HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012.08.01 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES1
August 01, 2012
Mayor Richard Woodland Council Members:
Christopher Mann Jordan Busby Donna Benfield Jerry Merrill
Bruce Sutherland Sally Smith City Staff: Stephen Zollinger – City Attorney
Richard Horner – Finance Officer John Millar – Public Works Director Val Christensen – Community Development Director
Scott Johnson – Economic Development Director Blair Kay – City Clerk
7:00 A.M. City Hall
Roll Call of Council Members:
Attending: Council President Mann, Council Member Benfield, Council Member Merrill, Council
Member Smith, and Mayor Woodland.
Council Member Sutherland and Council Member Busby asked to be excused.
Mayor Woodland led the Pledge to the Flag.
Scott Ferguson said the prayer.
Public Comment: on issues not scheduled on the agenda (limit 3 minutes) - NONE
Presentations: - NONE
Committee Liaison Assignments for 2012:
A. Council Member Christopher Mann: Golf Board · Emergency Services Board · MYAB
Council President Mann reported that his committees have not met. Channel 3 reported in a
national news report stating Rexburg was a non-texting city. Nationally, other cities are exploring a
non-texting policy like Rexburg’s policy.
B. Council Member Jordan Busby: GIS Oversight · Airport Board
Council Member Busby was excused.
C. Council Member Donna Benfield: Trails of Madison County · IBC · Teton Flood Museum Committee
· M.E.P.I.
Council Member Benfield reported the Trails of Madison County Committee met last week. They are waiting on a grant proposal to add connecting trails to the Madison Junior High School area.
D. Council Member Sally Smith: Legacy Flight Museum · Rexburg Arts Council (Romance Theatre &
Tabernacle Civic Center, Orchestra)
35 North 1st East
Rexburg, ID 83440
Phone: 208.359.3020 x2313
Fax: 208.359.3022
blairk@rexburg.org
www.rexburg.org
City Council Meeting
August 01, 2012
2
Council Member Smith reported the Legacy Flight Museum met to report on the air show. She
reported on the last Rexburg Arts Council meeting where the attending members reviewed the
member list. She read the names of the current committee members which included members from
other arts organizations. They need to be reaffirmed as members of the Rexburg Arts Council by the
City Council.
1. Reaffirm Rexburg Arts Council Committee members:
a. Heidi Smith b. Elizabeth Bossard c. Marsha Bjornn d. Rebekka Hanson e. Gwyn Harris
f. Margaret Arnold g. Omar Hansen h. Roger Harris i. Carly Paul j. Paula Sonderegger
k. Lori Hansen l. Ronalee Flansburg
Council Member Benfield moved to approve and reaffirm the Rexburg Arts Council Committee
members as listed; Council Member Merrill seconded the motion; Discussion: Mayor Woodland
asked for a vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council President Mann None
Council Member Benfield
Council Member Merrill
Council Member Smith
The motion carried.
E. Council Member Jerry Merrill: Beautification Committee · Parks & Recreation · Traffic & Safety · Urban Renewal Agency
Council Member Merrill reported the Recreation Committee is working on a Marathon
Committee for next year. The Urban Renewal Agency met to discuss possible projects.
F. Council Member Bruce Sutherland: Planning & Zoning · School Board · Police
Council Member Sutherland was excused.
Public Hearing: NONE
Items for Consideration: A. City policy on buffering and infill – Stephen Zollinger
City Attorney Zollinger reviewed a proposal to have a city policy to encourage infill. Planning and
Zoning has been supportive of infill projects. They are concerned with the lack of support for infill on infill projects. Planning and Zoning would like to have clarification on the infill policy. The
centers of many Rexburg city blocks are empty spaces. One concern is having projects move outside the infill area because they are not desirable within the city’s infill area. High Density Residential
development outside the infill area will move traffic past existing residential areas to get to shopping centers, etc. The theoretical theory is residential development (neighborhoods) are developed
adjacent to undeveloped properties where future development becomes undesirable to the neighborhoods. When there are proposals to develop these undeveloped properties, the residential
areas are not supportive of the infill development.
Discussion on the area needed to install a state hwy interchange. An example is the 7th South site on Hwy 20 where it would take out homes and require a sound wall on 7th South.
