Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002.08.20 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL August 20, 2002 7:30 P.M. STATE OF IDAHO, ) County of Madison ) SS. City of Rexburg ) Present were the following: Mayor: Mayor Bruce Sutherland Council Members:Glen Pond - Excused Shawn Larsen Marsha Bjornn Paul Pugmire Donna Benfield Nyle Fullmer P&Z Administrator:Kurt Hibbert City Clerk:Blair D. Kay Finance Officer:Richard Horner PFC:John Millar City Attorney:Stephen Zollinger Mayor Sutherland welcomed the citizens and guests to the meeting and explained the history of the effort to have a Recreation Center in Rexburg. Mayor Sutherland announced the public input process for the meeting and reviewed the ground rules for the meeting. This is not a Public Hearing. Mayor encouraged the public to refrain from personal confrontations. This meeting will cover material gathered by the Recreation Committee over the last 22 months. The Recreation Center discussion will entertain two or three minute statements from the public. Pledge of allegiance. Glen Pond was excused from the meeting. Approval of Minutes Marsha Bjornn made a motion to approve the work meeting minutes of August 07, 2002. Donna Benfield The motion carried. seconded the motion. All voted aye, none opposed. New Business nd 2 Design presentation of the Recreation Center - Ohlson-Lavoie Corp. · Community Center Citizens Committee Jill Anderson - Presented the report from the Recreation Center Citizens Committee. The Report will be on file at the City Clerks Office. The report reviewed the need to have a Recreation Center that 1 would be separate from BYU-Idaho facilities. Jill discussed the need for a Community Recreation Center to accommodate City growth. The Committee recommends that the City of Rexburg take a much more aggressive and responsible role in providing a year around educational, physical, cultural, and social facility for the Community. The Community will only grow as we provide facilities and opportunities to enable the growth. If the Community does not invest in our future, who will make that investment. Extensive research has been done on this process to examine the possibilities for a Recreational Center in Rexburg. Jill commented on new citizens moving into the Community. She said they asked what her name is and where is the nearest Recreational Center. The Committee is committed to making wise choices to enhance the future for our children and grandchildren. The Committee will focus on value, quality, and livability for our great City. nd Mr. Chuck Musgrave - Presented the 2 phase of the feasibility study for the City of Rexburg to build a Recreation Center. The display that he presented will be available at City Hall for public review. The planned customer base will encompass the surrounding geographic area containing about 50,000 people excluding BYU-Idaho students. The revenue base for the Recreational Center would have different rates as follows: 1) Rexburg Citizens 2) Non Rexburg Citizens The expenses for the Recreation Center were reviewed. Comprehensive operational expense per year would be approximately $1,031,641. The first three years will generate additional revenue because the facility is new. A staff of seven full time employees would be required for this complex. Part time employees could run as high as 30 employees, however the average for the year would be equivalent to 7 full time employees. The Report indicates annual passes of 1,000 per year. The correct projection for this Recreational Center would be 750 annual passes. Revenues - Consisting of admissions with discounts, annual passes, family passes, corporate rates, partial use memberships. The anticipated revenue would be $790,695 per year. This would cause a short fall of $240,946. Site for the Planned Recreation Center - It is in a flood zone. The building would be raised above the flood zone by sub surface material from the parking lot and open areas. This would create a lake for recreation. Examples for open space land use would include ball fields, lake, and ice skating. The site plan has been modified from the first presentation. There was an old lake bed in the area where the building was planned in the first presentation. The building will be fully accessible for handicap use. The building will be oriented to show the new Aquatic Center when you enter the building. From the main lobby area, you can access the community multi- Purpose room and the indoor playground without cost. The storage room and the catering kitchen would be in the same area. The other side of the lobby would encompass a large game room. Physical therapy rooms would be leased to professional people to serve the public needs. Therefore, from the front desk you would have a view of the preceding areas. Rock climbing and child care rooms would be available. There will be locker rooms, private showers, and family locker rooms for public accessability. Handicap facilities would be available in one of the locker rooms. The gymnasium would be for recreational as well as multi-purpose 2 use. One big room or four small rooms