Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil- August 17, 2005 August 17, 2005 7:30 P.M. City Council STATE OF IDAHO ) : ss County of Madison ) Mayor: Mayor Shawn Larsen Council Members: Paul Pugmire Donna Benfield Nyle Fullmer - absent Rex Erickson G. Farrell Young Irma Anderson Financial Officer Richard Horner P&Z Administrator: Kurt Hibbert City Clerk: Blair D. Kay PFC: John Millar City Attorney: Stephen Zollinger Pledge to the Flag Roll Call of Council Members: All present except Council Member Fullmer. Mayor Larsen welcomed the Scouts to the meeting. Consent Calendar: The consent calendar includes items which require formal City Council action; however, they are typically routine or not of great controversy. Individual Council members may ask that any specific item be removed from the consent calendar for discussion in greater detail. Explanatory information is included in the City Council’s agenda packet regarding these items. A. Minutes for August 03, 2005 meeting. B. Approve the City of Rexburg Bills. Council Member Pugmire moved to approve the Consent Calendar; Council Member Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Council Member Pugmire announced that he is leaving the Council due to a recent marriage. After much deliberation, thought, and consternation, he has decided to resign his post from the Council effective August 31, 2005. Council Member Pugmire mentioned that it was an unspeakable honor to serve the City of Rexburg. He thanked the two Mayors and Council Members that he has served with during his tenure. He was appointed to the Council by Mayor Sutherland due to a vacancy. Presentations: Mayor Larsen presented Council Member Pugmire a plaque for his service on the City Council. He mentioned that it will be a great loss to have Council Member Pugmire resign. He presented a plaque of appreciation to Council Member Pugmire from the Mayor and Council. Council Member Pugmire served on the Council from 1997 to 2005. He was Council President from 2004 to 2005. Public Comment: Issues not scheduled on the agenda. (limit 3 minutes) Gerald Glanville at 17 South 3rd East asked about the rumor of a proposed parking lot in his neighborhood. 1. Is that true? 2. Is the proposed parking lot for the business that owns the lot? 3. Are they going to enter the parking lot from 2nd East to the back yard of the business? 4. Does it make this a commercial enterprise? 5. Does a parking lot fit into residential zoning? 6. Who is going to take care of the traffic? He complained about the speed of traffic on 3rd East. from the High School and the University. Mayor Larsen indicated that this issue will be covered under an agenda item concerning BILL 939. Planning and Zoning is working on a revision of the Code to eliminate the separate parking lots in LDR1 and LDR2 Zones. It is currently an allowed use at this time. It is not a conducive use for a Residential neighborhood. Ivan DuBois at 140 West 2nd South is an AmeriCorps volunteer for the School District. He is working on a back to school carnival celebration the day before school begins. They are planning a health fair with free immunizations and asked the Council for permission to have the event in Porter Park. Mayor Larsen asked the Council to attend because they are going to have a dunking booth. There is not a conflict with the construction of the roundabout under construction on 4th South. Council Member Pugmire moved to approve the permit; Council Member Young seconded the motion, all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Committee Liaison Reports: A. Council Member Young: Downtown Vision · Rexburg Arts Council · Historical Preservation B. Council Member Benfield: Beautification · Traffic & Safety C. Council Member Erickson: Airport Board · Planning & Zoning D. Council Member Pugmire: Golf Board E. Council Member Fullmer: Emergency Services Board F. Council Member Anderson: Museum · Tabernacle · Parks & Recreation G. Mayor Larsen: Trails of Madison County · Mayor’s Youth Advisory Board NOTE: The Committee reports were not covered in this meeting due to the length of the meeting. Report on Projects: None New Business: Beer and Wine application for “Me ‘N Stan’s” at 167 West Main Street The City Council reviewed Ordinance 341 for direction on the proximity to a school or church for retail sales of beer and wine. The Ordinance indicated that the business had to be more than two hundred feet away from a church, school, public park, etc in order to sell beer or wine for consumption on site. This business is less than two hundred feet from a church. The Council could not approve the license request. Mayor Larsen asked the Staff to refund the applicant’s application fee. Surplus Property for the Fire Department – Spencer Larsen Council member Pugmire moved to approve the sale of surplus property (breathing apparatuses) as noted; Council Member Erickson seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. LID 34 – Create Resolution for curb, gutter, & sidewalk repairs Financial Officer Horner reviewed the properties in Sunset Circle that are planned for inclusion in LID 34. The work will be done this fall. City Attorney Zollinger indicated that the City Council cannot waive the rules due to the publication requirements for a multiple Ordinance process. The weather may be a problem with getting the work done this fall. The publication time will delay the start for construction. FO Horner asked the City Council to pass the Resolution tonight. Three requirements need to be met: Pass Resolution. Public Hearing to fix the value for each property. Minimum of forty five days for first publication; three consecutive weeks of this publication. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-12 A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE INTENTION OF THE CITY OF REXBURG, IDAHO, TO CREATE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 34 FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING AND INSTALLING CERTAIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS; DESCRIBING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND THE PROPERTY PROPOSED TO BE ASSESSED FOR THE COSTS OF THE IMPROVEMENTS; GENERALLY DESCRIBING THE IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED AND THE ESTIMATED COSTS AND EXPENSES OF THE IMPROVEMENTS; STATING THE PORTION OF THE TOTAL COST WHICH WILL BE PAID FROM A LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS ON PROPERTY BENEFITTED BY THE IMPROVEMENTS AND THE PORTION PAYABLE FROM OTHER SOURCES; STATING THE METHOD OF DETERMINING ASSESSMENTS; FIXING THE TIME WITHIN WHICH AND THE PLACE AT WHICH A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD TO CONSIDER SUCH PROTESTS; PROVIDING FOR RELATED MATTERS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Rexburg, Idaho (the "City"), is a municipal corporation operating and existing under and pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and as such is authorized and empowered to create local improvement districts to construct improvements pursuant to Title 50, Chapter 17, Idaho Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council (the "Council") of the City has authorized initiating the creation of a local improvement district for a particular district; and WHEREAS, the Council is of the opinion that it is in the best interest of the owners of property and of the inhabitants within the proposed Local Improvement District No. 34 ("LID 34"), and within the City, that the proposed LID 34 be formed and the proposed improvements as hereinafter described be constructed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REXBURG, IDAHO, as follows: Section 1: The Council hereby determines and states that it is its intention to form a local improvement district, to be designated LID 34 to make the improvements as hereinafter set forth. Section 2: The boundaries of the proposed LID 34 and of the properties to be assessed are generally described in “LID 34 Estimated Assessment Role” which is annexed hereto and by reference incorporated herein. Section 3: A general description of the improvements to be constructed (the "Improvements") is as follows: the installation and/or replacement of streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, water lines, sanitary sewer lines, storm sewer lines and other improvements as necessary, together with related improvements and costs of engineering, legal services, publication, interest on borrowed funds during construction, bond issuance costs and reserves, and other related expenses. Section 4: The estimated total cost of the Improvements is approximately $51,515.75. Approximately $9,893.28 will be paid by the