City Attorney Zollinger reviewed examples of city blocks where infill is possible. He referred to
the block between Center Street and 1st East and between 1st North and 2nd North as the Zollinger block. They plan to develop the interior of this block at some point in the future. Other blocks in
the city are being presented for development to utilize the center portions of the blocks. The development of these center blocks will impact some single family housing on the block or adjacent
blocks. One solution is to push the development off the street to be more residential friendly to current neighborhoods. An example of the block development is the medical building being built on
2nd East close to Main Street. Controlled “pressure release” development is more acceptable than development that happens through extended pressure.
3
Commissioner Dan Hanna indicated the Planning and Zoning Commission is concerned with the
city’s Comprehensive Plan being a vision document for growth; however, the plan is not followed
due to the concerns of neighborhoods.
Council Member Smith said this is a frustration not being on the same page when projects come
in for development; maybe due to timing. She is concerned with the changes to the Comprehensive
Plan. She thought more work meetings may be necessary to get everyone on the same page.
The “donut” referred to is the boxed area between 5th West, 2nd North, Harvard Ave, and 7th South as shown below:
City Attorney Zollinger said there needs to be an understanding to approve requests asking for
Moderate to High Density with conditions or a lower density instead of denying the project.
Council Member Merrill was not opposed to having high density if it is in a desirable place.
4
Johnny Watson from JRW and Associates indicated allowed use for density is limited by parking,
etc. when the projects are presented.
Commissioner Dan Hanna said four-plexes can be approved in some areas; however, a larger
higher building would allow a more attractive neighborhood development with more green space.
Development outside the “donut” requires more traffic through residential areas.
Council Member Merrill indicated development outside 5th West is not as desirable as
development within the 5th West area. He referred to current developments (apartments) with
limited or less traffic than initially expected by neighboring residents.
Community Development Director Christensen reviewed residential areas adjacent to vacant
properties on the overhead screen.
City Attorney Zollinger said there are a high number of properties that are available for infill inside
the “donut”. Council Member Benfield said the City Council is an elected body to represent the
community. The decisions come on an individual basis. City Attorney Zollinger said the City
Council is elected to represent the whole city instead of a few individuals. He indicated the need to
continue to add beds due to growth. The question is where will these beds be built; will they be built
in the infill areas or will the beds be built outside the “donut” on the outskirts of Rexburg.
Discussion on the City Council acting on the recommendations from Planning and Zoning.
City Attorney Zollinger referred to the 3rd East neighborhood interaction with the City Council on
development adjacent to their neighborhood. It is an education process to get everyone the facts on
how the city can be developed. Will the new development come inside the “donut” or outside the
“donut” and drive through the neighborhood? Traffic and infrastructure management are part of the
decision making process to develop inside the “donut”. The Planning & Zoning Commission makes
recommendations to City Council after considering all factors and aspects of the development. The
City Council needs all the information beforehand so that when a neighborhood comes to oppose a
development, the city is able to explain the reason why the development is best for the city.
Council Member Smith said the City Council needs to get ahead of the development proposals
with zone changes, etc.; she indicated an infill policy needs to be agreed upon.
Community Development Director Christensen said the infill map is a tool to show where there
are available or underutilized properties which can be developed as infill properties.
Council Member Merrill said sometimes turning down a project will bring a better project forward
in the future. Each project needs to be judged on its merits. Neighbors may not understand all of
the facts and they may have some misunderstandings concerning the proposal.
Economic Development Director Scott Johnson said we are trying to create a standard or base
line to make decisions; some projects will not fall within the “donut” area. Another question is how
to educate the people on the merits of the project. It is a matter of getting ahead of the education
process; people only show up when it affects their own properties. Projects need to be reviewed in a
holistic (characterized by the view that a whole system of beliefs must be analyzed rather than simply its individual
components) approach to show how it impacts the whole community.
Council President Mann said there is disagreement within the governing boards at times because
of different levels of concern.
City Attorney Zollinger said the City Council needs to have the big picture before making a
decision. A policy must be determined to help staff understand which direction they need to take
their recommendations. If projects are presented to put bedrooms closer to the University to limit
traffic, etc.; then let the staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission understand the policy for
infill.
5
Community Development Director Christensen asked to understand what level of density for
infill is acceptable.