could be a use for the gymnasium. The locker rooms will have access to the hallway lockers. The pool will be a wave turbulence pool for more excitement. There will be a large whirlpool which could have a waterfall. There will be a lazy river for the fun leisure pool. The second Level will have two multipurpose rooms with a perimeter running track with a view of the lake and the wave pool. The climbing wall will be a two story wall. The pool will have large and small water slides and a play pool. Total cost is $8,894,174 for the project. The subsidy is $240,946 per year. Tom Kennelly - 269 Nez Perce - Discussion on the effect of this proposal to the community. Tom reviewed the proposal and the number of people projected to use the Recreational Center. Other recreation projects were discussed in other cities. These facilities are not revenue neutral projects. The Cody, Wyoming facility was compared to the Rexburg Recreational Center proposed facility. Rexburg City can levy real estate taxes to cover short falls in the budget. Most citizens of Rexburg would like to have an aquatic center. The Nampa, Idaho facility was also discussed for comparison to the Rexburg proposal. Tom suggested a one year moratorium on the project to allow fund raising to proceed. The fund raising would include grants and pledges. nd Steve Herdie - 141 South 2 East - Concerned with the short fall expected from the Recreational Center. He asked how the City planned to cover the anticipated revenue short fall from the Recreation Center project. Kenneth W. Hart - 367 Salem ave - Reviewed the projected revenues that would come from the County and City citizens. Ken requested the cost on an annual family pass for City and County residents. Mayor Sutherland - The projected daily, monthly and annual fees for the Recreation Center are: Rexburg City ResidentsNon Residents Adults$5.00$6.25 Youth$3.00$3.75 Seniors$3.00$3.75 Single adult$275.00 - Annual$345.00 - Annual $23.00 - Monthly$29.00 - Monthly Youth/seniors$150.00 - Annual$190.00 - Annual $13.00 - Monthly$16.00 - Monthly Family*$42.00 - Monthly$53.00 - Monthly $500.00 - Annual$625.00 - Annual Family**$100.00 - Additional Adults$100.00 - Additional Adults $25.00 - Additional (youth/child)$25.00 - Additional (youth/child) *Family consists of 2 adults and up to 4 (youth/children) **Additional Family members This report will be available in the City Clerks’ Office which includes Corporate discount rates and rental fees for different uses of the facility. 3 Discussion on the City/County split for the users of the facilities. About 60 percent of the usage would come from the County and about 40 percent from the City residents. Mayor Sutherland discussed the proposal and the possibilities available to the City residents for proceeding with the proposal. Chuck Musgrave - Reviewed the overall scope of the proposal and the basis for the projected 50,000 people who live in the surrounding area that may use the facility. Jim Green - Concerned if University employees would use the facility due to the fee structure being more than the University fee structure. Mayor Sutherland - Indicated that the growth of the University would prevent a status quo of public use at the University. The Students and Staff and Faculty would maximize their facility. rd Gerald Larsen – 575 South 3 East - Asked if the Library could be included in this facility. Reviewed the additional options available at the Nampa facility that the proposed Rexburg facility has not included. He discussed other facilities in the State and their financial backers. Mayor Sutherland - The Recreation Committee report in 1999 indicated a larger auditorium was needed for the orchestra. The Mayor commented on past reports indicating a need for a community recreational center. In November of 1999 the Library indicated a need for a larger library. The High School, Library and City Recreation Committee have worked together to explore shared cost in January 2000 or 2001. Subsequent discussions with the High School indicated a need for a new High School. The Library has done some remodeling to help their needs in the short term. Rexburg can’t be compared to Nampa or Cody to resolve Rexburg issues. Gordon Thatcher – 239 Mohawk Ave - Discussion on the local Sports and Fitness Club. Will the City run this facility out of business? How many residents are willing to pay for this proposed facility? Have we considered how many BYU-Idaho faculty will use the facility? Will the patrons of the Sports and Fitness Club use the proposed facility? Gordon recommended building a smaller facility. Gordon was concerned with the impact the proposed facility would have on the Sports and Fitness Club. He did not feel it was appropriate for the City of Rexburg to provide a facility to include the Upper Snake River Valley. He felt the proposed project was over reaching the Cities ability. He would prefer to spend the money on a High School, street improvements and other things. David Stein - Barney Dairy Road - Asked for more information on other Cities feasibility studies when they built their Recreational Centers. Chuck Musgrave - He has done recreation studies around the world. His Company has done about 3,000 feasibility studies for Communities across the United States. These reports run on the conservative side. He estimated that 19 out of 20 studies are conservative. The numbers in this report are true but conservative. There will be a short fall. This study is comparing other communities with Rexburg. The study indicates more use in this Community than other similar communities. This study includes all of the costs. 