HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Minutes - September 07, 2022
1
Mayor Jerry Merrill
Council Members:
Robert Chambers Jordan Busby
Mikel Walker Tisha Flora
Colin Erickson Bryanna Johnson
City Staff:
Stephen Zollinger – City Attorney
Matt Nielson – Finance Officer
Keith Davidson – Public Works Director
Alan Parkinson – Planning & Zoning Administrator
Scott Johnson – Economic Development Director
Deborah Lovejoy – City Clerk
5.00 P.M. Recreation Study Overview Work Meeting (video index 0:07:40)
Mike Svetz reviewed the top priorities of investments for indoor Recreation Center Programs and
amenities. One of the key factors is to recognize the medium and high priorities when designing a building,
it would mainly focus on the experience patron’s desire.
Mike Svetz reviewed the priorities for investments in aquatic programs and aquatic amenities. There
weren’t any low priorities in these categories.
Kevin Armstrong reviewed the concecpt program spaces such as athletic, aquatic , activity and community
spaces.
35 North 1st East
Rexburg, ID 83440
Phone: 208.359.3020 x 2101
Fax: 208.359.3022
deborahl@rexburg.org
www.rexburg.org
City Council Minutes
September 07, 2022
2
Kevin Armstrong reviewed the concept plan and project site options.
Kevin Armstrong reviewed the location options for the recreation center at Riverside Park. They agreed
the south option would be preferrable.
Kevin Armstrong reviewed the building layout for the proposed options, keeping in mind the south option
is preferred.
Kevin Armstrong reviewed the key layout considerations. He explained the different rooms and spaces of
the recreation center. A request was made for a partition curtain between the competition pool and
recreation pool to not have to close down the recreation section of the pool when a swim competition is
taking place.
3
Kevin Armstrong reviewed the overall building form and massing.
Mike Svetz reviewed the next steps for the creation of a recreation center. The next presentation meeting is
scheduled for November 2nd.
4
Council President Busby asked how many basketball courts would be included in the facility. Kevin said
there are two middle school size basketball courts for adult and youth leagues. There is one high school size
basketball court. There are two volleyball courts and about six pickle ball courts. Council President Busby
asked about the capacity of the center. The capacity is about 1,500 people.
Discussion regarding the pool ventilation. They will address the ventilation system at the next meeting. The
purpose of this meeting is to address the community member’s recreation priorities. Mayor Merrill said the
Pro’s Consulting Group is assisting the city with concepts, the associated costs with a recreation center and
if it is feasible to have a Recreation District. An audience member said there are facilities in the city that
already have some of the proposed spaces. He felt like the recreation center is a duplication of the facilities
already existing. Mayor Merrill said surveys were sent to residents asking if their recreational needs were
being met. Many of the surveys came back indicating a lack of the items being proposed.
Discussion regarding the multi-purpose areas such as gymnasiums; however, not any that could be changed
to an ice-skating rink. A question was asked online regarding community memberships for the taxpayers
funding the facility. This question will be addressed in the subsequent meetings. The child watch area will be
gated. Discussion regarding the pool deck.
6:30 P.M. City Hall (0:00:21)
Council Member Chambers said the prayer
Council Member Walker led the pledge
Roll Call of Council Members:
Attending: Council Member Flora, Council Member Johnson, Council Member Chambers,
Council Member Walker, Council President Busby and Mayor Merrill.
Council Member Erickson asked to be excused.
Mayor Merrill asked for a motion to amend the agenda to move Item #10 Items for Consideration C.
Planning & Zoning recommendation to approve a rezone for Parcel No. RPRXBCA0291271, Located
South of Star View Dr. from Low Density Residential 1 (LDR1) to Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2) zone
#22-00420 after being remanded back to Planning & Zoning for the September 1st, 2022 meeting for
additional consideration by the commission to the beginning of the meeting.
Council President Busby moved to Amend the City Council Meeting Agenda; Council Member Walker
seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council Member Flora None
Council Member Johnson
Council Member Chambers
Council Member Walker
Council President Busby
The motion carried.
City Attorney Zollinger explained, city staff became aware yesterday of a loophole in the ordinance that
could potentially be exploited. He said rather than moving forward with a decision tonight city staff has
asked that the decision be tabled giving the Planning and Zoning Commission an opportunity to remove the
loophole because it creates a couple of iterations allowing duplexes, which creates higher density in some
sections. The original intention is that density is determined by zone and not by the configuration of the
homes. The Planning and Zoning Commission and city staff will create a finite definition of what the
density of a zone is independent of the type of structures. He said for example, if it is a connected home or
two individual single homes then ultimately, they would be required to have a total sum amount of land
whether it is a connected home or two single standalone homes. City Staff will present the proposed
definition to City Council for consideration.
5
Council Member Flora moved to table the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation to
approve a rezone for Parcel No. RPRXBCA0291271, Located South of Star View Dr. from Low Density
Residential 1 (LDR1) to Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2) Zone; Council Member Chambers seconded
the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council Member Flora None
Council Member Johnson
Council Member Chambers
Council Member Walker
Council President Busby
The motion carried.
Mayor Merrill asked when the Planning and Zoning Commissioner’s recommendations of the proposed
changes are going to be presented to City Council. City Attorney Zollinger explained the Planning and
Zoning Commission is already working on a modification on how the densities would work between LDR1,
LDR2 and LDR3 zones. They are also working on the rural residential designations. City Staff has asked
them to emphasize the LDR1 and LDR2 densities. There is not a specific time frame; however, they will
work as quickly as possible.