Council Member Merrill asked for more information at work meetings to help get ahead of the
curve on infill.
Discussion on painting a map to show possible infill areas for growth planning.
Community Development Director Christensen said he would put together direction for the
Planning and Zoning Commission; starting with a growth map to get ahead of the growth curve.
Economic Development Director Scott Johnson cautioned the City Council concerning land
pricing because it is a concern; don’t make decisions that cause land costs to rise.
B. Sign Ordinance – Signage for “Mixed Use” Zones and Signage for the Highway Corridor
- Staff
Community Development Director Christensen presented some ideas to add “Mixed Use”
signage to the sign code.
Mixed Use Signage
MU1: The sign area allowed is 10% of the wall area of the portion of the building that is
commercial. The location of signage must be on the wall; it may not extend above top of wall. If
residential apartments are above commercial, then signage may be above the top of the commercial
portion of the building no more than 3’ feet. Monument and pole signs must be reviewed and
approved by the Design Review Committee on a case by case basis.
MU2: The sign area allowed is 10% of the wall area of the portion of the building that is
commercial. The location of signage must be on the wall; it may not extend above top of wall. If
residential apartments are above commercial, then signage may be above the top of the commercial
portion of the building no more than 3’ feet. Monument signs must be reviewed and approved by
the Design Review Committee on a case by case basis.
Community Development Director Christensen reviewed the proposed changes to the sign
ordinance to add “Mixed Use” Zones. The Mixed Use Zones are part of the Development Code.
The proposal would be to allow pole signs in the Mixed Use Zones with a Conditional Use Permit.
This would maintain the residential character of the residential areas where Mixed Use Zoning is
allowed. If residential uses are in the building; the first floor would be the only floor where 10% of
wall space for signage would be allowed. Monument signs would be allowed with a Conditional Use
Permit.
Council Member Smith asked for clarification on proposed signage in MU1 and MU2.
Community Development Director Christensen explained MU1 Zones require the building to be
setback from the street and MU2 Zones do not have a setback. MU1 Zones might want a pole sign
but each proposed sign will be handled on a case by case basis.
Council Member Benfield asked if the signage could go above the wall on the first floor.
Community Development Director Christensen said no, it cannot go above the wall.
He asked City Council if they were comfortable with the Mixed Use language. The language will go
to the Planning and Zoning Commission first to approve the language.
Highway Corridor Signage
6
Community Development Director Christensen presented a proposal to increase the signage
height on the HWY 20 interchange areas to follow the grade of the interchanges. The current sign
height allowed is 24 feet. This proposal would allow signage to follow the grade of the interchange
with an additional 10 feet above the grade profile. The proposed increase in sign height would be
allowed within the 1,500 foot distance from the highway corridor.
Visual of one possible option:
The parcels adjacent to the Highway 20 interchanges would be allowed sign heights 10 feet above
the grade profile of the interchange for a distance of 1,500’ feet on each side of the right-of-way
with a Conditional Use Permit.
Council President Christopher Mann asked for the Planning & Zoning Commission’s reason for
rejecting this proposal 6 months ago.
Commissioner Dan Hanna said the concept was not rejected but the presentation was not
adequate to clarify the proposal.
Commissioner Thaine Robinson said sign pollution was a concern for the Planning & Zoning
Commission; they wanted to keep a clean appearance on the interchanges.
Council Member Smith asked Scott Johnson about the issue and his thoughts on the 1,500 feet.
Economic Development Director Scott Johnson indicated a 1,000,000 trips pass through the city
each season. Staff is proposing (to have the signage follow 10 feet above the interchange profile) this as a
compromise to get the signage above grade. There have been many businesses addressing this issue
and have asked for a resolution. This proposal is a possible solution to the issue. The 1,500 feet is
under discussion.
City Attorney Zollinger said the 1,500 feet would extend to the middle of the Madison Coop
property next to 12th West.
7
(The annualized trips from Rexburg to Island Park would be between 1-2 million trips annually)
Council Member Benfield asked about the Madison Coop property or a future business with a
similar property.
Discussion on the distance away from the interchange to allow the 1,500 foot rule.
City Attorney Zollinger asked for support for the proposal to move forward with wording that will
more clearly define its purpose.
The City Council was supportive of more discussion on increased signage height around the
interchanges on Hwy 20.