4 Discussion on the family rates for the year. $500.00 for a family of six. There was concern with the amount of money a family could pay in Rexburg. Some residents go to Jackson Hole once in a while to use their facility. Sherwood Ricks - 2958 South 1400 West - Requested voting rights on this proposal if it is voted on in November. Blair Hilton - 546 Park Street - Asked if BYU-Idaho students could vote on this issue. He was not in favor of the University students’ ability to vote on a taxing bond for this facility. John R. Weber – 2863 West Highway 33 - Concerned with the ability of University students to vote on the proposal. Can this be built in phases? st David Allen – 270 South 5 East – Interest rates are at an all time low, let us proceed. Stephen McGary – 915 Hillview Drive - Representing the Citizens Committee presented the summation of the Committees proposal. In November of 2000 the proposal was initiated and this discussion tonight is the fourth step in the process. Each Citizen giving testimony tonight has given valuable analysis phase input on the proposal. However, the process is still in the . The difference between needs and wants needs to be evaluated. The magnitude of the cost is very apparent to th the Committee. As the Committee moves to the 5 step in this process, they would seek alternative bids. Stephen reviewed the different ways to fund this proposal as follows. Engage in a 6 to12 month fund raising process to seek capital funding This could include: a) Grants b) Sell pledges for annual memberships c) Private funding d) Corporate partnerships ownership Private funding would allow the citizens to claim through community ownership contribute without funding the project with increased taxes. Allow the citizens to what they can for the project. Take charge of our future and put our private funds to use. The Clair Boyle Skate Park was paid for with donations, grants and 10% from the City of Rexburg. Other facilities built or remodeled with a Community effort in Rexburg were discussed. Stephen McGary reviewed the Harold and Bernice Jones facility in Arkansas. This facility was built for the betterment of the Community. Stephen reviewed the Jones facility on the overhead screen. The endowment fund and community volunteers pay the operating costs for this Recreational Center. The volunteer program keeps the operating costs manageable. Stephen asked the City Council to allow a 6 to 12 month time period for the Committee to launch a fund raising effort to help build a Recreational facility for Rexburg. Mayor Sutherland - Asked the Council for input. 5 Paul Pugmire - He was impressed with the attendance at the meeting and the work from the Committee. Paul reviewed the Council options. Paul will not support a large deficit-funding program. Porter Park Swimming was subsidized $40,000 per year. The Community has a history of supporting good programs for the citizens. Paul is not in favor of having a vote on the General Election in November. Paul would prefer to make a motion to post pone having the vote in November until a future date. The earliest date would be no time sooner that February 2003. Paul Pugmire made a motion to delay the vote on the Recreational Bond until a future date no time sooner than February 2003; Donna Benfield seconded the motion and gave her appreciation to the large number of citizens that came out to voice their opinions on the Recreation Center. Although the Center is needed, this proposal is too costly. What do we need and what can we afford. Donna recommended waiting a year before taking action on the proposal. Marsha Bjornn - Reviewed the subsidy amount and the fund raising proposal. Recreation enhances our quality of life. She is not ready to support a Bond at this time. Marsha discussed the need for a plan to finance the proposal. Marsha would prefer to allow the Committee the opportunity to raise funds for the project. Shawn Larsen - He would not support a special election in February 2003. Shawn appreciates the Committees effort to reduce the Bond amount with a fund raising project. He would not support additional property taxes to pay for the annual operational cost. The Nampa facility was used as a comparison as well as the Colorado facility. These facilities are not revenue neutral. Shawn requested a fund raising project for the Porter Park Pool. He challenged the Community to raise money to upgrade the Porter Park pool if they think the Community Recreational facility is too costly. Maybe in a year the people could vote on the proposal to rebuild the Porter Park pool. Nyle Fullmer - This issue is not