Council Member Johnson asked is the fixing of the loophole tied to discussion at a previous Planning and
Zoning/ City Council work meeting regarding changes to the Development Code. City Attorney Zollinger
said to a certain extent. There was a sentence omitted from the Development Code about two years ago;
however, the intention is always that the zone dictates how many units per acre. He said with the omission
of the sentence instead of requiring a duplex to dedicate 16,000 square feet for that duplex, the developer
could dedicate as little as 10,000 square feet in the parcel for that duplex and then set aside the other 6000
feet as open space or consistent with the Plan Unit Development (PUD) approach. Somewhere in the
iteration that was lost and Public Works Director Davidson and himself were not aware of it so they kept
evaluating on the 5.4 number until Mr. Richards with Headwaters Construction helped them to understand
the 5.4 was about three points short of what you could really get to in density.
Council Member Johnson expressed her concerns with the time it will take to resolve the changes to the
Development Code. City Attorney Zollinger explained he does not believe the Planning and Zoning
Commission wants to continue to be in conflict with the Building Department regarding the design for
individual residential properties. When the properties that people can live in excluding apartments; however,
including townhomes, twin homes, and duplexes, where individual ownership is a requirement. The
treatment of these types of homes is different in our city and we are the only city around that treats them
different. The other cities manage those forms of construction in other ways that remain consistent with the
building code. He said he does not know how long it will take City Council to deliberate on the way these
types of structures are treated; however, looking at it from the planning perspective, it should be about the
number of doors and not about whether it is one type of construction or another. He said from a planning
perspective, it's far too subjective to take a Brownstone in downtown New York which is 6000 square feet
and because it's considered a town home under the IRC it would be not allowed anywhere in Rexburg
where people would want to build a 6000 square foot house. As a city we are trying to get away from the
“that type of people” mentality.
Presentation: City of Rexburg Rebranding Guide – Shawn Randall, Studio 208 (0:12:10)
Economic Director Johnson said when he discussed the rebranding of the city’s logo, slogan, etc. he asked
Mayor Merrill if the slogan should be kept the same, which is America's Family Community. The answer
was overwhelmingly, yes! The city’s slogan was a guide for the rebranding decisions made.
Mr. Randall reviewed a draft of the work in progress for the city’s rebranding. He said the draft version is
quite robust and looks finished. As mentioned, a brand is more than a logo it is something everyone sees. A
logo is a collective understanding of what Rexburg is as a community. A brand guide is a culture document
meant to shape and form the culture of the city.
6
Mr. Randall said the family structure made a powerful introduction of the new logo. He said he refined the
logo and made a few changes and pointed out families come in all shapes and sizes. The logo has geometric
shapes to represent all types of people. The logo does not describe a specific ethnicity, culture, or anything;
it is a way to say we are together. The overlapping of the shapes represents the interdependency that we
have with each other.
Mr. Randall reviewed the city’s vision statement and who we are as America’s Family Community.
Mr. Randall said the slogan should be more than a catch phrase; it represents who we are and what we
stand for as a city and the importance of our values as a community.
7
Mr. Randall pointed out Rexburg is one of the youngest communities in the nation. He wanted to bring
the identity of the branding to reflect a little bit about that community makeup; therefore, there is multiple
shapes and variations in the logo. The number of people in the logo can also change.
Mr. Randall reviewed the logo variations and ink colors for the logo. The cyan color is a standard print
color and economical. This color is also representative of the sky’s beauty, clarity, and cleanliness of Idaho.
Mr. Randall reviewed the business card, letterhead, newsletter and form variations.
8
Mr. Randall reviewed the look and feel of the website with the new logo and color scheme. He reviewed
the streets signs, banners, and vehicle wraps.
Mr. Randall reviewed the swag items and apparel items with new branding and color scheme.
9
Public Comment: not scheduled on the agenda (limit 3 minutes); issues may be considered for
discussion on a future agenda. Please keep comments on point and respectful. (0:25:39)
Rick Robbins said he served on the city’s Traffic and Safety Committee for 12 years. There is a problem
with streetcar racing on First East from the old Kmart parking lot to the south. There are side-by-side drag
races taking over most weekends. He said law enforcement has been great about responding to phone calls
regarding the races; however, the races have continued even after he called law enforcement. He believes
there is a need for some traffic calming measures on this road. He was reviewing the Idaho Transportation
Department (ITD) guidelines for the use of traffic calming measures.
Mr. Robbins explained when looking at that street from the Kmart corner by the canal south, it looks like a
drag strip. The road is wide open because most people do not park their vehicles on the road. At night, the
street is dark, and he asked for the installation of another streetlight. He said about three weeks ago his
children were coming home from a neighbor’s house and it was after dark. They were at the stop sign on
2nd North and were walking east when a racer came by fast enough and close enough through the stop sign
and crosswalk that it blew his granddaughters headband off. He said his daughter said the racer was
traveling about 60 miles per hour. He seen the racer come through that street many times at about 40 miles
per hour when people are trying to cross by the corner coming from the canal.
Mr. Robbins said he is recommending additional speed limit signs, clearly painted crosswalks, and the
installation of speed bumps. There are different types of speed bumps that work for cold climates. The
installation of a speed indicator sign with a camera to detour the use of excess speed. He said he
understands a police officer cannot generate a ticket in Idaho based off a picture taken of a person speeding;
however, the police officer can issue a warning to the person. He also recommended the installation of
trespassing signs in the Kmart parking lot. He has seen a dramatic uptick in both the speeding and the
frequency of street racing, and it is completely unacceptable. He encouraged the help from City Council
regarding this issue. Mayor Merrill asked Mr. Robbins if he has been able to see the racers license plate
numbers. Mr. Robbins replied it is difficult to see any numbers or letters in the license plate because the
vehicles are going to fast.
Staff Reports: (0:30:56)
A. Finance: - Matt Nielson
10
1. Resolution 2022 – 22 Amend and Restate the City of Rexburg Salary Reduction Plan
Finance Officer Nielson explained every six years the city is required to restate the summary plan
documents related to the regular salaried Action Plan, which is the 401K Plan. He has included all the
documents related to the plan and has worked with the third-party administrator, which is Rudd and
Company. There are a couple of changes to the loan documents. There is a vague paragraph in the loan
document indicating a 20-year extension of a loan with the purchase of a residence. He said Rudd and
Company finds the 20-year extension problematic because the 401K loan is at a higher rate than a
conventional loan and if the person leaves employment at the age of 59 ½ years, they take the loan as
disbursement with penalties. He recommended to not include that option. There is a paragraph he
recommended be reinstated regarding the temporary suspension of payments if someone goes into the
military. The other changes were not substantial such as the IRS limits. The city has had the plan since 1985.