Community Development Director Christensen asked for direction on the highway signage. The
City Council will read the planning minutes concerning the sign ordinance discussion at Planning
and Zoning. The language will be fixed to clarify the intended purpose of the highway corridor
signage.
==========================================================
8
Planning and Zoning Minutes: 02-16-2012
Chairwoman Mounts said the fact Mr. Packer is here tonight is very positive. There have been enormous
strides in the City’s relationship with the University. There is lots of good data to base decisions on.
A heads up was given regarding sign height. Potential businesses are coming forward where this may be an issue. The subject needs to be addressed further to look at signs along the highway corridor and elsewhere as Rexburg
grows.
Chairwoman Mounts expressed that it is so small town to be enlarging signs when the whole country is
making them smaller and getting rid of them on their corridors.
Val Christensen said the goal is to bring the City Council and the Commission back together in a couple of months with more information to be presented to them from staff on these planning issues.
Planning and Zoning Minutes: 03-01-2012
New Business:
1. Update Sign Ordinance No. 1027 by adding Mixed Use 1(MU1)and Mixed Use 2 (MU2) Val Christensen presented the issue. The City’s Sign Ordinance does not address Mixed Use 1 and Mixed
Use 2 zones; he is bringing the matter to the Commission for input. MU1
Staff recommends follow sign regulations for apartment complexes – small signs. A wall sign could be kept lower and smaller.
No pole signs. There could be signs on the commercial part of MU1 and keep residential without signage.
Commercial part of the development could have signs but no signs on the residential part of the development. MU2
Staff recommends follow commercial property requirements except no pole signs. Sign could be put up higher on the building.
Sign could be put up within a certain proximity of the commercial. No pole signs.
On residential - follow residential rules (a percentage). Sign should be in a certain proximity to the commercial part of the property.
Val Christensen will write up a draft document and bring it back to the Commission for review and further
discussion.
2. Staff Recommendation to Increase Interchange sign heights to 10 feet above grade Natalie Schneider presented the issue. The proposal, for right along the corridor, is for a 10 foot sign height
increase above grade, which would actually increase the current sign height by 6 feet. Basically it would be targeted to inform commuters coming through the area; they would perhaps get pulled off the highway and into town when
seeing the signs informing them of a business such as a restaurant or gas station in Rexburg. All sign ordinance requirements would still need to be met.
Val Christensen said staff would need some kind of recommendation on this issue from the P&Z
Commission whether or not they agree with it, for the Ready Team to take to City Council.
Chairman Dyer asked Bruce Sutherland for his input. Mr. Sutherland felt it would be appropriate for a recommendation to come from the P&Z Commission for the
City Council, as the Commission is charged with making the Sign Ordinance comply with the Zoning Ordinance in the best possible way, so that there is consistency.
Scott Ferguson recommended to City Council to give consideration to increasing the interchange sign heights to
10 feet above grade as described by staff tonight. Jedd Walker seconded the motion.
Those in Favor Those Opposed Cory Sorensen Dan Hanna
Scott Ferguson Thaine Robinson Jedd Walker Marilyn Rasmussen
Winston Dyer
A recommendation was not supported.
==========================================================
(Insert from City Council Public Hearing on May 02, 2007)
7:30 P.M. – Update and modify Sign Ordinance 908 – Gary Leikness
9
Planning and Zoning Administrator Gary Leikness reviewed the current sign height at 24 feet with
a new proposal to increase the sign height around interchanges for businesses coming into Rexburg. He presented the information on an overhead presentation. The signs heights are at 24 feet maximum throughout the city.
Cars traveling at highway speeds need higher signs to be able to make a decision to exit the highway. He provided the City Council with a staff report and analysis. See chart below:
Other Cities with Regional and Economic Similarities
City Zone
Commercial Professional Office Regional Shopping Industrial Interchanges
Rexburg 24 12 24 24 24
Provo 35 25 40 5 40
Idaho Falls 60 60 60 60 60
Boise 30 15 30 25 30
Pocatello 30 30 30 30 60
Moscow 25 10 25 25 25
Eagle 15 15 15 15 15
Rock Springs, Wyoming 20 20 20 20
25 above centerpoint of
interchange for property within
2500 feet of said center point.