driven by City Council. This is being driven by Community interest. The Committee is working on the project to seek Community support. Nyle will not support the February 2003 Bond election. Paul Pugmire - Clarified his motion stating no date sooner than February 2003 for a Bond election. The motion only means the election could not be held sooner that February 2003. Shawn Larsen - Why does the Council have to have a motion on this issue? Paul Pugmire - The motion was to establish definition of the November 2002 election that there would not be a vote on a Bond election in November 2002. Mayor Sutherland – Called for a vote on Paul’s motion to delay the bond election. Voting in FavorVoting Against Marsha BjornnShawn Larsen Donna BenfieldNyle Fullmer Paul Pugmire The motion carried Marsha Bjornn – Discussion on creating a Parks and Recreation Committee for the purpose of formulating policy recommendations and advising the City Council on these matters. 6 Marsha Bjornn made a motion to create a tax-exempt fund similar to the fund for the Clair Boyle Skate Park. This fund would accept donations for the Community Recreational Center. Nyle seconded the motion, Discussion: Shawn Larsen - If someone donates to this fund, who will decide where the money is applied? Mayor Sutherland - the money would be specifically for the Recreation Center. Shawn Larsen – Discussed an alternative option of giving two options for the Recreational donations. A)Donations for rebuilding Porter Park facilities B)Donations for the Proposed Recreational Center Marsha Bjornn – Maybe another group would be interested in forming a Committee to work on Shawn’s proposed Porter Park project. Shawn Larsen – Requested that the Community decide through the fund raising process which project they are willing to support. Discussion on the process for doing the fund raising. Shawn Larsen offered a substitute motion to allow a second line item on the Recreational fund raising effort. This would be to rebuild the Porter Park facility. The donor could choose to fund the nd proposed Recreational Center on 2 North or the Porter Park facility. There was no seconded to Shawn’s motion and it died for the lack of a second. A vote was taken on Marsha’s motion to set up a tax-exempt account to accept funds for the Community Recreation Facility. Voting in FavorVoting Against Marsha BjornnShawn Larsen Donna Benfield Nyle Boyle Paul Pugmire The motion carried. Nyle Fullmer - Thanked the Recreation Committee for all of their hard work. Mayor Sutherland - Discussed the family rates. 8:45Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit - 338 East Main Street - Raymond Hill rd 8:55Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit - 113 South 3 East - Mary Lee Hill Stephen Zollinger - Requested that both properties be considered concurrently in the Public Hearing process. The requested appeal for these two properties is the same. Stephen reviewed the findings of fact on the Conditional Use Permits with the City Council and David H. Shipman. Both homes are two family units. The conditions in the finding of fact were reviewed. The properties will be heard as one Public Hearing. 7 rd Dave Shipman - 428 Park Ave, Idaho Falls - Attorney representing Ron Bird - 58 S. 3 E. in Rexburg - Reviewed the actions of the Planning and Zoning Commission on these two properties. Dave asked the Council to hear the evidence without using preference to the Planning and Zoning decision. Dave reviewed the cases and indicated that the Comprehensive Plans on page 10 Bullet #3 encourage strong family neighborhoods. The properties are in an LDR1 zone. This area is for single family residents. Both properties need a conditional use permit in LDR1. The Council does not have to approve these requests. Discussion on the definition of a family. Mr. Bird is concerned with having up to 16 students in these two homes. Planning and Zoning Ordinance Chapter 5, section 5.5 was reviewed: 5.5 Parking Plan Required. “ When a building or structure is constructed, erected or enlarged, when the capacity of a building or structure is increased, or when the use of a building or structure is changed and such change creates an increase of fifteen percent (15%) or more in off-street parking requirements, a parking plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. The plan shall show all parking spaces and their dimensions, access aisles, and entrances and exits to the site. The parking plan may be combined with the landscape plan required under Section 6-9. Parking provided shall conform to the following standards:” Mr. Bird does not want a mini dorm in these homes. Dave referenced Chapter 6 in the Planning and Zoning Ordinance book including section 6.3, section 6.4, section 6.9 and section 6.13 subsections B & C. The following sections of the Planning and Zoning Ordinance book are included for review to compliment the discussion on the concerns of Mr. Bird. 6.3 Planning and Zoning Commission “. There is hereby created a Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning & Zoning Commission is referred to in this Ordinance as the