City, representing the amount of benefit to the general public resulting from the Improvements. The balance of the cost will be paid by a levy of assessments on the property benefited. Section 5: The assessable portion of the costs and expenses of the Improvements shall be assessed against the tracts, lots, and lands benefited by the Improvements according to the method of assessment, as provided by Section 50-1707, Idaho Code. Section 6: Wednesday, the 7th day of September, 2005, at the hour of eight thirty o'clock P.M. (8:30 pm), at the Rexburg City Hall, 12 N Center, Rexburg, Idaho, is hereby fixed as the time and place when and where the owners of the property to be assessed may appear before the Council and be heard as to the propriety and advisability of acquiring the Improvements, and which is the time and place when and where the Council will consider the creating of the proposed LID 34 and constructing the proposed Improvements, and hear all complaints, protests, and objections which may be made in writing and filed with the City Clerk on or before said time, by any owner of any parcel of land to be assessed. Section 7: Written protests and objections to the creation of LID 34 or to the manner of assessment or inclusion of property therein may be filed with the City Clerk at or before four o'clock P.M. (4 pm) on Wednesday, the 7th day of September, 2005, by any owner of any parcel of land to be assessed. Section 8: Notice of Hearing substantially in the form attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof shall be given as follows: (A) By publication of such notice in the official newspaper of the City of Rexburg, Idaho, a newspaper of general circulation within the City, which notice shall be published once a week for two consecutive weeks of the first publication being at least ten (10) days prior to the date of said hearing. (B) By mailing, at least ten (10) days prior to the date of said hearing, a copy of such notice to each owner of property, if known, or his agent, if known, within the limits of the proposed LID 34 addressed to such person at his post office address, if known, or if unknown, to the post office in Rexburg, Idaho. Ownership of property shall be determined as of the date of the adoption of this Resolution. Section 9: This Resolution shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and approval. DATED this 17th day of August, 2005 CITY OF REXBURG Madison County, Idaho By_______________________________ Shawn Larsen, Mayor Public Works Director Millar referenced the poor sub-grade preparations for the existing sidewalks that are without a proper gravel base. Mayor Larsen asked the City Council to go ahead and set a hearing date to move the LID forward this year. Council Member Pugmire moved to set a hearing date for September 07, 2005; Council Member Anderson seconded the motion, all vote aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Council Member Pugmire moved to adopt the Resolution 2005-12; Council Member Benfield seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Employee Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Financial Officer Horner reviewed the FLSA in reference to City Staffers that are working as professionals. He interviewed almost all of the employees on the list. This discussion was to exempt some of the employees and supervisors from filling out a daily time sheet and exempt them from over time. Only one or two of these employees have overtime. Under the professional status, these employees would not be eligible for overtime. City Attorney Zollinger and FO Horner discussed the merits of the list. Council Member Erickson moved to approve the list of employees that are listed as professionals. Council Member Pugmire seconded the motion; Discussion: Council Member Pugmire asked if the list has been reviewed by the employee committee? They have not reviewed the list. City Attorney Zollinger mentioned some concerns with the list. All voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Set Public Hearing date for 2005 Budget Amendment FO Horner asked the City Council to set a hearing date for September 07, 2005. Council Member Pugmire moved to set the budget amendment hearing for September 07, 2005; Council Member Benfield seconded the motion; all vote aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Public Hearings: 7:40 P.M. - Re-Designation Four areas; Comp. Plan map (Ag. & Industrial to Commercial) Planning and Zoning Administrator Kurt Hibbert reviewed the requests on the overhead screen in the four areas of the Comprehensive Plan Map. On July 7, 2005, the four areas in question were presented to the Rexburg Planning & Zoning Commission with the following recommendations: Area One: A request for a change of land use for multiple properties currently zoned as Agriculture and Industrial, to Commercial. Area Two: (A) A request for change of land-use currently designated as Residential 2 to Commercial. (B) A request for change of land-use currently designated as Residential 2 to Residential 1. Area Three: A request for changing the land-use currently designated as Residential 1 to Mixed Use. Area Four: A request for change of land-use currently designated as Residential 1 to Mixed Use. Planning and Zoning Administrator Kurt Hibbert mentioned three possible options in the Code for Commercial Districts. Neighborhood Business District Zone Professional Office Zone Project Redevelopment Option (PRO-Zone) The Council reviewed the decisions by the Planning and Zoning Commission as noted below for the four separate areas under consideration: Area #1: Comment was made that the applicant of Area #1 withdrew the application for the Rezone/Annexation the previous day, but requested to continue on with the request for the Comprehensive Plan Map Change. Chairman Dyer said that they would still process both requests. Commissioners felt that Commercial was not growing out there yet; therefore, David Stein moved to recommend to City Council denying the request for a Comprehensive Plan Map change for segment Number One (1). Mike Ricks seconded the motion. None Opposed. Motion carried. Because Area #1 was not adjacent to the Rexburg City limits, David Stein moved to recommend to City Council denying the annexation/rezone request for the particular parcel. Mike Ricks seconded the motion. None opposed. Motion carried. Area #2: Most of the comments from the public were their concerns for protecting the adjacent Stonebridge Subdivision. Due to the ability of the Commission to require a buffer or other conditions that would protect the neighborhood if the applicant did propose to rezone in the future, Thaine Robinson moved to recommend to City Council changing “2a” from Multi-Family to Single-Family and “2b” from Multi-Family to Commercial. Ted Hill seconded the motion. None opposed. Motion carried. Area #3: There was much input from the public regarding the conservation of their historic neighborhood. David Stein suggested that they have a Project Redevelopment Option, which would not require a change in the Comprehensive Plan Map. David Stein moved that they recommend to City Council denying the change to the Comprehensive Plan Map for area three (3) from residential to mixed use, but strongly encourage the Neighborhood Association and property owners requesting development to get together and use the Project Redevelopment Option. Thaine Robinson seconded the motion. David Stein, Thaine Robinson, and Joseph Laird were in favor of the motion. Chairman Dyer, Ted Hill and Mike Ricks were not in favor of the motion. Motion did not carry. Mike Ricks moved to recommend to City Council that they do have the Mixed Use Zone change on the Comprehensive Plan Map on that particular area. Ted Hill seconded the motion. Chairman Dyer, Ted Hill and Mike Ricks were in favor of the motion. David Stein, Thaine Robinson, and Joseph Laird were not in favor of the motion. Motion did not carry. Thaine Robinson moved to recommend to City Council tabling it for further discussion. Joseph Laird seconded the motion. None opposed. Motion carried. Area #4: The Commissioners felt that this was a slightly different case than Area #3 due to the fact that it was set further in towards the neighborhood. There was, again, much input from the public regarding the conservation of their historic neighborhood. The public felt that the Mixed Use Zone was too broad. They do not want a Neighborhood Business District or restaurants put in their neighborhood. They wouldn’t mind seeing small patio homes built in the empty lot of the applicant’s property. Some agreed that the Project Redevelopment Option would be a good idea to implement. David Stein moved that they recommend to City Council denying the application for the Comprehensive Plan Map change for Area Four (4). Thaine Robinson seconded the motion. David Stein amended his motion to encourage having a PRO zone. Thaine Robinson seconded the amended motion. None opposed. Motion carried. Mayor Larsen opened the Public Hearing for public input on the four areas. Area One: Those in favor of the proposed changes: None Those neutral to the proposed changes: None Those against the proposed changes: None Area Two: (2A & 2B) Those in favor of the proposed changes: None Those neutral to the proposed changes: None Those against the proposed changes: Jay Warnick at 637 West Stonebridge Street was opposed to the proposal. He read a statement representing everyone in the Stonebridge Subdivision stating their opposition to the change in the land designation for 2 (B). The question is why a commercial zone is being proposed next to this neighborhood. They believe it will negatively impact the neighborhood. James Taylor at 618 West Stonebridge Street read the notice of Public Hearing to clarify the description that was published. The description was not correct. 