Green River, Wyoming 15 10 15 15 15
Jackson, Wyoming 12 6 12 12 12
Average 27 21 27 23 28
Median 25 15 25 22 25
Forbes “Best Places for Business” Year 2002
City Zone
Commercial Professional Office Regional Shopping Industrial Interchanges
San Diego 30 15 30 30
50 Within 1500 feet of a freeway
ramp, and within 660-fee of
freeway ROW
Santa Rosa 9 9 9 9 9
Las Vegas 40 12 40 40
30 feet above elevated freeway
(within 200 feet of ROW), and up
to 80-feet in height when sign is
within 200-feet of highway ROW)
Ventura no pole signs no pole signs no pole signs no pole signs
25-feet, specifically for freeway
service facilities
McAllen Metro Area 35 35 35 35
80-feet when located within 200
feet of Freeway
Boise City 30 15 30 25 30
Average 29 17 29 28 46
Median 30 15 30 30 40
It was suggested a higher sign may invite economic growth.
Staffs Conclusions
• There are a wide range of acceptable sign heights near interchanges, 9-feet (Santa Rosa to 80-feet (Las
Vegas).
• The places ranked as “best places to do business” have a higher average and median sign heights standards,
although Santa Rosa and Las Vegas are both ranks as a top place to do business.
• Each community acts independent and enacts sign height standards that best meet the needs and atmosphere
of their communities.
Options for Rexburg include:
1. Do nothing
2. Allow greater heights around interchanges
3. Modify the information with public input
Council Member Erickson pointed out that in 2002 (according to Forbes) Santa Rosa was in the top 10
out of 200 best cities to do business. Today, Santa Rosa is 187 out of 200. He also explained that in Boise,
they allow clusters of businesses on interchanges to petition as a group to raise the sign heights. Boise has
maintained a high ranking on the Forbes list of the top cities to do business. The City of Driggs allows variances
to the sign heights.
Mayor Larsen opened the public hearing:
Those in favor of changing the sign ordinance:
10
Jim McAllister representing Valley RV explained that the proposal would only affect about two businesses.
He asked for a bigger buffer or a higher sign allowance with a variance. He is in favor of increasing the sign
heights.
Andrew Grove representing Applebee’s would like to see a change allowing a higher sign on the interchanges.
He went through the reasons Planning and Zoning recommended not to change the current ordinance and had a
rebuttal for many of them.
Advantages of Different Areas
City Center Highway Corridor
*35 MPH Speed Limit *Easy Access from Highway
*Traffic Signals *Taller Signs?
*Established Consumer Behavior
*Large Activity Generators
(ex. Wal-Mart and Movie Theatre)
Mr. Grove also explained that the population of Rexburg alone does not warrant an Applebee’s, so they are
depending on the highway traffic traveling through Rexburg to help make Applebee’s in Rexburg successful.
He gave information on other city populations that have an Applebee’s:
City Interchange Sign
Height Population Applebee’s?
Rexburg, Idaho 24 Feet 26,000 Coming Soon
Provo, Utah 40 Feet 113,459 Yes
Idaho Falls, Idaho 60 Feet 52,338 Yes
McAllen, Texas 80 Feet 106,414 Yes
Las Vegas, Nevada 30 Feet above
Elevated Freeway 545,147 Yes
San Diego, California 50 Feet 1,255,540 (48x) Yes
Boise, Idaho 30 Feet 193,161
(7x) Yes
Pocatello, Idaho 30 Feet 53,372 (2x) Yes
Santa Rosa, California 9 Feet 153,158
(5x) Yes
Ventura, California 25 Feet 104,017 (4x) Yes
Moscow, Idaho 25 Feet 21,862* Yes
Rock Springs, Wyoming 25 Feet above
Center Point 18,772 Yes
Green River, Wyoming 15 Feet 11,787 No
Jackson, Wyoming 12 Feet 9038 No
Eagle, Idaho 15 Feet 11,085 No
*Pullman, Washington has an addition 25,262 residents
Conclusions
• Sign height should be determined by multiple factors such as size of population and proximity to
highways.
11
• A 24 foot sign will be hidden by visual clutter in the background and is not effective at high rates of
speed.