Commission. The Commission shall have the authority to consider and recommend to the Council ordinances, amendments thereto, and repeal of ordinances affecting zoning, planning, and building within the City of Rexburg. The Commission shall provide guidance and assistance to the Council, hold public hearings as required by law; shall grant or deny applications presented to the Commission; and shall make timely recommendations to the Council in all matters relating to this Ordinance in which the Council has final decision making powers. Any action taken by the Commission which will be final unless appealed, may be reviewed by the Council at their discretion, within twenty (20) days of commission action, if the Council believes there may be significant adverse impact as a result of Commission action.” 6.4 Duties of the Planning and Zoning Commission “. The Commission shall have the following duties as well as such others prescribed by law or assigned by the Council: 1. Review all proposed amendments to this Ordinance and make recommendations to the Council. Initiate proposed amendments to this Ordinance. 2. Conduct a comprehensive planning process designed to prepare, implement, review and update a Comprehensive Plan. Conduct a biannual review of this Ordinance and its implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. 8 3. Grant conditional use permits as specified in this Ordinance and make recommendations to the Council on those conditional use permits for which the Council has final decision making powers. 4. Grant variances as authorized by this Ordinance and Idaho statutes. 5. Complete site plan reviews as provided for in this Ordinance. 6. The commission is authorized by the City of Rexburg and Madison County to administer and enforce all rules and regulations pertaining to the area of the city impact for the City of Rexburg as provided in Chapter 10 hereof.” 6.9 Permits Required . No person shall erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, convert, or demolish any building, sidewalk, driveway, carport, parking area or any other structure, without first obtaining a building permit for each building, sidewalk, driveway, carport, parking area or any other structure from the City. To apply for a permit, the applicant shall file an application with the City Clerk or representative. To provide the information necessary to determine compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance, the application shall require the following: 1. Name, address, and phone number of applicant. 2. Name, address, and phone number of owners of the property, if owner is not the applicant. 3. Legal description of the property. 4. Existing use. 5. Proposed use. 6. Zoning district. 7. A site plan drawn to scale showing the actual dimensions and the shape of the lot to be built upon; the exact size and location of existing buildings on the lot, if any; the exact location and dimensions of the proposed building, sidewalk, driveway, carport, parking area or any other structure or alteration; the location, layout, and access of proposed on- site parking; and the location and type of landscaping, fencing, and screening proposed on the lot. 8. Building heights. 9. Number and dimensions of off-street parking spaces and loading berths. 10. Proposed water and sewer facilities. 11. Existing and proposed easements. 9 12. Proposed storm drainage for multi-family and commercial and industrial developments. 13. Such other matters as may be necessary to determine compliance with City ordinances. “6.13 Conditional Use Permits. Pursuant to Idaho Code Section 67-6512, the Council and Commission may issue conditional use permits. Prior to issuing a conditional use permit, at least one public hearing shall be held. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing, notice of the time and place and a summary of the application shall be published in the official newspaper or paper of general circulation with the City of Rexburg. Notice shall be posted on the premises not less than one (1) week prior to the hearing. Notice shall also be provided to property owners within three hundred feet (300') of the boundaries of the property and any others that the Commission determines shall be substantially impacted by the proposed development. A. Application. In addition to the information required under Section 6.9 above, the Administrator may require a narrative statement discussing the general compatibility of the proposed development with adjacent properties and the neighborhood, the relationship of the proposed use to the Comprehensive Plan, and the effects of the following on the adjoining property: noise, glare, traffic generated, vibration, odor, fumes, drainage, building height, massing, and solid waste. The Commission or Council may require that the applicant conduct studies of the social, economic, fiscal, and environmental effects of the proposed use. B. Standards Applicable to Conditional Use Permits. The approving body shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed conditional use and shall find adequate evidence to show that the proposed use will: (1) Constitute a conditional use as established in Table 1, Zoning Districts, and Table 2, Land Use Schedule. (2) Be in accordance with a specific or general objective of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the regulations of this Ordinance. (3) Be designed and constructed in a manner to be harmonious with the existing character of the neighborhood and the zone in which the property is located. (4) Not create a nuisance or safety hazard for neighboring properties in terms of excessive noise or vibration, improperly directed glare or heat, electrical interference, odors, dust or air pollutants, solid waste generation and storage, hazardous materials or waste, excessive traffic generation, or interference with pedestrian traffic. (5) Be adequately served by essential public facilities and services such as access streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer service, and schools. If existing facilities are not adequate, the developer shall show that such facilities shall be upgraded sufficiently to serve the proposed use. 10 6) Not generate traffic in excess of the capacity of public streets or access points ( serving the proposed use and will assure adequate visibility at traffic access points. (7) Be effectively buffered to screen adjoining properties from adverse impacts of noise, building size and resulting shadow, traffic, and parking. (8) Be compatible with the slope of the site and the capacity of the soils and will not be in an area of natural hazards unless suitably designed to protect lives and property. (9) Not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a historic feature of significance to the community of Rexburg. C. Supplementary Conditions and Safeguards . In granting a conditional use permit, the approving body may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards. Such conditions to be attached to the permit may include but not be limited to: (1) Minimizing adverse impact on other developments. (2) Controlling the sequence and timing of development. (3) Controlling the duration of development. (4) Assuring the development is properly maintained. (5) Designating the exact location and nature of development. (6) Requiring the provision for on-site or off-site public facilities of services; (7) Requiring more restrictive standards than those generally required in this Ordinance. D. Action by the Commission/Council. Within sixty (60) days after the public hearing, the approving body shall either approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the application. Upon granting or denying the permit, the approving body shall specify: (1) The provisions of this Ordinance and standards used in evaluating the application. (2) The reasons for approval or denial. (3) The actions, if any, the applicant should take to obtain a conditional use permit. E. Appeals. The applicant or any affected person may appeal a final decision of the Commission on a conditional use permit application to the Council by submitting a written appeal to the City Clerk within fifteen (15) days of the decision of the Commission. Decisions of the Council may be appealed as provided in Idaho Code Section 67-6521.” 11 Dave Shipman - Discussion on the definition of a family. Dave provided a definition of a family to the City Council that could be adopted by the Rexburg Planning and Zoning Ordinance. Conditions for a Conditional Use Permit - Where are you going to draw the line. What is a single family home? Dave recommended the following conditions for a conditional use permit. No more that two families with the following definition: 1) At least one family member is blood related 2) The family group is divisible into two sub groups Paul Pugmire - Reviewed the appeal and requested clarification from Mr. Dave Shipman. Dave Shipman - Requested that the Council deny the request for a conditional use permit. If the Council does approve the Conditional Use Permit, Dave asked that they use his definition of a family as a condition. Paul Pugmire - This appeal would require a separate family definition for these properties. Dave Shipman - Reviewed the request to deny the Conditional Use Permit as being consistent with Code and the City Council’s prerogative to define a family for these homes. This appeal requests that the City Council eliminate additional parking for additional students as a condition. Paul Pugmire - Asked Mr. Shipman if he wanted the City to Change the Code. Dave Shipman - Reviewed the conditions and safeguards that the Planning and Zoning Ordinance provide for single family neighborhoods. Nyle Fullmer - Reviewed the minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission that approved the Conditional Use Permit. Stephen Zollinger - A Conditional Use Permit for LDR1 zoning is allowed by right. The City requires Planning and Zoning review the application. The Commission has the opportunity to initiate conditions to the Permit. Stephen reviewed the change of use policy. The City Council can impose additional restrictions on parking. rd Shanna Haderlie - 3 East - The biggest housing issue at BYU-Idaho is Married housing. If