2A and 2B were published in reverse order. The descriptions for the proposed designations were not correct on the publication. He requested that the Council deny the petition to re-designate 2B for commercial. Mayor Larsen submitted a letter from Tammie Bagley at 623 West Stonebridge concerning the loss of commercial businesses due to the big box stores coming to the City. They (Wal-Mart) have the right to do business, but “At what expense to our Community?” She was concerned with the changes in land use for 2A and 2B. Maxine Adair at 663 Stonebridge provided input that was supported by a group of people in the meeting. She was opposed to the re-designation of the area next to Stonebridge Subdivision to a commercial designation on the Comprehensive Plan. Area Three: Mayor Larsen explained where the properties are located near 2nd East. Those in favor of the proposed changes: None Dr. Doug Smith at 1009 Larch Drive owns property in the Professional Plaza and property in Area Three. He purchased property under a Commercial overlay. The parking problem in the Professional Plaza has changed over time. There was a need to develop more parking in the Professional Plaza as the Community grew larger. He mentioned Walgreen’s on 2nd East as an indication of the growth that will be coming to the area. It would be a prime place for office space on the east side of 2nd East. He has purchased two of these homes on 2nd East for professional office space. It would enhance the neighborhood. He has been in his location since 1978 and he has improved the neighborhood. He urged an affirmative vote. Dr. Robert Lofgren 1299 Morningside Drive owns professional property in the Professional Plaza. He located his business there due to its proximity to the Hospital. The expansion project for the Hospital has increased the need to expand their capability for providing services (high risk care) to the Hospital. Parking is a problem for patients. The patients have to cross busy streets with three or four children to get to his medical offices. He wants to work closely with the neighborhood. Patient safety and the ability to provide additional services to the Hospital were his primary request. At a moments notice, they need to be at the Hospital. Dr. Gary Lovell at 473 Morgan Drive owns property in Professional Plaza. Mayor Porter’s home was zoned on the Comprehensive Plan as Commercial when he purchased the property. Mayor Porter encouraged them to purchase the home on Main Street for Medical office space. They are at point in their medical clinic that he needs to expand. They need a larger parking lot too. They want to expand the parking for the Professional Plaza as the original intent of the Comprehensive Plan indicated. Robert Collette, Owner of Rexburg Health and Hospices owns one of the lots. The (land designation) change would not change the character of the neighborhood. The area looks very residential to Robert. They have no intention of changing the look of the neighborhood. The area can remain protected. Mixed Use makes the most sense for property owners to maintain property value. Higher value can be obtained with a Mixed Use designation. Robert indicated that he is a Hospital Administrator. Hospitals need mixed use designations for areas around the Hospitals. Rexburg has a lot of professional buildings being built. The last point he made was that this area has been mixed use for a long time. Most of the neighbors that are against Mixed Use purchased their property under a Mixed Use designation. The trend for decades has been to treat this area as a Mixed Use area. He indicated that a medical facilities neighbor is a good neighbor. He was in favor of reasonable and rational Mixed Use for this area east of 2nd East. Those neutral to the proposed changes: None Those in opposition to the proposal: Corey Barnard at 272 East 2nd South reviewed the proposal to change this area to Mixed Use. P&Z Administrator Hibbert indicated that Mixed Use is allowed in three Commercial Zones and all Residential Zones except LDR1. The entire block with the Professional Plaza Block and the Block to the east was Commercial on the Comprehensive Plan Map. The old Comprehensive Plan indicated that there would be no Residential growth east of 2nd East. He did not think the City was following the vision of the Community. The City has one of the finest Hospitals in the Nation. The Hospital serves customers as far away as Montana. He desired additional space set aside for Professional Office growth. He urged the Council to turn the proposal down. Laree Clark at 264 East Main Street is opposed to being zoned (designated) as commercial on the Comprehensive Plan Map. She is the spouse of John L. Clark. She wanted to maintain the heritage and residential use of the area where her home is located. She mentioned her home and her neighbor’s home are heritage homes. She asked the Council to please leave the area residential. Don Sparhawk at 37 South 3rd East is President of the East Main Street Neighborhood Association. He read a statement encouraging the Council to turn the land use designation down for area three and area four which is in the boundaries of the East Main Street Neighborhood Association. The proposed changes for this area are for development of medical offices. He indicated that there are properties being developed within four to eight minutes from the Hospital. He was opposed to the re-designation of this area to commercial. He discussed the area west of Professional Plaza. They propose to have the City move very slowly (five to ten years) before making changes to this area. He recommended the Pro-Zone as the vehicle to make changes in these areas. He provided pictures of the Grover home and the Clark home and other homes in the neighborhood. Seven of the homes west of the Professional Plaza have been purchased by Doctors. He requested to keep these homes as residential. He wants to maintain the current status of the neighborhood as residential. Florence Bowman at 44 South 2nd East #11 read a statement in opposition to the re-designation of these areas to Mixed Use. She mentioned pride of ownership as a reason to keep to these homes as residential. She was opposed to having a parking lot developed in her neighborhood. Pat Hinton at 55 South 2nd East indicated that the property is owned by Mary L. Burns. Joyce Hall is her guardian and Joyce is Pat’s mother. The neighborhood has a closeness where they watch out for each other. She quoted some statements from the Rexburg Community Review concerning housing in the downtown area and the gateways to the City indicating the theme of Rexburg as Americas Family Community. The Downtown Revitalization document recommends a pedestrian area for Downtown Rexburg. She wanted to maintain a residential neighborhood where she is living. She quoted Mayor Larsen from Minutes in November 03, 2004 indicating that this area has been before the Council six previous times. The Mayor indicated that this is a residential neighborhood. She wanted to take pride in her neighborhood as it exists now as a well kept older neighborhood. If this neighborhood is changed, it will never be replaced. Kathleen Nelson at 52 Ash referenced the feeling of community and friendship in the neighborhood. A Professional Office development with the accompanying traffic does not reflect a community. They appreciate the medical community and what they do for the residents. The traffic is incredible for a medical facility