Finance Officer Nielson said he and Mayor Merrill are trustees; they will sign the updated documents and
send them to the third-party administrator. After the updates are made to the plan, it will be sent out to all
the city employees.
Council President Busby moved to approve Resolution 2022 – 22 to Amend and Restate the City of
Rexburg Salary Reduction Plan; Council Member Johnson seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a
vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council Member Flora None
Council Member Johnson
Council Member Chambers
Council Member Walker
Council President Busby
The motion carried.
B. Public Works: - Keith Davidson (0:34:29)
1. Fall Clean-up Days scheduled on October 18th to November 7th, 2022
Public Works Director Davidson recommended the Fall Clean-up Days starting October 18 to
November 7th. He said it is difficult to predict when the leaves are going to fall and hope these days will
work.
Council Member Johnson moved to approve the Date for the Fall Clean-up of October 18th to
November 7th, 2022; Council Member Flora seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council Member Flora None
Council Member Johnson
Council Member Chambers
Council Member Walker
Council President Busby
The motion carried.
2. Resolution 2022 – 21 Set a Public Hearing for Local Improvement District (LID) 50 Final
Assessment Role on October 5, 2022 (0:35:45)
Public Works Director Davidson reviewed Resolution 2022 – 21 to set a Public Hearing for Local
Improvement District (LID) 50 Final Assessment Role on October 5th.
Resolution No. 2022 - 21
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF REXBURG, IDAHO, FIXING THE TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING
ON THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 50 ASSESSMENT ROLL; PROVIDING FOR
PUBLICATION AND MAILING OF NOTICE THEREOF; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
11
WHEREAS, Local Improvement District Number 50 ("L.I.D. No. 50") of the City of Rexburg (the "City")
was created by Ordinance No. 1250 adopted by the City Council (the "Council") on February 2, 2022; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Ordinance No. 1250, the improvements within L.I.D. No. 50 have been
completed, and the City Engineer, as engineer for L.I.D. No. 50, has submitted a report showing in detail the total
cost and expenses of the improvements, the dollar amount thereof payable from assessments, and a form of
assessment roll showing the amount chargeable to each lot or parcel of property subject to assessment within L.I.D.
No. 50.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REXBURG,
IDAHO, as follows:
Section 1: The form of assessment roll for L.I.D. No. 50 prepared by the City Engineer shall be filed in the
office of the City Clerk, where it shall be available for public inspection during normal business hours.
Section 2: Wednesday, the 5th day of October 2022, at the hour of 7:00 pm, at the regular meeting place
of the Council, City Hall, 35 N 1st E, Rexburg, Idaho, is hereby fixed as the date, time, and place when and where the
Council will meet in open session for the purpose of considering the City Engineer's report on the assessment roll and
hearing any objections to the assessment roll by the owners of property within L.I.D. No. 50.
Section 3: The City Clerk shall give notice of the hearing specified in Section 2 above by publication of
notice in the official newspaper of the City, once a week for two successive weeks, the first such publicat ion being at
least fifteen (15) days before the date fixed for hearing objections to the assessment roll. The City Clerk shall also, not
less than fifteen (15) days before the date fixed for hearing objections to the assessment roll, mail notice of the hea ring
to each owner of property, if known, or his or her agent, if known, within the limits of L.I.D. No. 50, addressed to
such person at his or her post office address, if known, or, if unknown, to the main post office in the City of Rexburg,
Idaho. The mailed notice shall state the amount of the individual assessment as shown on the preliminary assessment
roll.
Section 4: The owner or owners of any property which is assessed in said assessment roll, whether named in
said assessment roll or not, may, within the time specified in the notice before the date and time fixed for the hearing,
file with the City Clerk his or her objections in writing to said assessment.
Section 5: This resolution shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and ap proval.
DATED this ___ day of ____ 2022.
CITY OF REXBURG
Madison County, Idaho
________________________________
SIGNED BY: Jerry Merrill, Mayor
________________________________
ATTEST: Deborah Lovejoy, City Clerk
EXHIBIT "A"
(See attached Notice of Hearing on Assessment Roll)
Council President Busby moved to approve Resolution 2022 – 21 to Set a Public Hearing for Local
Improvement District (LID) 50 Final Assessment Role on October 5, 2022; Council Member Chambers
seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council Member Flora None
Council Member Johnson
Council Member Chambers
Council Member Walker
Council President Busby
The motion carried.
3. Acceptance of Altura Community Consulting for Headworks Project Grant Administrators
(0:36:44)
Public Works Director Davidson explained the Request for Proposal (RFP) requesting grant
administration for the Headworks Building dependent on the city receiving the grant. Only one applicant
responded to the RFP. He recommended entering contract with Altura Community Consulting for the grant
administration.
12
Council Member Walker moved to approve the Contract with Altura Community for the administration
of the grant; Council President Busby seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council Member Flora None
Council Member Johnson
Council Member Chambers
Council Member Walker
Council President Busby
The motion carried.
Council Member Flora asked if there are other grant administrators in the state. Public Works Director
Davidson said there are other grant administrators; however, Altura Community Consulting is the only local
one in the area and other consulting companies have applied in the past.
Council President Busby asked for an update on construction projects in the city. Public Works Director
Davidson reported the work on LID 51 is on schedule. They are finishing the installation of the curbs this
week. There are delays in the installation of the traffic signal near the High School because there are power
poles in the way. He has contacted Rocky Mountain Power to remove the poles.