this request is denied, we would loose housing for married students. Shanna Hill - 328 East Main Street - They purchased the property to keep it in the family. The back yard is planned for a park area for grand children and other children. The couples do not have children and only one car per family. They have no intention of renting to single students and they plan to maintain the neighborhood as a residential area. The neighbors are aware of their plans and they support their efforts. They plan to take care of their property and make it pleasing to the area. Shawn Larsen - Discussed the family definition. Marsha Sparhawk - They live adjacent to the property. They support the development of the property. They are concerned with having single students in the home. They support the Hills’ efforts and also understand Mr. Birds reasons for the appeal. 12 Dave Shipman - Reviewed Idaho Code section 676512 which states “Special Use Permits May be granted”. The Council may grant the permit, however the Council is not compelled to grant the permit. Dave referenced Section 6.13 of the Planning and Zoning Ordinance. David Daniels - 138 K street - Discussed the trend to make residential homes into rentals with apartments. He is concerned with the encroachment on the private home owners. Marsha Bjornn - Asked David if he would support conditions. He is concerned with consistency and protection for the homeowners and the developers. He was concerned about the over all plan for neighborhoods. Mayor Sutherland - Requested input from Planning and Zoning Commission. Public Testimony was closed Winston Dyer - commented on the situation and the Planning and Zoning Commissions intent to follow the comprehensive plan. We gave both of these requests for Conditional Use Permits due process. Careful deliberation was given to these requests by the Commission. The character of the neighborhood was kept in mind. This appeal would require a new definition for a family in the Zoning Ordinance. Marsha Bjornn - Reviewed the process for applying conditions to a future owner. Winston Dyer - You have to balance property owner rights with City Ordinances. Planning and Zoning is concerned with the University’s announcement to build married housing and the pressure that this decision will bring to bear on residential areas. Winston was concerned with homes being converted to apartments. Stephen Zollinger - This issue is not about parking - It is a single family residence verses a two family residence issue. Eight students in these residents would violate Rexburg City Ordinances. Shawn Larsen - The home on Mohawk did not raise the same concerns because the owners were going to live in the home. Stephen Zollinger - Recommends changing the definition of a family to simulate the definition brought forward by this appeal. It offers an assurance to maintain single family units. Planning and Zoning did their job correctly on these two Conditional Use Permits. The Zoning Ordinance does not allow four individual contracts per unit. Shawn Larsen - There was extensive discussion on these requests in the Planning and Zoning meeting. Paul Pugmire - Reviewed the appeal and the definition of a family. It makes good sense to look at the definition of a family when amending the Planning and Zoning Ordinance. Paul Pugmire made a motion to deny the appeal for the Conditional Use Permits and allow the Planning and Zoning Conditional Use Permits to stand. Marsha Bjornn seconded the motion, Discussion on the current and future use of these properties and the definition of a family. Paul included in his motion a request to change the definition of a family in the Zoning Ordinance. Marsha The motion carried. Bjornn seconded the amended motion, all voted aye, none opposed. 13 Mayor Sutherland - Thanked Steve Christensen for setting up the building for the meeting. Tentative Budget Approval - Richard Horner Richard Horner - Reviewed the tentative 2003 Budget fee increase for residential sewer. The average increase is $0.72 per home. The City of Sugar City and the City of Teton shall pay $1.24 per thousand gallons. Nyle Fullmer made a motion to send the proposed tentative sewer rate increase for 2003 to a Public Hearing at 8:00 p.m. September 04, 2002, Shawn Larsen seconded the motion, all voted aye, The motion carried. none opposed. Richard Horner - Reviewed the tentative budget for fiscal year from October 1, 2002 to September 30, 2003. Additions to the 2003 Budget include the new Planning and Zoning Administrator and the Ambulance Budget. Shawn Larsen made a motion to approve the tentative 2003 budget to be reviewed at the Public Hearing on September 04, The motion carried 2002. Nyle Fullmer seconded the motion, discussion. All voted aye, none opposed. . John Millar - Reviewed current City projects. Committee Reports Mayor’s Business Approval of Bills Paul Pugmire made a motion to approve the bills, Nyle Fullmer seconded the motion, The motion carried. all voted aye, none opposed. Adjourn ___________________________________ Bruce Sutherland, Mayor _____________________________________ Blair D. Kay, City Clerk 14