• Both the city center and highway corridor have individual pros and cons; and presently the city center has
more advantages
• Increasing sign height alone will not, by itself, destroy the appearance of the city’s gateways
• Appeal
• As Highway traffic and visibility is critical to the success of businesses on the highway corridor, we
request an increase in the current sign height restrictions
• We request 15 foot increase over the interchange center point, rather than 10, so that signs will not be
impacted by background visual clutter
• 500 foot distance from center-point is acceptable as it will help reduce clutter
Mr. Grove also reviewed some pictures showing signs at different locations on highway 20 as traffic approaches
the South interchange 50 foot 40 foot 34 foot and 24 foot. He thought 34 to 40 was an appropriate height.
DJ Barney, a local Rexburg business owner said other businesses will profit from bringing customers off
Highway 20. He explained that customers who get off the highway may eat, buy fuel, stay in a hotel, etc. He
also wanted on and off premise signs (billboards) to be addressed. He did not think 200 sq feet billboard signs
were adequate along a highway corridor. He suggested 14 by 48 foot signs would be more appropriate. He
emphasized one sign size does not fit all in Rexburg.
Mayor Larsen entered a letter from Adam Stout in favor of changing the sign ordinance into public testimony.
Those neutral to changing the sign ordinance: NONE
Those opposed to changing the sign ordinance:
Mayor Larsen entered three letters into testimony from Randall Porter, Millie Andrus and Joseph Romney
who are all opposed to changing the sign ordinance.
Mary Ann Mounts at 20 East 2nd North said she has a degree in City Planning. It would be backward
thinking to raise the sign heights. She went through several points as to why sign heights should not be changed:
• Polls reveal that Americans do not like signs
• Blue board signs are what people look at
• On Star and other electronic devices are available for many cars now
• Sign competition would be a problem as businesses would try to outdo one another
• Higher signs will take away from the beauty of our community. It would be backward thinking to
increase the sign heights in Rexburg.
Winston Dyer at 667 Summerwood is speaking as a private citizen. He has not heard of any particular
changes in the social, economic or geographic conditions for Rexburg which constitutes a need to change the sign
ordinance. He has not seen businesses turn away from Rexburg due to sign issues. He referred to the Planning
and Zoning recommendation to keep the sign ordinance unchanged. He said Rexburg has just completed the third
year of 15% growth. Rexburg is experiencing some of the highest growth in the country.
Rexburg is neither limiting nor liberal with sign heights; we are somewhere in the middle on the sign ordinance.
Each business is different; they have different needs. He explained Rexburg would be a much different place if
every business was granted a waiver. He referred to the community vision (Comprehensive Plan). He feels
strongly to hear from the citizens instead of the developers. He is opposed to changing the sign ordinance and
suggested the “no action” option.
Thaine Robinson at 390 Maple Drive wants to maintain the attractiveness of the city. He challenged the
City Council to look 15 years ahead and this south interchange will become the center of town.
Mayor Larsen closed the public hearing.
Mayor Larsen asked the City Council to deliberate the proposed change to the sign ordinance.
12
Council Member Benfield thanked Planning and Zoning for all their work on this proposal, landscaping
projects and other projects in the city. She referred to comments from others on this issue. She indicated the City
Council knew how Planning and Zoning felt about changing the sign ordinance. The City Council asked for a
public hearing to see how the public felt on changing the sign ordinance. Three people have come forward in
support of changing the sign ordinance in the meeting. No one has come forward in the meeting to testify in
opposition to changing the sign ordinance; however, there have been a couple of letters in the negative that higher
signs would give an unfair advantage to businesses on the interchange verses downtown businesses.
Council Member Benfield was concerned that smaller signs at the interchanges would give Rexburg
businesses an unfair position in relation to signage at other cities on Highway 20 like Pocatello, Blackfoot, Idaho
Falls, and other cities all the way up the region. She did not want to lose business to other cities. 24 feet signs are
the lowest in Eastern Idaho along the Highway 20 corridor which gives all of Rexburg an unfair disadvantage.
The bottom line for her personally is economic development. The City Council listed economic development as one
of the top priorities for the city at the first of the year. She wants to promote economic development. This is
economic development that other people are paying the price. We spend a lot of money on economic development
trying to bring new business to our city. Now we have businesses trying to bring business to our community.