Mayor’s Report: (40:47)
Mayor Merrill reported he attended a meeting with a Medical Group proposing to help the city try to drive
medical costs down. He attended the EICAP annual conference last week, it was a beneficial meeting, he
learned a lot more about their mission. They are trying to help bring people out of the cycle of poverty to
become self-sustaining.
Public Hearing 7:00 P.M. – Fiscal Year 2023 Proposed Budget Changes for Tabled Ordinance
No. 1284. Take from the Table Ordinance No. 1284 if motion passes, consider Ordinance No
1284 third read – Matt Nielson (0:42:44)
Finance Officer Nielson said there were a few changes to the original Fiscal Year Proposed Budget. There
was a small change in property taxes and in the Fire District.
Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing
Public Testimony in favor of the proposal (5-minute limit): None
Public Testimony neutral to the proposal (5-minute limit): None
Public Testimony opposed to the proposal (5-minute limit): None
Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing.
13
Council Member Johnson moved to approve Ordinance No. 1284 Fiscal Year 2023 Proposed Budget
and consider third read; Council Member Walker seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council Member Flora None
Council Member Johnson
Council Member Chambers
Council Member Walker
Council President Busby
The motion carried.
Public Hearing 7:00 P.M. – Annexation of Approximately 1175 N 12th W and Rezone from
Madison County’s Residential ® and Rural Residential 1 (RR1) Zones to Low Density Residential
1 (LDR1) Zone #22-00489. Designated as Ordinance No 1289 if motion passes, and
considered 1st read – Kyle Baldwin (0:47:16)
Planner Baldwin reviewed a map of the proposed annexation property. The property is in the city’s Impact
area. The applicant is requesting a Low Density Residential 1 Zone. There is capacity for water and sewer.
All storm water will have to be handled on site.
Council Member Johnson asked if Madison County has approved the change. Planner Baldwin said the
county has not approved the Comprehensive Plan Map change; however, a public hearing is scheduled for
next week.
Brian Winter said he is the applicant for the proposed annexation and rezone. The property is adjacent to
the city limits. He was one of the developers of the Copper Heights subdivision. The annexation is a great
opportunity to tie into the city utility services, which are already partly stubbed. There may be several
connections to the property at the Northeast corner, and the second connection on 212 West. A traffic
study was completed, and they will continue to complete more studies if needed. He is requesting one of the
lowest zone densities. Council President Busby asked if there is going to be an entrance to the north of the
property. Mr. Winter said there are only two entrances.
Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing
Public Testimony in favor of the proposal (5-minute limit): None
Public Testimony neutral to the proposal (5-minute limit): None
Public Testimony opposed to the proposal (5-minute limit):
Brady Ward said he lives in the Sunrise Meadows subdivision, which is north of this proposed annexation.
He has a few concerns about the annexation process and the letters sent to the surrounding property
owners. There were three different letters about three different hearings and two different dates and at first
glance they looked like the same letter. He believes not knowing the letters were each different, it caused
confusion and affected people’s ability to attend the Planning and Zoning public hearing that was held on
September 1st. Another concern he has is how confusing the process of the two separate proposals that
were considered. The first proposal was to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map and the second proposal to
annex and rezone the property. In the hearing, it was evident that the public did not necessarily understand
14
the importance of the first hearing because there was very little comment or discussion about the
Comprehensive Plan Map change. So, then the commissioners recommended approval of the
Comprehensive Plan change, but when the commissioners deliberated on the second proposal which was
the annexation and rezone, there was more discussion and public comments; however, by that point at least
a few of the commissioners said, “well we've already recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan
Map change”. He said the commissioners thought by not approving the annexation and rezone it would be
a contradiction of the Comprehensive Plan and that kind of discussion from the commissioners quashed
any further discussion.
Mr. Ward said he believes there were some valid points made in opposition to this request, so his third
concern is about the proposal itself. When looking at Ferris Lane to the north of the proposed
subdivision, those lots are 1.3 acres and if that road continues to the west, the rezoning will allow for .275-
acre lots causing an abrupt change to the neighborhood. He said in his opinion the lot size variations are
not orderly growth. He said he has reviewed several city-zoning maps and was unable to find another
street in the city that continues in the manner that this street will continue with a RR1 Zone to LDR1
Zone on the same street. Mr. Ward recommended the rezone be denied and ask the developers to
consider an RR2 zone request instead of LDR1.
Ken Dunn said he agrees with everything Mr. Ward stated. He said when he addressed the Planning and
Zoning Commission, he had indicated being in the neutral position because he was there to learn about the
proposal, now he is opposed to this rezone for two main reasons. The first reason is the surrounding
properties are one acre or greater including the development Mr. Winter recently finished in this area. He
said the lot sizes are going from one third or as small as ¼ which is an abrupt change. The number of units
that could be packed into that area could be as many as 140. The next question is what about the traffic,
how will the residents enter and exit that area. He said he measured the road going into Pinewood and
found Ferris Lane is 2/3 of the width of the road that goes into Pinewood. There would be more traffic
coming through the two connecting roads. He said he completely agrees with the comments about the way
this process happened and it being confusing. Most citizens are not planners or developers; they received
notices that seemed to contradict one another. When he visited with his neighbors about the rezone
proposal, there was confusion and many of them did not even understand the rezone. They were under the
impression the LDR1 Zone was like the surrounding properties. They did not know the lot size was a third
or 1/4 of the lot sizes that currently surrounds them. Once they understood the rezone change, many
surrounding property owners were against the rezone.
Mr. Dunn said he spoke with everybody whose property connects to this property and without exception;
he did not find anyone that was supportive of this dramatic change surrounding his or her property. He
said he looks to City Council to do what is best for the community and hopes they consider approving
nothing that would be smaller than the RR2 Zone. He said he understands some may argue that because
the utilities are existing it doesn't make sense to keep acre lots; however, to make such a dramatic change
to the area so quickly seems to be fueled by only the desire for profit. He requested if the property cannot
be zoned RR2. Then he would ask that the property west of Ferris Lane, which is likely going to attract all
the traffic to 12 West, remain RR2 or greater to reduce the problems that are associated with trying to put
that much traffic on a narrow road.