near her home. She counted one hundred cars during the lunch hour. There is a constant pressure to wear the community down and change this area to a commercial designation. She is opposed to the change from residential to commercial. The homes on her street are family homes. Dotty Burnham Glanville at 17 South 3rd East referenced her home as the “Bat” House. She read a statement indicating that they (Dotty and Jerry) have spent many hours to make their home beautiful. They have wonderful new neighbors and they do not want to see that area changed to a commercial designation. She disagreed with Mr. Ricks on the Planning Commission when he stated that it is not a big deal to change the land use designation for area three and area four. Cory Thornton’s mother lives at 225 East 2nd South in Rexburg. Cory currently lives in Boise. He was in favor of the Doctors being located in other areas away form the Hospital. He is a nurse and gave and example in Boise where a Doctor lives away from the Hospital. He recommended that the Doctors build in an area where there is plenty of land like Lyman. Jennifer King at 264 East Main Street indicated that the neighbors she has spoken with on this subject are afraid that their neighborhood will change and they will be required to leave the neighborhood. Neighbors are afraid this measure will pass. The value of homes is based on perception. She wanted to preserve the value of homes and neighborhoods by opposing this measure. Ann Marie Harris at 152 South 2nd East referenced the area where traffic is a problem on 2nd East. It is a gateway to the area up on the hill. She has a hard time getting out of the driveway on 2nd East; however, it is doable. She gave examples of traffic in other Cities that have LDS Temples where the traffic is required to travel at twenty five miles per hour in neighborhoods around Temples. She was opposed to increasing traffic on 2nd East. She did not want to damage the beautiful, quiet atmosphere of the neighborhood. She wants to keep her property secure and pay it off in fifteen years without losing property value due to commercialization. Judy Taylor at 203 East 2nd South indicated that she wanted to preserve history of the area. She asked to slow traffic down on 2nd East so people could walk to work at the University. She asked the Council to preserve the older homes in the community. Ron Lindsey at 70 South 3rd East expressed a long range view point for the area. “What are you building and what are you destroying”. He was opposed to Doctors offices in the neighborhood. It erodes the community. They moved into the community because it was a friendly community without fences. He mentioned that fences are beginning to come into the area. He strongly opposed the change. He did not want the City to turn into a Provo, Utah. Mayor Larsen asked Kurt to review the names of the applicants for the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan changes. Rebuttal: Robert Collette thanked Sister Clark for her comments. You can rest easy, they do not want to change the home. Their business is all about home. They looked for a place that spoke of home. You would not know a business was in his home. He is not planning to trash and pillage the property. Dr. Lovell pointed out that all of the homes were on the market for a long time. He gets constant calls from current home owners to sell. Some know that they can not sell their homes as family homes. The homes he has purchased do not have value as family homes. He mentioned a historic district in Salt Lake that has destroyed the neighborhood. Economics determine the use of older homes. These older homes may be better maintained as commercial properties verses residential for a typical family. Area Four: Those in favor of the proposal – None Those Neutral to the proposal: Jack Harrell at 216 East 1st South lives by a vacant lot. Besides a vacant lot, it is poor stewardship of the land to let is set as a weed patch. He would support the development of the property into a nice development. Cindy Harrell at 216 East 1st South concurred with the development of the vacant lot. She supports the doctors who have been very consciences about the care of the lots. Traffic is a concern for her. She asked about the definition of Mixed Use. She would support improvements to the vacant property. Do what you need to do on your property to maintain it. New development is not always the best development. They will be good neighbors no matter to what happens to this property. Those in opposition to this request: Corey Barnard at 272 East 2nd South reiterated his concerns which are similar to his testimony for area three. He asked Kurt who the applicant was for changing area four. Kurt indicated that Bonnie Anderson was the applicant. These amendments are to reflect the vision of the community for the next ten years. He urged the Council to deny this request. Don Sparhawk recommended a Pro-Zone Designation for area three and four to allow Patio Homes. The Neighborhood Association opposes the proposed change to this area and they recommend using the existing Pro-Zone designation for the development of patio homes in the neighborhood. Steve Herdie at 141 South 2nd East want to pursue the Pro-Zone option for this neighborhood. He mentioned concerns with the development of the area and he indicated that the Pro-Zone option would be a good option. The neighbors are pretty well united on developing the area with the Pro-Zone option. He mentioned his concern with Mr. Rick’s comments on the Planning Commission concerning the proposed changes for this area. Rebecca Thornton at 225 East 2nd South agreed with Don Sparhawk and Steve Herdie to use a Pro-Zone. The have lived in their home since 1975. Rebuttal: None Mayor Larsen referenced letters from citizens concerning these proposals as follows. Ralph Kern – He asked the Council to deny the proposed change to tract four. He is working with the neighborhood on a proposal to create a “Project Redevelopment Option”. It would be an upscale neighborhood of “Patio Homes”. Margaret and Terrell Arnold in favor of Mixed Use in area three. Tom Thornton speaking against changes for area three and area four. He would support the Pro-Zone development of the area. Marcia Bair speaking against the changes on Harvard Avenue. She asked for more forethought and fairness to help maintain the value of her property. Mayor Larsen Closed the Public Hearing and thanked the residents for their testimonies. This is the public process. It allows the Council to make their deliberations after hearing public testimony. He clarified the terms that were used in the meeting. Changes to the Comprehensive Plan Map can be reviewed every six months. Property owners have the opportunity to seek changes to their properties every six months. They have every right to do so. Mayor Larsen reviewed some of the zones in the Development Code for Rexburg that have been discussed at this meeting. These zones are applied to a particular land use designation. The Council is not changing any zones in this discussion. The proposals tonight are for changing the land use designations in a particular area. Each land use has particular zones assigned for the development of property in that area. Mayor Larsen asked Kurt Hibbert to review some of the zones that are applied to a specific land use designation. He reviewed the following zones: Low to Medium Density Residential includes LDR1, LDR2, LDR3 Zoning and Pro-Zones. Mixed Use includes Neighborhood Business District, Professional Office, Project Redevelopment Option (PRO-Zone), LDR2, and LDR3 Zoning. Mayor Larsen indicated that the discussion tonight has been to change the land use from Low to Medium Density to a Mixed Use Density. He read some of the descriptions for a Mixed Use land designation from the Development Code as follows: COMMERCIAL ZONES 3.13 Neighborhood Business District (NBD). 