Council Member Benfield is very much in favor of raising the sign height; maybe to the 40 foot level depending on
the information given at this meeting. Raising sign heights will help economic development. She felt a 24 foot
sign height limit puts Rexburg merchants at a disadvantage. She is in favor of a higher sign height.
Council Member Erickson wanted to make sure everyone understood that he built his business with a 24
foot sign. He is going to keep the 24 foot sign. This is not for his benefit at all. He thinks other businesses
could benefit from a higher sign allowance. Rexburg is in the Upper Snake River Valley. He talked about some
other cities in the Upper Snake River Valley. Pocatello allows a 60 foot sign within a 1000 foot radius of the
highway. They also allow a 40 foot sign within a residential area. Blackfoot allows a 45-60 foot sign in
commercial areas (depending on the commercial zone) and Blackfoot allows a 40 foot sign in residential areas.
Idaho Falls can have a 60 foot sign in any commercial area. Rigby has five signs ranging from 40 to 60 feet.
Ashton and St. Anthony have no sign height ordinance at this time. Boise has a gateway sign ordinance with
several possibilities. A “gateway” in Boise is 10 foot above the back ground on entrance ways into Boise. He is
in favor of raising the sign height. He recommended between 40-50 feet for a free standing sign. He did not
recommend a billboard.
Council Member Mann was impressed with the Applebee’s presentation. He will support the
recommendation of Planning and Zoning to maintain the current sign ordinance. The recommended area won’t
affect enough businesses.
Council Member Benfield explained the recommended 500 foot radius can be expanded if the City
Council chooses.
Council Member Stevens likes the comparison to other cities; however, he does not think it helps in this
issue to go against the Planning and Zoning recommendation. Rexburg is unique and he attributes much of this
to Planning and Zoning’s effort for preserving the city. He supports their work on the sign ordinance. He also
appreciated the presentation from Applebee’s and he can see how a higher sign could benefit businesses.
Council Member Young respects Council Members Benfield and Council Member Erickson and their
insight with the business community; however, he has a close relationship with the residential community, and 10
to 1 the community is against raising the sign height. He supports the Planning and Zoning recommendation to
keep the current sign height ordinance. He quoted from Joseph Romney’s letter stating that “the visual image of
Rexburg as America’s Family Community and the economic basis for its prosperity can be fostered without giving
it the image of a commercial jungle.” He agrees with Mr. Romney and does not feel higher signs are appropriate
for Rexburg.
Council Member Schwendiman said he cannot see a 24 foot sign as he travels down a highway. He is in
favor of raising the sign height 10 to 15 feet from center point. He mentioned the 500 foot radius of the highway
would not affect the beauty of Rexburg.
Council Member Erickson said the circle could increase etc. The height needs an agreement.
Council Member Stevens mentioned sign height negotiations may not be practicable. He wants to see the
Applebee’s sign; however, he does not want to change the sign height on the interchanges.
13
Council Member Erickson moved to consider Ordinance 908 revision first read. Council Member
Benfield seconded the motion. Roll call vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Donna Benfield Farrell Young
Rex Erickson Bart Stevens
Randy Schwendiman Chris Mann
This 3 to 3 vote requires the Mayor to vote.
Mayor Larsen said he appreciated Applebee’s presentation. He explained that economic development is
critical to Rexburg. He also said 129 new businesses came to Rexburg last year with the current sign ordinance.
He supports the current ordinance. He voted NO to changing the sign height ordinance.
The motion failed.
==========================================================
Council President Mann would like the sign ordinance discussion to go back to Planning and
Zoning. The City Council was amenable to bring the proposed sign ordinance amendment back to
the City Council for a final decision.
Staff Reports: A. Public Works: – John Millar
1. Discuss wastewater treatment plant bid
City Engineer Keith Davidson said the original bidder had a sub bidder without proper licensing;
so the sub bid will be rebid for the screw press and the UV building. The new bid opening is today
at 2:00 P.M. and the City Council is invited. (Results of the 2:00 P.M. bids):
City of Rexburg
WRF Phase II Upgrade B.
1.
City of Rexburg
WRF Phase II Upgrade (REBID) 12/13/2013
2. Authorize surplus of equipment – 98 MAC Dump Truck with a standard transmission.
A new truck will replace it.