Maria Nate said she is typically a property rights defender; however, she asked City Council to take into
consideration the disruption of having smaller lot sizes in the middle of one-acre lots. She asked for the
neighborhood to stay the way it feels and looks. As for traffic concerns, she drives down 12th West every
day to go to work and that road is getting more congested. She said with the development of these new
subdivisions in the surrounding areas and the only way to go into town is through 12th West, the traffic
congestion will continue to grow. She asked if there are plans to address the traffic congestion on 12th West.
She is also concerned about the narrowness of Ferris Lane and the possibility of having to take 15 feet of
easement from her property to widen Ferris Lane. Her home is only 40 feet back from the road; they
purposely built the home close to the road to feel more neighborly. She said having her property taken from
her without compensation; it feels like a bit too much. The Comprehensive Plan Map is a tool; it is
supposed to be used to keep like-minded communities together. Slamming quarter acre lots right next to
larger lots is not the right thing to do for the community. She is against this proposal.
Ryan Laird said he is the Zone 3 Board of Trustee for the Madison School District. He stated by saying
how blessed we are as a community and as a school district. Many people care about how and where the
15
youth of the community is educated. Over the past two years, the school district has had two levy votes and
a bond for the new Hibbard Elementary School and for the addition to the Madison Junior High School.
The margins that we are starting to see on these votes are getting very tight. On the bond for the elementary
school, it only passed by 12 votes. The levy renewal from last week only passed by 31 votes and in
comparison, the same levy renewal two years ago passed by over 600 votes. He believes residents are getting
tired of having to fund new project after new project, it makes the whole School Board sick when we must
continue to ask for more and more funding from the taxpayers. He spoke to Superintendent Lords, Board
Chairman Powell, and the other trustees, and they all have the same concerns with the growth-taking place
in the city and county. He does not agree that the taxpayer should be stuck with the costs of building new
schools due to all the new housing developments. One of the developers, Mr. Francis, came around to each
of their homes and said the city told him he could go as high as the LDR3 Zone on the property; however,
he only asked for LDR1.
Mr. Laird explained the potential impact the LDR1 Zone would have on the school district. He said based
on the amount of land in this rezone, it would allow up to 140 homes to be developed. A neighboring
development has the potential to add an additional 60 homes, so there is the potential of 200 additional
homes. He spoke with the City of Rexburg Economic Development Director to ask for information that
showed the average household with children in Madison County. The average household has approximately
2.8 children under the age of 18 and if you multiply that number by 200 new homes, it is just over 490
additional school aged children. To put the additional number of children into perspective, the capacity of a
new elementary school is 375 students. The taxpayers in the Madison school district are paying about $20
million for the new school.
Mr. Laird said the Madison School District tries to keep the classroom sizes as close to 25 students as
possible. This development would require the school district to build a new school as well as adding on to
other schools. He said to support the growth from this development another 20-million-dollar bond would
need to pass. He said Mr. Francis will likely be successful with this development and that is great. He wants
to see people succeed; however, not on the backs of the taxpayers of the City of Rexburg and Madison
County. He asked City Council to consider keeping the zoning at the lowest density as possible and,
speaking on behalf of the Madison School Board, he strongly recommends the RR2 Zone for this property
like the Pine Brook Estates across 12 West.
Mr. Laird said subdivision developers typically present their plans to the Superintendent and ask him about
any implications the development might have on the school district. This meeting of course takes place
before the developer meets with the Planning and Zoning Committee. They appreciate when developers are
willing to work with the school district regarding growth. He said unfortunately, Mr. Francis did not contact
the school district on either project.
Laurie Cardon said she and her husband were out of the country when the notices went out. Upon
returning, they were informed of all the different changes. They were also informed that the lots would not
be smaller than a half-acre; however, once the zone is changed there is no going back. She urged the
Councilmembers to deny the LDR1 Zone and recommended RR1 or RR2 zones for the property. She
expressed her concerns with the Ferris Lane entrance. In the winter, the road is slippery and difficult to turn
into the subdivision and adding more traffic would cause more of a hazard. She said her neighbor’s property
on the corner by the entrance has had to replace their fence several times from people running into it during
the winter and she does not believe the widening of the road will help mitigate the hazards.
Mrs. Cardon said she is grateful as a community we can build and grow; however, she cannot trust the
word of someone telling her this property is going to be developed a certain way. She said she did not attend
the first meeting; however, in the meeting minutes she thought they said the lots were half an acre. Then
later, come to find out, the minutes were not clear on the lot size and the lots are smaller than half an acre.
She said approving the rezone without truly knowing how it will affect people is the wrong decision. The
traffic down 12th West at 8:30 in the morning is very congested. She said she is concerned without widening
12th West before development occurs, there will be more traffic issues and vehicle accidents during the
winter months.
Rob Wood said he echoes the statements made already in opposition to the proposed zone change. One of
the major concerns he has is regarding the added traffic the development will cause. He said he agrees with
Maria Nate’s comments regarding Ferris Lane being in the county. If the development were to occur, the
16
county has a 30-foot easement to widen Ferris Lane if need be and, from the centerline easement, an
additional 15 feet on each side of the road. Some residents have developed in the easement such as trees,
sprinkler systems, etc. The county is not required to compensate the property owner for the easement.
There is a high possibility the existing property owners will lose some of their property from someone else’s
development. The existing property owner would replace the items lost in the easement such as sprinklers at
their expense even though they are not getting anything out of the development.
Mr. Wood said he attend the Planning and Zoning meeting last week and spoke about the importance of
Madison County’s agricultural heritage. He grew up working on farms, so he and his wife moved into
Madison County to live in a rural area and to still be somewhat close to town. One of the Planning and
Zoning Commissioners told him that because he had not lived in a teepee on his property, he really did not
have the right to talk about agricultural heritage. He asked the Councilmembers to inform the
commissioner, when people are concerned about losing their property, it is not appropriate to belittle the
property owners. He said he thought that comment was odd in a public meeting.