3.13.010. Purpose and Objectives. The NBD zone is established to provide an area in which the primary use of the land is for commercial and service uses to serve the daily convenience needs of the surrounding residential neighborhood. The zone is intended to be located on the fringe of neighborhood areas, along a collector or arterial street and to be integrated into the residential structure of a neighborhood in a manner that will create a minimum of detriment, hazard, or inconvenience to surrounding residential development. Each NBD zone will be small, containing from one (1) to two (2) acres, and will be located within convenient walking distance from the edge of the surrounding residential area it is designed to serve. In general, the NBD zones will be located from one-half (½) mile from each other, or from another zone in which the daily commercial needs of a neighborhood or residential area will be served. It is intended that the NBD zone shall be characterized by a harmonious grouping of commercial stores and shops which will be architecturally designed for, and will function as, an integrated unit. Hours of operation should be regulated to provide compatibility. Clean, well-lighted parking lots and attractive, well-maintained shops with appropriate landscaping will also be characteristic of this zone. 3.22 Professional Office Zone (PO). The Professional Office Zone is established to create a buffering effect between residential uses and traffic associated with arterial and collector streets; and to promote non retail professional and service uses that are compatible with adjacent residential uses. 3.22.010 Purpose and Objectives The PO zone is established to provide locations beyond the central area of the City, primarily along arterial or major collector streets which will accommodate offices or laboratories for professional persons and other related uses. This zone should not be established in a "strip" zoning manner along major streets but should be concentrated to provide easy accessibility to the public. The zone is intended to provide availability of professional services conveniently to all neighborhoods in the community. Uses permitted in the PO zone would typically include offices for doctors, dentists, accountants, and other similar professions, medical and dental laboratories, and pharmacies. 3.22.020. Permitted Uses. A. Categories. Those uses or categories of uses as listed herein, and no others, are permitted in the PO zone. B. Numbered Listings. All uses listed herein are listed by number as designated in the Standard Land Use Code published and maintained by the Planning Commission. Specific uses are identified by a four-digit number in which all digits are whole numbers. Classes or groupings of such uses permitted in the zone are identified by a four-digit number in which the last one or two digits are zeros. C. Uses. All such categories listed herein, and all specific uses contained within them in the Standard Land Use Code, will be permitted in the PO zone subject to the limitations set forth herein. D. Permitted Principal Uses. The following principal uses and structures, and no others, are permitted in the PO zone: Project Redevelopment Option (PRO). 3.30.010. Purpose and Intent. A. Intent. This chapter creates a regulatory framework to govern the enactment of regulations to further the intent of the Vision 2020 Comprehensive Plan, particularly, but not exclusively, in older, densely developed areas of the City. B. Purpose. The purpose of the Project Redevelopment Option (“PRO”) zone is to create a regulatory tool that permits initiative and flexibility in creating well-planned, architecturally-designed development that meets the needs of the community. More particularly, the intent of the City Council in enacting this Chapter is to: Encourage creative and efficient utilization of land. Encourage assemblage of property to create harmonious and efficient development patterns and projects. Provide land use and design standards tailored to specific geographic areas so that new development outcomes are more predictable and compatible with surrounding land uses. Coordinate property development and design, including large-scale facilities, with development, both existing and as envisioned by the City of Rexburg Comprehensive Plan, on adjoining and nearby property. Minimize the effect of additional traffic. Improve parking and air quality. Encourage new development that fosters a sense of community. Better manage the location, timing, and sequencing of new development. Provide an opportunity to involve the public. 3.30.020. Zone Establishment. (1) The provisions of this chapter shall apply to every PRO zone created under the authority of this chapter. (2) In order to establish a PRO zone, an applicant shall submit a petition (application). The application shall then be considered for approval as provided in this Title. 3.30.030. Optional Schematic Development Plan. A. Schematic Plan Submittal. An applicant may, prior to submitting a proposed PRO application as required by Section 3.30.040 of this Chapter, submit an application showing a proposed schematic development plan for the subject property. A schematic development plan shall be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council as provided in this section. B. What to Include in a Schematic Development Plan. A schematic development plan application shall include the following: A review fee of five hundred (500) dollars. Fifty percent (50%) of the schematic development plan application fee may be applied to the application fee for a PRO zone if the City Council recommends that an applicant submit the application as provided in subsection (4) of this section. A public hearing notice fee as required by The City Codes, and Administrative policies of The City of Rexburg, ID. A statement detailing efforts by the applicant to assemble property to achieve logical boundaries for the proposed development. A schematic development plan which shows how a property could be developed under proposed PRO zone regulations. A schematic development plan shall be drawn to scale and must show a realistic layout reflecting how the property reasonably could be developed considering the development standards of a proposed PRO zone, and existing and envisioned conditions on the subject property and adjoining property. A schematic development plan should show at least the following; whatever is shown shall be construed as the intent of the plan: Location of proposed uses, including dwelling unit density and occupancy. Height, location, bulk and preliminary elevations of buildings. Location, arrangement and configuration of open space, landscaping, and building setbacks. Location, access points, and design of off-street parking areas. Number, size and location of signs. Street layout, and traffic and pedestrian circulation patterns, including proposed access to the property. Relationship of the property to adjoining and nearby properties and uses. A schematic development plan is not intended to permit actual development of property pursuant to such a plan but shall be prepared merely to represent how the property could be developed. Submittal and review of an application for a schematic development plan shall not create any vested rights to development. NOTE: The City may be divided into the following zoning districts, the boundaries and extent of which shall be shown on official Rexburg Zoning Map by the Community Development Department: Residential Zones (a) Low Density Residential 1 (LDR1) (b) Low Density Residential 2 (LDR2) (c) Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3) (d) Medium Density Residential 1 (MDR1) (e) Medium Density Residential 2 (MDR2) (f) High Density Residential 1 (HDR1) (g) High Density Residential 2 (HDR2) (h) Rural Residential 1 (RR1) (i) Rural Residential 2 (RR2) Commercial District Zones (j) Neighborhood Business District (NBD) (k) General Business District (GBD) (l) Central Business District (CBD) Highway Business District Zones (m) Local Business Center (LBC) (n) Community Business Center (CBC) (o) Regional Business Center (RBC) (p) Light Industrial District (LI) (q) Heavy Industrial District (HI) Other Zones (r) Sexually-Oriented Business Overlay Zone (SOB) (s) Professional Office Zone (POZ) (t) Technology and Office Zone (TOZ) (u) Airport District (AP) (v) Public Facilities Zone (PF) (w) Open Space Overlay (OS) (x) University District (UD) (y) Transitional Agricultural 1 (TAG1) (z) Transitional Agricultural 2 (TAG2) (aa) Project Redevelopment Option (PRO) Mayor Larsen indicated that the proposed land use designation changes do not change the existing zoning for an area. This would be done in a separate public hearing process. He asked the Council to deliberate the proposals that were submitted to change the land use designations for four areas. He indicated that all of the proposals would need to be acted upon. The next opportunity for land use changes on the Comprehensive Plan Map would be in six months. City Attorney Zollinger concurred with Mayor Larsen that the Council would need to act on all four proposals. Council Member Young asked to review one area at a time. Council Deliberation: Area One: Council Member Erickson reviewed the Planning and Zoning decision to deny Area One because it is being used for agriculture. There is no commercial development planned at this time. Council Member Erickson