N89^51'53"w FOUND CRY BRASS CAP / CP&F INST. #26434 11 2 19& | � RIM = 4868.00 EXIST. INV. IN = 4860.20 EXIST. INV. OUT = 4859.95 p tn ADJAC OWNERS 1. City Of Rexburg 12 North Center | Rexburg, Idaho 83440 2 CKC Properties DBA 2270 Worthing Lane Los Angm|eo, California 90077 3. David Z. Walters P.O Box JgO Rexburg, Idaho 83440 4 Basic Anxehoon Foods 2099 Oak Rmud, Suite 400 Walnut C,oek, Co|ifonniu 04596-2016 5 LDS Church Properties LDS Church Tax Admin. 50 [oat North Tonnp|m Street 22nd Floor RE:537-0817 Salt Lake City, Utah 84150 6� O'Da(>a Furniture and Sleep Center 525 North 2nd East Rexburg. Idaho 83440 7 Valley Food Symtornm P.O. Box 639 Rexburg, Idaho 83440 8. Country Markets Attn. Robison Lyle 60 East Sunset Circle Rexburg, Idaho 83440 g. B&D Investments (City of Rexburg) 85 North 2nd East Rexburg. Idaho 83440 10. Union Pacific Railroad Co. At Morgan Robert Woodman Tower 10 South 1700 Farman Street Omaha, Nebraska 68102-2010 N 89 E | { / | | LOT 4 \ 8.45 acres ���A�l�T� ��&Y� GRAPHIC ^�~'`�^��^ o 25 50 `ov / � / ' � / � ' / 7 /| ` LG 18 \1 17 ' � �� LLJ 3: im NO. 20206.0364 ' 20. 2004 DPAW By CHECM BY 1 IN ADJAC OWNERS 1. City Of Rexburg 12 North Center | Rexburg, Idaho 83440 2 CKC Properties DBA 2270 Worthing Lane Los Angm|eo, California 90077 3. David Z. Walters P.O Box JgO Rexburg, Idaho 83440 4 Basic Anxehoon Foods 2099 Oak Rmud, Suite 400 Walnut C,oek, Co|ifonniu 04596-2016 5 LDS Church Properties LDS Church Tax Admin. 50 [oat North Tonnp|m Street 22nd Floor RE:537-0817 Salt Lake City, Utah 84150 6� O'Da(>a Furniture and Sleep Center 525 North 2nd East Rexburg. Idaho 83440 7 Valley Food Symtornm P.O. Box 639 Rexburg, Idaho 83440 8. Country Markets Attn. Robison Lyle 60 East Sunset Circle Rexburg, Idaho 83440 g. B&D Investments (City of Rexburg) 85 North 2nd East Rexburg. Idaho 83440 10. Union Pacific Railroad Co. At Morgan Robert Woodman Tower 10 South 1700 Farman Street Omaha, Nebraska 68102-2010 N 89 E | { / | | LOT 4 \ 8.45 acres ���A�l�T� ��&Y� GRAPHIC ^�~'`�^��^ o 25 50 `ov / � / ' � / � ' / 7 /| ` LG 18 \1 17 ' � ��