Mr. Wood said in terms of planning and zoning, he appreciates someone’s ability to try to better
themselves. They have the right to try and develop the property; however, those who stand to lose
something also have the right to be opposed to the cause of the loss. He believes this is important to
remember, there are people who already live adjacent to the property and do not want to see this happen.
There are people who would rather see similar lot sizes in place. The lot sizes under the requested zone are a
jarring difference to the already existing lots. It looks like an in-town neighborhood in a rural area.
McKay Francis said this is the fourth subdivision in the last three years that he has developed in Madison
County. This is the first one in which he is asking the city to annex from the impact zone. The impact zone
means the city declares this area a place that is open to growth in that corridor. Mr. Laird made a comment
regarding developers informing the school district about a development to discuss the possible impacts the
development may create on schools. There is a process both the city and county have in place to send letters
to the taxing districts that includes the school district. The letters contain his contact information and not
once has the school district responded. He understands a new Superintendent started in the middle of those
proceedings; however, phone messages were left without reply. As for the taxation of the community
members in forms of bonds that are voted upon for the school district, it has little to do with this
development. He said if the average number of children in a household is 2.8 not all the children will be
elementary school aged. The community members have voted to pass the bonds the school district has
needed due to growth. Mr. Francis mentioned the population of Madison County is currently 50,000
residents and in 10 years, that number could double. He questioned where another 50,000 residents are
going to live.
Mr. Francis said he is a member of the Rexburg Planning and Zoning Commission and lives in the Impact
Zone on the south end of town. There was a hearing last month in which the city was proposing to declare
more Impact Zone to the north of the city in the Salem area. The Salem residents did not want to be in the
city’s Impact Zone. The Sunrise Meadow area has been a part of Rexburg’s Impact Zone since 2002. He
developed a 60-lot subdivision to the west of this area and those lots sold in three and a half months,
meaning the demand of people trying to build single-family homes in our county and in this area is
extensive. Many people want to move here; however, do not want one-acre lots. They want to be able to
leave for a year and a half to two years, lock their door and not worry about taking care of a full acre of
land. There is a market in the city/county for smaller lots; however, there are not many options available for
people who want less than an acre lot. When he developed the subdivision to the west, there was
opposition. They were having difficulty finding a way to bring sewer and water to that area. The major
complaints from the surrounding property owners were the number of new wells and septic systems
needing drilled to service the subdivision. There were concerns about wells drying up because the existing
wells were drilled shallow. As much as he tried, it was not feasible to connect to city services at that time.
The property was also not in the Impact Zone.
Mr. Francis said when this property became available, the utilities were already stubbed across the street,
and it is in the city Impact Zone. The Comprehensive Plan Map change designation he requested was LDR1
to MDR1 with the lowest density of these two zones. He said he met with city staff and explained the
proposed development is essentially Pine Brook phase three that did not happen because of the 2008-2009
recession. As a result of the recession, homes were developed across the street; however, the original plan
for this part of the development would have twin homes, townhomes, and single-family homes. He said if
the original plan were to continue, there is potential for a lot of density from a developer's
perspective. When he developed the property to the west, many of those homes are $700,000 to $800,000
single-family homes and these same types of homes could still fit in the proposed rezone area. He
17
mentioned everyone wants to see a plat map before a hearing; however, the expenses for a plat map are high
and without a zone approval it would not be feasible.
Mr. Francis explained several residents mentioned traffic concerns during this hearing. The fact that traffic
is going to increase due to development is correct. There are engineers, who quantify the added traffic and
how to mitigate the traffic flow on city roads. The highway is at 20% of its daily capacity and calculated
through the number of trips per household. The general practices of civil engineering will tell you what
these roads can handle. He said as part of the Pine Brook subdivision development agreement, they gave up
more than an entire lane of easement in front for the subdivision. The proposed rezone would have the
same easement requirement. The city and county would use the easement at their discretion. He believes the
infrastructure is there to support the rezone of this property and there are many reasons connecting to city
water and sewer is beneficial instead of drilling individual wells.
Brian Winter mentioned in their original proposal they only had two connecting roads off 12th West and no
connectivity to Ferris Lane. He said they had taken into consideration the entirety of the area and inter-
connectivity is extremely important. As they consider the connecting roads, Ferris Lane was not intended to
be a cul-de-sac; it is being used as a turnaround lane. The intent of this road is to continue for future
growth. They have paid for traffic studies and for engineers to come to complete traffic studies at the
roundabout and at the intersection by the church. One of the major challenges they encountered was the
drilling of individual wells and septic in the nearby area. They are trying to resolve that problem respectfully
and trying to do their diligence with connecting to city services.
Mr. Winter said they have looked at many properties in the area and this is probably the best property they
can possibly find to annex into the city to develop single-family homes and allow for the continued growth
in Rexburg.
Council Member Flora asked, if Ferris Lane needs to be widened, would the developer need an easement
therefore having to go into the resident’s yard? Public Works Director Davidson explained the widening of
Ferris Lane has not been contemplated because the volume of traffic does not warrant the widening of the
road. He said now it is unlikely they will widen the road.
Council President Busby asked, since the connecting road splits between city and county, who will
maintain the road and remove the snow during the winter. Public Works Director Davidson replied when
the roads connect the city and county work together to maintain and plow the roads. Council President
Busby asked Mr. Winter about the connecting road through Hibbard Flats to Copper Heights. Mr. Winter
replied he is required to have a stub and connectivity to the west and south. Council Member Flora asked, if
there are plans for an additional road going through 12th or is all the traffic coming through Sunrise. Mr.