moved to deny the request to change the land use designation for Area One from agricultural to commercial; Council Member Pugmire seconded the motion; Discussion: Council Member Pugmire asked who the applicant was for Area One. Planning and Zoning Administrator Hibbert indicated that the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Map had been modified to exclude the Sugar City Impact Area from the proposal after the Planning and Zoning Commission denied the request. The applicant was Mr. Willard Price, who withdrew his request to re-zone the property. Also, the Stoddard property that was included in Area One needs to be removed from the proposal because they did not want to change there property from light industrial to commercial. P&Z Administrator Hibbert indicated that the City can re-zone Impact Area properties through the public process. Council Member Benfield asked for consideration for the request because there will be development in Area One within a year. Who is going to be responsible for the interchange that is under discussion at this time? She wanted to look at it now. Council Member Pugmire reviewed the original request that asked for annexation and re-zoning. The Council read the motion to deny the request by Planning and Zoning. Council Member Erickson indicated that it may develop and it may not develop. This request jumps over agricultural ground that is closer to the City. Council Member Pugmire agreed to look at a proposed change due to the location being near the north interchange. Mayor Larsen mentioned that there is a need to provide for a commercial corridor along 2nd East out to the north interchange. Council Member Young asked to deny the request until the map was corrected and there was a request from an applicant. Council Member Benfield indicated that the Comprehensive Plan is looking forward and that is what we need to do at this time. Mayor Larsen reviewed the land use designations for the area as needing to have commercial and light industrial uses. He recommended a commercial corridor on the east side of 2nd East with light industrial to the rail road track. Council Member Young asked that the Map be redone to exclude the properties that are not part of this request. Council Member Benfield reiterated her belief that the Comprehensive Plan is a plan for future growth instead of a plan that is changed as property develops. Council Member Benfield moved a substitute motion not following the recommendations of Planning and Zoning and to change the land use designation along the 2nd East corridor to commercial (one block on the east side of 2nd East) and light industrial by extending the current land use designations from the City out to Hwy 20; no second was given, so the motion failed. Mayor Larsen asked the Council to consider the original motion by Council Member Erickson. Those voting aye were Council Members Young, Erickson, and Anderson. Those voting nay were Council Members Pugmire and Benfield. The motion carried by a vote of three to two. Area Two: Mayor Larsen indicated that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this proposal. It is the Dean Grover property. P&Z Administrator Hibbert explained this area on the overhead screen. The Val Grover home is in the middle of the blue band. There is a large commercial development that is being proposed for this area from 2nd East back to the Stonebridge Subdivision. It is now designated as a multifamily area. This proposal is north and east of the current Wal-Mart store. Council Member Erickson was concerned with the request to change the land designation next to the Stonebridge Subdivision. He has sympathy for the homeowners in the Stonebridge Subdivision because the multifamily designation as a buffer for the Subdivision from the commercial area on 2nd East. It is a proposal from a Developer to seek a Wal-Mart proposal. He recommended the one area on the north of 7th North could be approvable; however, he recommended that the Council deny one behind Wal-Mart. He did not want to make a change without a solid plan for development. Council Member Anderson concurred with Council Member Erickson and asked why the City should make a change without a proposal. Council Member Pugmire mentioned the need to maintain a buffer for the residential zone. He agreed with Council Members Erickson and Anderson. Council Member Young moved to approve 2A and deny 2B; Council Member Anderson seconded the motion; Discussion on the request being one or two requests. P&Z Administrator Hibbert indicated that applicant would withdraw the request if they were not approved together. They were presented as one proposal in Planning and Zoning. Council Member Young withdrew his motion with the consent of Council Member Anderson. Council Member Young moved to deny the request to re-designate Area Two (2A and 2B); Council Member Erickson seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Area Three: Council Member Pugmire reviewed the history of the 2nd East proposals for development. We are missing some tools to solve the problem. He will oppose the proposals on Area Three and Area Four. “This neighborhood is already mixed use”. He grew up in the neighborhood. He does not think there are people of higher integrity than Dr. Smith and Dr. Lovell. He encouraged the East Main Street Neighborhood Association to work with these gentlemen. He wanted the professional community to know that this neighborhood does matter for generations to come. This proposal is not the answer. Council Member Benfield echoed the comments from Council Member Pugmire. The professionals are part of our community too. The residents will co-exist with the Medical area. She reviewed the downtown area and indicated that she did not think it was a problem to have co-existence. We are progressing down that road of co-existence. We have great professional communities and great neighborhood communities. How do we provide business parking for these businesses? They have to be a part of our community. Council Member Anderson asked why the Land Use designation was changed from commercial for this area. P&Z Administrator Hibbert explained the Professional Office Overlay concept that has been applied for the Professional Plaza has also been applied in other areas in Rexburg. The Planning and Zoning Commission developed a Pro-Zone to get rid of the Professional Overlay in residential neighborhoods. The area has gone back and forth over time from commercial to residential. Council Member Erickson reviewed the history of a recent change in the Land Use designation as being changed due to emotional reasons. It allows property owners to do with their property what they want to do with their hard earned money in a reasonable way in a Mixed Use Zone. He has no problem with Mixed Use in Area Three. Residents can stay in their homes in a Mixed Use Zone. They will not be evicted out of their homes. We can correct mistakes that were made in the past. Neighbors can coexist; as the neighbors next to the Hospital expansion project will coexist. He supported a Mixed Use proposal for Area Three. Council Member Anderson indicated that no one has to sell their property in a Mixed Use Zone. Mayor Larsen reviewed the problems with a Neighborhood Business District. Neighborhoods can change with this designation. He recommended a Pro-Zone and urged the Council to work with the neighborhood and the doctors to come together to solve the land use designation for this area by using a Pro-Zone. The purpose of zoning is to control what is done in a particular zone. Council Member Erickson concurred with Mayor Larsen that land owners can do what they want to do with their property within the confines of the zoning laws. Council Member Pugmire discussed the option of having a committee of all parties to work for a resolution to the needs of the parties on all sides of the issue. Mayor Larsen concurred with that idea. Council Member Benfield asked for a review of the Pro-Zone. P&Z Administrator Hibbert explained the definition and process for a Pro-Zone. It allows for redevelop and reinvestment in an older neighborhood. He reviewed Ordinance 926 with the need for a neighborhood commitment. Council Member Benfield asked about parking for a Pro-Zone area. Mr. Hibbert indicated that a Pro-Zone designation could be used in a residential or a commercial area. Council Member Young recommended the Pro-Zone option so that the developers could bring a proposal forward to the City. Council Member Erickson indicated that the Council has caused this dilemma due to the Council decisions. It was a concern for him. He felt an obligation to correct a problem that