Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004.02.04 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CITY OF REXBURG February 04, 2004 7:30 P.M. STATE OF IDAHO ) : ss. County of Madison ) Present were the following: Mayor: Mayor Shawn Larsen Council Members: Paul Pugmire Donna Benfield Nyle Fullmer Rex Erickson G. Farrell Young Garth R. Oakey Financial Officer Richard Horner P&Z Administrator: Kurt Hibbert City Clerk: Blair D. Kay PFC: John Millar City Attorney: Stephen Zollinger Portions of the meeting were recorded. Pledge to the Flag Mayor Larsen welcomed the Scouts to the meeting. Consent Calendar: The consent calendar includes items which require formal City Council action, however they are typically routine or not of great controversy. Individual Council members may ask that any specific item be removed from the consent calendar for discussion in greater detail. Explanatory information is included in the City Council’s agenda packet regarding these items. a.Minutes from the January 28, 2004 meeting b.Approve City of Rexburg bills Nyle Fullmer moved to approve the Consent Calendar; Garth Oakey seconded the 1 The motion carried. motion; all voted aye, none opposed. Non Controversial Items Added to the Agenda: Annual Report and Contract Renewal for the City of Rexburg Revolving Loan Fund Dave Ogden indicated that there are eight outstanding loans in the fund. They are working on one with delinquency. The rest of the loans are fine. The funds are revolving. The fund has turned over 3 to 4 times. The fund is now about a 1.9 million. The fund started out as a one million dollar fund. There have been several hundred jobs created by this funding process. Paul Pugmire asked where the growth originated from in the fund. Dave indicated that loan origination fees, loan interest, less end cost to administer the loans is where the growth comes from in the loan. About 1/3 of the income is used to pay administrative costs to administer the loans. The other 2/3’s of the revenue stay in the fund to regenerate the fund. Dave explained that the only way that the fund would decrease is if a loan were to default. About three years ago, the City granted $125,000 to ESIPTA help leverage additional funding through the USDA Rural Development grant over a nine County area. Dave continued to review the report concerning an Inter Remedial Lending Program (IRP) fund. Dave went over the seconded report that indicated a loan fund of up to $300,000 for Rexburg fund. There are over $2,000,000 in loans that have been loaned to businesses in the City of Rexburg. They use what ever fund makes sense to the business. The last document is to renew the contract with the City. It is cost plus $600, not to exceed $6,000. An example of an invoice would be to spend $3,000 on a project year and bill the City of $3,600. This last year they overspent their contract by $528 which was not charge back to the City. That left the total billing at $6,000 for last year. Dave asked to raise the contract amount to $700 plus costs, not to exceed $7,000. This request is to cover the additional cost of administering a growing fund. The ESIPTA Agency looks to the local funds first before going to the multi- county fund. Farrell Young asked how long they have been administering the fund. Dave indicated that they have been administering the fund since 1988 or 1989 without any loan defaults; however, there have been some loan losses. Mayor Larsen asked if they expect to have increased activity in the fund this coming year. He asked for a motion on the request. Paul Pugmire moved to approve the contract for $700 plus costs not to exceed $7,000; The motion carried. Donna Benfield seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. Public Hearings: 7:35 p.m. Rezone Rural Residential Two (RR2) property to Low Density 2 Residential (LDR) the area between Shoshone Avenue and South Millhollow Road. The north/south boundary is between Rolling Hills Drive and 512 South Millhollow Road. See attached map - A. Lyle Smith Sally Smith – 460 Rolling Hills Drive – reviewed the history of the annexation of the property and the housekeeping error for the Zone being annexed as Rural Residential 2 (RR2). Sally indicated that the property should have been zoned Low Density Residential (LDR), when it was annexed. Kurt Hibbert reviewed the property on the overhead screen. The zone change would correct the error that occurred during the annexation of the property. This property was zoned RR2 when the Harvest Heights subdivision was annexed. Those in favor of the re-zone request: None Those against the re-zone request: None The Public Hearing was closed for discussion by the City Council. Paul Pugmire asked how this error occurred in the annexation process. Rex Erickson explained it was an error in the transcribing or some where it got rerouted to RR2. It was originally approved as LDR. The intent of the Planning and Zoning Commission was to zone this property as LDR. Paul Pugmire moved to accept the zone change as proposed from RR2 to LDR; Rex The motion carried. Erickson seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. 