Winters said Sunrise Road and 12 West are the primary roads. The additional roads cannot be constructed
so close together, the roads need to be a certain distance away. The stub is on the south so there could be
another road coming out of the subdivision. Council President Busby asked if the new road is going to be as
wide as the roads in the Pine Brook subdivision. Public Works Director Davidson said the roads will be 68
feet right of way and 44 feet curb to curb.
Council Member Johnson asked if the City Council did not approve this request, the zone would remain
the same. In addition, even though the Comprehensive Plan would no longer match the zoning. City
Attorney Zollinger said a city zone would need to be attached to the property when a property is annexed.
The city has an RR1 and RR2 zone available so if City Council were to vote to annex and designate LDR1
and the county chose not to amend the Comprehensive Plan. It would be a very short-lived moment for the
county because it would then immediately come to the city having been annexed. The city would be
responsible for re-designating the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Johnson asked if the decision were
flip-flopped, and City Council approved the annexation would it stay the zone it is because she knows the
county is changing their Comprehensive Plan. City Attorney Zollinger replied yes, the county’s re-
designation of their Comprehensive Plan would have nothing to do with the City Council approval of the
annexation and rezone.
Council Member Flora explained in the last two to three months every single City Council meeting has
been about growth. In addition, every part of the city has been touched by growth. As City
Councilmembers, they are faced with the same decision and every single time everybody is against it. The
question is, where does the city grow? She explained she lives in a RR2 Zone and the fields next to her
subdivision were rezoned LDR3 and so now there are townhomes and twin homes, and it is a great
neighborhood and yes, there were growing pains and more traffic with that development. She said she feels
conflicted because the city is growing, there is nowhere else to grow inside of the city, and LDR1 is one of
the city’s low-density zones. The City Council and city staff has been asking residents the question. How do
you want the city to grow? The response has been the “city needs more affordable housing”. To have more
affordable housing, the lot sizes must be smaller so then the question is where to put these smaller lot sizes?
18
However, every time there are requests for a rezone that allows smaller lots the reaction from the
surrounding residents is the same, “not in our backyard”. She said most developers are requesting MDR
Zones and hardly any low density. Therefore, when a developer requests a low-density zone, to her it is
more appealing because there is not the high density of twin homes and apartments, its single family
residential.
Council Member Chambers said these are gut wrenching decisions; growth is a reality, so the issue
becomes how we manage that growth most effectively. The transition to a lower density is good because if
we do not do it here, it is going to happen further west. The transition in zones must go somewhere. He
said if City Council approved this request, city staff would make sure that there is interconnectivity. The city
will have an economic expansion of utilities in that area, which is positive because it is difficult to
accommodate growth. Yet listening to these concerns and acting upon them is difficult; however, he is in
favor of the annexation and rezone because this transition is necessary in this area and is in the best interest
of the community.
Council Member Johnson said she agrees the decisions have been difficult; however, she believes people
want to have all different types of lot sizes and the city’s Comprehensive Plan indicates the city should have
all different kinds of lot sizes. There are people that keep moving further and further out to have bigger lots
and the growth keeps going further out to where developers want to put smaller lots next to them. She
agrees that it is a major difference to go from one acre lots to having 3.6 homes per acre. One of her major
concerns are the overcrowding of schools as America’s Family Community, she does not know how as a
City Council they cannot take into consideration the crowding of schools. She said she has children and
does not want them to attend an overcrowded school. Mayor Merrill said the City Council can listen to the
concerns regarding the overcrowding of schools; however, the School Board has their job to do regarding
schools and City Council has their job regarding growth in the city. Council Member Johnson said the city
growth is out pacing what the schools can sustain and as City Councilmembers they should consider that
maybe the growth is not the right time in that location.
Mayor Merrill said something to consider when discussing school bonds with additional growth is there are
more taxpayers to help shoulder that burden. Council Member Johnson said she would like to see the
numbers of the new tax dollars to see if the taxes make up the costs that growth brings into the city.
Council Member Flora said there is an obvious demand for 140 new homes and if these homes are not
developed in this area, they are going to be developed somewhere else. It is still increasing the school load
regardless of where the growth takes place in the city. She said the difficult part of this decision is people
saying yes, we need growth just not by their property. There is a point Rob Wood made regarding residents
not having to bear the burden of their land being taking away by having to widen the road even though
there is an easement.
Council Member Flora said 12th West is extremely busy, especially in the morning. If the vehicles coming
from the Sunrise Subdivision do not make it through the traffic light; there is a vehicle back up. Public
Works Director Davidson explained when a large development is being considered, a traffic impact study is
completed. In the study, different intersections are reviewed to determine the needs in these locations in
addition every 10 years a Transportation Master Plan update is prepared to determine which roadways are
going to need capacity increases. He said 12th West is slated as a minor arterial so at some point the road will
go to a five-lane configuration as traffic demands grow to that extent. The timing of intersections and
highways are reviewed. Where the bulk of the traffic is going through, they look at how they can adjust the
signal timing to get the best traffic flow through those signals. He said with more and more traffic, they
start looking at adding lanes and additional turn lanes. The stack distance of vehicles waiting through a
traffic signal is considered. He knows in Rexburg it seems like a big deal; however, as the city grows, there
will be more times when you must wait through a traffic signal before you get to go again. That is normal
with growth as the population grows in different areas.
Council Member Walker said he agrees with Council Member Chambers and Council Member Flora in
that growth is going to continue to occur and if it does not happen in this area, it will happen in a different
area. This developer is only asking for an LDR1 zone when most developers are asking for LDR2, MDR1,
and MDR2. He believes the annexation and rezone are a good transition for this area being so close to the
city as it is.
Council President Busby asked if the annexation is going to require curb, gutter, sidewalks, and landscape
strip. Public Works Director Davidson explained some of the challenges the Public Works Department
encounters when going from one zone to another is that one zone may require curb, gutter, sidewalks, and
landscape strip and the other does not. In the RR1 zone, setbacks go further back so most people park in
their driveways and not on the street. He said generally, when city streets boarder up to the county road, the
city cross section does not line up exactly with the county’s cross section.