the Council caused. Mixed Use is an acceptable compromise on both sides of the discussion. Council Member Pugmire appreciated Council Member Erickson’s concern. The Comprehensive Plan 2020 was where the decision to change the area back to residential use. He recommended a mechanism to allow the parties to try to resolve the issue before a hard decision is made. How much can be agreed upon. Council Member Erickson indicated that Planning and Zoning recommended that this area should go to Commercial Use in the Comprehensive Plan 2020 hearings. This time the Planning and Zoning Commission has left the decision up to the Council. They went through the Public Hearings and came up with a decision that the Council overturned. Council Member Pugmire moved to deny the land use changes in Area Three; no second was given. The motion died for lack of a second. Council Member Erickson moved to change the land use from (low to medium) residential density to mixed use in Area Three; no second was given. The motion died for lack of a second. City Attorney Zollinger indicated that the Council has to act on the request. He suggested a zone change moratorium until the proper zone is available up to a 180 days. Mayor Larsen appreciated the recommendation and indicated that the Pro-Zone fulfills that same option. The ultimate say on a development in the Pro-Zone lies with the Council. He recommended that the neighbors and developers work together to come to some agreement. Council Member Anderson asked if that could be done with time constraints. Mayor Larsen explained the Pro-Zone concept. Discussion from the Council concerning making a second motion similar to Council Member Pugmire’s motion that died for lack of a second. Council Member Pugmire moved to deny the request for a land use designation change for Area Three and to have the Council instruct the Mayor to form a reasonably small citizens group to come up with a proposal for future action by the Council; Council Member Young seconded the motion; Discussion: Council Member Benfield asked how many people and who would they represent. Council Member Pugmire indicated that the group should be reasonably small with an elected official that is a non-voting member with Staff assistance. Council Member Erickson indicated that the committee needs to be an equal number of people for and against the proposal. Council Member Benfield recommended having three members on each side of the proposal. Council Member Pugmire amended his motion to include three voting members on each side of the proposal plus a non voting member (Mayor or Council) with staff support; Council Member Young concurred and he second the amended motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Area Four: Mayor Larsen reviewed a letter concerning a proposal for a Re-development Zone in Area Four. He did not see a reason to act on the request to change Area Four. A group of neighbors will submit a Re-Development Plan for Area Four. Council Member Pugmire asked if his motion on Area Three would be applicable to Area Four. Council Member Pugmire moved to deny the request to change the land use designation for Area Four; Council Member Anderson seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion to deny carried. Beatification Committee Proposal: Glen Crawford (Chairman of the Beautification Committee) provided examples of directional signage for Rexburg. He gave sign examples to the Council for landmark, park, monument, and welcome to Rexburg signs. The Committee is working on a different Seal for the City. He was seeking Council input. Council Member Erickson thought the proposed signs looked very good. The Council took the sign proposals under advisement. 8:00 P.M. - Re-Zone 232 North 1st East – Madison School District #321 Varr Snedaker at 148 South 5th West (representing Madison School District), provided some background on the request to rezone this property. It is a home south of the School District Offices they plan to use the home for computer networking for the School District. They will have plenty of parking. P&Z Administrator Hibbert mentioned that the zoning would change from LDR2 to Professional Office. Mayor Larsen opened the Public Hearing for public input. Those in favor of the request: Varr Snedaker was in favor of the request. Those neutral to the request: None Those against the request: None The Public Hearing was closed for public comments. Discussion: Council Member Anderson spoke as a neighbor to this parcel. She was concerned with the upkeep of the District Office. It is terrible to have a public facility that is under maintained. It is a Public Facility that is not being kept up as well as the Schools in the City. Council Member Erickson was in agreement with Council Member Anderson. Varr was asked to convey to the School District Administration that the whole area needs to be cleaned up. Planning and Zoning has requested the School District to clean up the lot to the north of this lot. Mayor Larsen indicated that Council Member Anderson makes a good point. If the zone is changed, the home could be razed and a cinderblock building or a steel building could be built in its place. This would not reflect the presentation of a home on this parcel. Varr was in agreement that the area was not maintained as needed due to funding. Varr Snedaker indicated that the home is planned to be a Computer Tech Office for the School District. Council Member Benfield mentioned that the schools are a priority for the District; however, something needs to be done to clean up the School District Offices. Grass would be good for this area. Mayor Larsen asked the requestor to maintain the residential nature of the home for the neighborhood. Council Member Pugmire indicated that additional protections need to be built into the Ordinance to help protect the neighborhood. City Attorney Zollinger indicated that the zone change could be conditioned upon rational parameters that would require the home to be maintained in a yard-like fashion. His parents live in the neighborhood and they do not want an extension of the bus barn into this area. A site plan review would be necessary for this action to happen. Council Member Young moved to grant the zone change as requested with the condition that the School District maintain the residential flavor of the neighborhood; Council Member Benfield seconded the motion; Discussion: Council Member Erickson asked for a good faith letter from the School District to maintain the residence as a home in the neighborhood. Council Member Pugmire discussed changes in the motion to help maintain the yard in a yard-like fashion. Council Member Young moved to amend his motion to change from LDR2 to Professional Office Zone with the current structure being remodeled on the inside and the grounds being maintained in a yard-like fashion. Council Member Benfield concurred with the second. All voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. 8:15 P.M. - Re-Zone from (LI) to (TO) – Area North of Trejo Street (Light Industrial to Technology and Office Zone) P&Z Administrator Hibbert explained the request for Mr. John Bagley. It is a business park to attract high-end professional businesses. This is the first request for a Technology and Office Zone. Mayor Larsen opened the Public Hearing: Those in favor of the proposal: John Bagley conveyed his support for the proposal to Mr. Hibbert before he left the meeting. Those Neutral to the proposal: None Those opposed to the proposal: None Council Member Erickson conveyed to the City Council that the Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend this proposal for approval. Council Member Erickson moved to approve the re-zone request north of Trejo as requested from Light Industrial (LI) to Technology and Office (TO) Zone for the area north of Trejo Street; Council Member Anderson seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Calendared Bills and Tabled Items: First Reading: Those items which are being introduced for first reading. BILL 939 Revision No. 1 for the “Development Code” - Ordinance 926 Mayor Larsen indicated that this BILL is amending Ordinance 926 which is the “Deployment Code” for Rexburg. City Attorney Zollinger indicated that this is a BILL amending an existing Ordinance 926. The needed changes have not been completed at this point. Mayor Larsen reviewed some of the changes (bullet points) that will be addressed. These include the following bullet point items that are scheduled to be included in the Development Code: Language clarification on area of compliance for multi-family units in an MDR Zone. Integration of the Subdivision Ordinance Integration