Council Member Smith moved to authorize the 98 MAC Dump Truck for surplus; Council
Member Benfield seconded the motion; Discussion: Mayor Woodland asked for a vote:
Bidder Amount
Nelson Brothers $2,243,340.00
D.L. Beck $2,565,000.00
Contractors N.West $2,624,000.00
Whittaker Construction $2,849,000.00
Depatco, Inc. $2,897,500.00
Alder Construction $3,063,000.00
Engineers Estimate $2,500,000.00
Bidder Amount
Nelson Brothers $2,183,340
D.L. Beck $2,310,200
Depatco, Inc. $2,490,000
Engineers Est. $2,500,000
14
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council President Mann None
Council Member Benfield
Council Member Merrill
Council Member Smith
The motion carried.
3. RFP from Forsgren and Keller (Public Works Committee will make the determination)
4. 7th South is near completion.
5. 1st East has been paved.
6. Construction continues on 2nd South.
7. Construction continues on 3rd East.
8. 4th South has been paved.
9. Open areas on sidewalks waiting for the replacement of trees on Main Street.
10. Discussion on Business Signs on Main Street.
11. Plants are being added on Pioneer Road.
C. Finance Department – Richard Horner
1. Pool rental for Special Events, (i.e. Dance Festival)
Finance Officer Horner reviewed expenses incurred by Rexburg Rapids. Council President Mann
asked if the expense could come out of the City Council’s protocol or dance festival budget. The
City Council concurred to use the dance festival fund.
City Attorney Zollinger reviewed the policy to waive fees for non-profit organizations.
Calendared Bills and Tabled Items:
A. “LAND USE ACTION” – BILLS RECOMMENDED/APPROVED IN A LAND USE
B. PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE: NONE
C. BILL Introduction: NONE
D. First Reading: Those items which are being introduced for first reading: - NONE
E. Second Reading: Those items which have been first read:- NONE
F. Third Reading: Those items which have been second read: - NONE
1. Ordinance 1086 Amending Ordinance 937 Arts Fee
Discussion:
Council Member Benfield moved to 3rd read Ordinance 1086 amending Ordinance 937 Arts
Fees; Council Member Smith seconded the motion; Discussion: Mayor Woodland asked for a vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council President Mann None
Council Member Benfield
Council Member Merrill
Council Member Smith
The motion carried.
Mayor’s Report:
City Attorney Zollinger asked to allow a ROW dedication for the Rockwell Court Apartments on
7th South. The property is currently used by the city and they can potentially be landlocked by a
private enterprise. The legal correction for a ROW will allow the development to go forward.
Council Member Merrill moved to approve the ROW dedication between the city and Rockwell
Court Apartments; Council Member Smith seconded the motion; Discussion: Mayor Woodland
asked for a vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council President Mann None
Council Member Benfield
15
Council Member Merrill
Council Member Smith
The motion carried.
Economic Development Director Scott Johnson reviewed the proposal to allow the city to use
the “Pinnacle” pool for a fee. He asked for direction on a lease option. Council President Mann
asked if the facility would be used for swimming lessons through the winter. Yes, it would be an
opportunity to try out an indoor facility. Does the City Council have an interest in this proposal?
The adjoining building will be development for men’s student housing. The proposal would be for
one year at a negotiable cost of $5,000. The bathrooms would have to be moved at their cost. There
was interest from the City Council to explore the proposal. They would not support a loss for the
proposal; nor take revenue away from Rexburg Rapids.
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 July 11, 2012 meeting
B. Approve the City of Rexburg Bills dated July 25, 2012
C. Proclamation 2012 – 04 (International Children’s Day)
16
D. Proclamation 2012 – 05 ( International Dance and Music Festival)
17
Council President Mann moved to approve the consent calendar, pay the bills, and approve the
minutes and proclamations; Council Member Benfield seconded the motion; Discussion: Mayor
Woodland asked for a vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council President Mann None
Council Member Benfield
Council Member Merrill
Council Member Smith
The motion carried.
Council Member Smith moved to adjourn; Council Member Merrill seconded the motion; Mayor
Woodland asked for a vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
18
Council President Mann None
Council Member Benfield
Council Member Merrill
Council Member Smith
The motion carried.
Adjournment at 9:30 A.M.
_____________________________
Richard S. Woodland, Mayor
Attest:
________________________________ Blair D. Kay, City Clerk