19
Council Member Walker moved to approve Ordinance No. 1289 Annexation of Approximately 1175 N
12th W and Rezone from Madison County’s Residential ® and Rural Residential 1 (RR1) Zones to Low
Density Residential 1 (LDR1) Zone; Council Member Flora seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for
a vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council Member Flora Council Member Johnson
Council Member Chambers
Council Member Walker
Council President Busby
The motion carried.
Item for Consideration: (1:47:54)
A. City Staff Recommendation to approve destruction of Building Plans hard copies that have
been archived digitally in the City’s designated records archive system. Designated as
Resolution 2022 – 19 if motion passes – Deborah Lovejoy
Council President Busby moved to approve Resolution 2022 – 19 the destruction of Building Plans
hard copies that have been archived digitally in the City’s designated records archive system; Council
Member Chambers seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council Member Flora None
Council Member Johnson
Council Member Chambers
Council Member Walker
Council President Busby
The motion carried.
B. Planning & Zoning recommendation to approve a rezone at approximately 297 E 7th N from
Public Facilities (PF) to Medium Density Residential 1 (MDR1) zone #22-00564. Designated
as Ordinance No 1290 if motion passes – Alan Parkinson (1:48:36)
City Planner Baldwin reviewed the map of the proposed rezone property. In 2019, there was a citywide
effort to designate city-owned, county-owned and school district-owned properties within the city limits.
Bron Leatham has purchased this property from the city and is requesting the zone match the zone to the
north of the property. City Attorney Zollinger clarified this was a piece of property the city purchased for
the Water Department. There were concerns with this property having its own septic tank and its own
well directly adjacent to a city well. The Water Department has no use for this property. The city sold the
property to a private investor. For this reason, city staff is recommending the property no longer be zoned
Public Facilities.
20
Council Member Flora moved to approve the Rezone at approximately 297 E 7th N from Public
Facilities (PF) to Medium Density Residential 1 (MDR1) zone; Council President Busby seconded the
motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council Member Flora None
Council Member Johnson
Council Member Chambers
Council Member Walker
Council President Busby
The motion carried.
C. Planning & Zoning recommendation to approve a rezone for Parcel No. RPRXBCA0291271,
Located South of Star View Dr from Low Density Residential 1 (LDR1) to Low-Density
Residential 2 (LDR2) zone #22-00420 after being remanded back to Planning & Zoning for
the September 1st, 2022 meeting for additional consideration by the commission. Designated
as Ordinance No. 1291 if motion passes – Alan Parkinson (0:04:47)
This item was tabled at the beginning of the meeting.
D. Planning & Zoning recommendation to deny a rezone for 742 Nina Dr from Low Density
Residential 1 (LDR1) to Medium Density Residential 1 (MDR1) zone #22-00520 – Alan
Parkinson (1:50:50)
City Planner Baldwin said the applicant is requesting the zone change to be able to short-term rental her
home. The Planning and Zoning Commissioner’s recommended denial of the request because it is
considered spot zoning. City Attorney Zollinger explained there is only a limited number of spot zones in
the city. There is a dim view regarding spot zoning and one of them is when the request is for a singular
purpose.
Council Member Flora asked if city staff has received any major complaints regarding Airbnb’s and if the
Police Department has received or acted against the operator of an Airbnb in the city. She questioned if
citizens are registering their Airbnb’s. City Attorney Zollinger said since changing the city ordinance
regarding Airbnb’s, the demand for Airbnb’s has either completely dropped or not very many of them have
been registered because city staff has not received many complaints. Council Member Flora asked for the
Airbnb ordinance to be reviewed to possibly lower the stipulation of having an Airbnb in particular zones.
City Attorney Zollinger explained the ordinance can be revisited anytime; however, it should not be revisited
on a case-by-case basis. The Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation is very sounding, they
were not confused about the zone, it simply does not meet the current requirements.
Council President Busby said he is opposed to spot zoning because it creates a problem when the
property is sold. A developer would be able to build to the maximum that zone allows. Council Member
Flora questioned how this rezone request made it to the Planning and Zoning Commissioners because spot
zones are not favorable.
Council President Busby moved to deny a rezone for 742 Nina Dr from Low Density Residential 1
(LDR1) to Medium Density Residential 1 (MDR1) zone; Discussion: City Attorney Zollinger said with the
determination if an error was made by city staff the $1000 fee be reimbursed to the applicant; Council
Member Walker seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council Member Flora None
Council Member Johnson
Council Member Chambers
Council Member Walker
Council President Busby
The motion carried.
21
Calendared Bills: (2:00:36)
A. Second Reading: Those items which have been first read: NONE
B. Third Reading: Those items which have been second read:
1. Ordinance No 1288 Fiscal Year 2022 Amended Budget – Matt Nielson
Council Member Johnson moved to approve Ordinance No 1288 Fiscal Year 2022 Amended Budget
and consider third read; Council Member Flora seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council Member Flora None
Council Member Johnson
Council Member Chambers
Council Member Walker
Council President Busby
The motion carried.
Mayor’s Business: (2:01:36)
Mayor Merrill gave the heads up of a joint City Council and Planning and Zoning Commissioners meeting
on Thursday.
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. (2:09:11)
A. Minutes from August 17, 2022
B. Approval of 2023 Beer and Wine Licenses
C. Approve the City of Rexburg Bills
Council President Busby moved to approve the Consent Calendar containing the minutes, city
bills, 2023 Beer and Wine Licenses; Council Member Walker seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill
asked for a roll call vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council Member Flora none
Council Member Johnson
Council Member Chambers
Council Member Walker
Council President Busby
The motion carried
Adjournment 8:39 P.M.
APPROVED:
________________________________
Jerry Merrill, Mayor
Attest:
_____________________________
Marianna Gonzalez, Deputy Clerk