of the Cell Tower Ordinance Integration of the Mobile Home Ordinance Elimination of separate parking lots in the LDR1 and LDR2 Zones Integration of the Planned Residential Development Ordinance Integration of the new Residential Business Zone (allows residential homes in appropriate zones to be converted into professional or business uses). Amendments to chapter eight for Impact Area regulations Amendments to LDR3 Zones to allow town homes Mayor Larsen explained that this is the second effort to continue the process of making “house keeping changes” to the Development Code. He recommended a first reading of the BILL to start the process to make these changes to the Development Code. City Attorney Zollinger indicated that the requests that are currently under consideration would not be covered under these bullet items except for the Ordinances that are being moved into the Development Code. New requests would be held in abeyance until these bullet items were approved as part of the Development Code by initiating this BILL with a first reading. Council Member Erickson moved to first read BILL 939 Revision No. 1 for the “Development Code”; Council Member Pugmire seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Second Reading: Those items which have been first read. BILL 940 – Mayor’s Salary Council Member Pugmire moved to consider BILL 940 as 2nd read; Council Member Benfield seconded the motion; Discussion: Council Member Pugmire indicated that it should be a full time position with a proportionate salary. This BILL could be changed by amendment on the third reading to a full time position. A second amendment would be to change the salary amount. All voted aye except Council Member Young who voted nay. The motion carried. BILL 943 – Annual Appropriation (Budget for 2006) Council Member Pugmire moved to consider BILL 943 as 2nd Read; Council Member Benfield seconded the motion; Mayor Larsen indicated that this BILL has been developed over a long process. He asked the City Council to review the budget before the final reading on September 07, 2005. All voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Third Reading: Those items which have been second read. BILL 942 Sale of Beer/Wine hours and holiday restrictions (Align the City Codes with the State Codes - State Statute 23-1012) Council Member Pugmire moved to 3rd read and adopt for final Passage BILL 942; Council Member Erickson seconded the motion; Discussion: Council Member Pugmire mentioned that the City Council should take action to lesson the use of the drug. He regretted passage of the BILL. This action brings into alignment enforcement practices of the code that have been followed for years. Council Member Pugmire indicated that Rexburg enjoys a unique status of not allowing hard liquor. He wanted that practice to continue. The Council discussed current retailers that sell beer and wine. One business indicated that they sell these products to ten percent of their customers. As Rexburg develops, there will be continued pressure to change this code that does not allow liquor by the drink. Mayor Larsen indicated that he appreciated the uniqueness of Rexburg where hard liquor is not sold. He worked for a Senator that lost his daughter by a drunk driver. He called for a roll call vote. Those voting aye Those voting nay Paul Pugmire None Donna Benfield Rex Erickson G. Farrell Young Irma Anderson All of the Council Members that were present voting aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Tabled Items: Those items which have been the subject of an affirmative vote to a motion to table: Resolution 2004-22 (Adoption of Vision 2020 Rexburg Comprehensive Plan Text – Tabled November 03, 2004) Old Business: Marsha Bjorn at 540 Gemini Drive asked the City Council permission to comment on the pay raise for City Council positions. She disagrees with the City Council concerning the recent decision to abandon the $50.00 increase in the Council salaries that was on the last agenda. Mark Nygren’s Committee spent a lot of time reviewing this issue. She hated to see the City Council disregard the recommendations of the Citizen’s Committee. Council Member Erickson indicated that he did make a motion to support the Committees recommendation for a $50.00 raise before for the next City Council term. He also agreed on the BILL to raise the Mayor’s salary to a full time position. Mayor Larsen asked the Council if they wanted to reconsider the City Council raise. Council Member Benfield was absent from the meeting when this issue was considered. She indicated that she would have voted in the affirmative to raise the salaries for the City Council. Council Member Pugmire indicated that the members of the Council that voted against the measure would have standing to reconsider the BILL 941. City Attorney Zollinger agreed with Council Member Pugmire. Council Member Young indicated that he would move to reconsider BILL 941 for the next meeting; Council Member Anderson seconded the motion; Discussion: Council Member Pugmire is comfortable with the action, except it is at a late date to reconsider. City Attorney Zollinger reviewed the procedure. Council Member Pugmire indicated that this BILL would require a suspension of the Rules to pass the BILL by September 07, 2005. He was uncomfortable with the action being discussed at this late hour in the meeting. All voted aye, except Council Member Young who voted nay. The motion carried. Mayor Larsen asked how the City Council wanted to preceded. The City Council agreed to have BILL 941 on the Agenda for a 1st Reading on September 07th, 2005. Marsha Bjornn thanked the City Council and she agreed with the direction they are going with the City. Mayor’s Report: Tabernacle Flooring Bid reviewed: Mayor Larsen reviewed the bids on the repair of the Tabernacle floor. The repair bids ranged from $16,890, $11,198 to $8,861. Showcase Interiors was the low bid at $8,861. Council Member Pugmire moved to accept the low bid; Council Member Anderson seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. B. Levy increase proposal for fifty six (56) miles of streets: Mayor Larsen explained the need to review a proposal to ask the voters to approve a levy for the maintenance of City streets. Public Works Director Millar reviewed the cost of seal coating City streets every seven (7) years at $200,000 per year, street overlays every twenty (20) years at $400,000 per year, and a complete street re-due which includes redoing the base and repaving the street. He indicated that the City could spend $1,500,000 each year on these budget items. The City has only been able to budget $300,000 to $350,000 per year for these items in the last five years. NOTE: The actual expense for street maintenance for those five years averaged $382,229. PWD Millar handed out a sheet to the City Council that estimated future street construction expense derived from the Transportation Study in conjunction with the County, for the next twenty one (21) plus years at $83,100,000. These costs include traffic control, street lighting, storm drainage facilities, signage, and street amenities. He indicated that the City just finished projects that were scheduled for the year 2002. The City is currently three years behind the street maintenance decision that was made six years ago. Council Member Erickson asked some detail questions on the past spending for street maintenance. PWD Millar indicated that the City has bounced around on the amount spent for street repairs each year due to the timing of construction projects and the budget cycle schedule. F.O. Horner reviewed the budget numbers for the Council on street maintenance over the past few years. Council Member Erickson asked for more information on the cost of this levy for each home owner. He would like to see the numbers in writing. FO Horner indicated that the increase in taxes for a $100,000 assessment would be about $190 per year. The levy would be dedicated to road maintenance and repair. Two thirds plus one of the voters would have to approve the levy increase. Mayor Larsen explained that there are other entities looking at levy increases. The City can provide information on the levy; however, the City can not campaign for the levy increase. He suggested putting the levy request on the November ballot. The City Council discussed the options and they decided to move forward with a levy increase request in November. F.O. Horner mentioned that $900,000 plus funding is needed to start catching up with needed street repairs. Adjournment ____________________________________ Shawn Larsen, Mayor ___________________________________ Blair D. Kay, City Clerk