7:45 p.m.Appeal a Rezone request that was denied by the Planning and Zoning “Professional Overlay” Commission for a on a portion of the area between Shoshone Avenue and South Millhollow Road. The north/south boundary is between Rolling Hills Drive and 512 South Millhollow Road. – See attached map - A. Lyle Smith Mayor Larsen reviewed the reason for hearing this appeal of a Planning and Zoning decision. The appeal of this decision to deny the Professional Overlay request was brought before the City Council to overturn the Planning and Zoning decision. He explained that it was up to the City Council to uphold the Planning and Zoning Commission’s decision or overturn the decision. Sally Smith representing her parents indicated that the family has been approached by some doctors who would like to have medical offices developed in this area. The location is about two blocks away from the hospital. The property is about 12 acres in size. She reviewed the site plan on the overhead screen. They plan is to have single family residences on three sides of the property. The north, west, and south sides of this property would be developed into 3 single family homes. Sally reviewed the reasons why the Planning and Zoning Commission denied this request. Their grounds for denial were the following: 1)It does not fit within the Comprehensive Plan 2)Overwhelming public opposition Sally indicated that it did meet the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan which shows residential growth for the area. Residential areas are allowed to have a “Professional Overlay”. Sally mentioned that this request is allowed in the Zoning Ordinance. They contended that the following areas were not in transitional Zones: 1)Madison Memorial Hospital Professional Overlay 2)Rexburg Medical Center 3)Professional Plaza 4)Madison Professional Park 5)West Main Street Professional Overlay in a Medium Density Zone. Sally reviewed the mailing that is sent to notify residences of public hearings on a land action. The notice indicated that the public officials are not likely to make decisions in violation of City or State Code. No amount of passion, exhortation, or pleadings by the citizens will accomplish this. She introduced Steve Taggart to the Council to represent the Smiths for the appeal on the Professional Overlay request. Steve Taggart from Idaho Falls, representing the Smith family request, indicated that it did fit with the Comprehensive Plan. He reviewed the Planning and Zonings reasons for denying the request for a Professional Overlay. 1) It does not fit within the Comprehensive Plan 2)Overwhelming public opposition Steve indicated that neither of these reasons have basis for denying the requested “Professional Overlay”. First of all, the Professional Overlay is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. Is the Professional Overlay consistent with single family residential zones? The Professional Overlay in the Zoning Ordinance must conform to the residential character of the neighborhood. The assumption is that a Professional Overlay can go into a residential area. Steve indicated that a way to test that assumption is to look at other Professional Overlays in the City. Four out of five of the Professional Overlays are located in areas that are residential and they are designated on the master plan as residential. He reviewed the Comprehensive Plan for these areas. Steve indicated that the following are the fundamental questions: 1)Can the Planning and Zoning Commission’s finding that a Professional Overlay is inconsistent with a residential area stand; the answer is no. 4 2)Should the questions have been addressed at the Planning and Zoning Commission’s level or should they have been addressed at the site planning. Steve reviewed the procedures set forth in the Planning and Zoning Ordinance for a Professional Overlay. It must meet a series of criteria: 1)Conform to the residential character 2)Minimize the potential nuisances activities Steve indicated that these questions by their nature are factual questions where a public process is appropriate. These are issues for a site plan. Although they are appropriate issues, they are not issues relating to compliance to the Comprehensive Plan. They suggested that neither criterion were appropriate in the decision rendered by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Winston Dyer reviewed the Public Hearing on January 08, 2004, for this Professional Overlay request. They had two requests in that meeting from the Smiths. One was to change the underlying zone which the City Council addresses tonight. The second issue was the Professional Office Overlay. Winston indicated that the Planning and Zoning Commission followed the Zoning Code requirements. Public testimony was received, by those in favor of the proposal, those neutral to the proposal and those against the proposal. There was a lengthy presentation on what the proposal contained. Then, the Commissioners deliberated on the issues. They asked for clarifying information concerning a number of issues. They reviewed the other Professional Overlays in town, how they functioned, their proximity to Commercial areas and medical facilities. It was a unanimous decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission to deny the Professional Office Overlay request. The Chair asked that findings of fact be included in the motion to deny the request. The information from the th meeting is before you in the minutes from January 08. Mayor Larsen asked Stephen Zollinger for some input on the issues concerning this appeal. Stephen Zollinger indicated that the City Council is charged with determining if the actions of the Planning and Zoning Office were inappropriate or technically flawed in some fashion. This Public Hearing is not “strictly speaking” an evidentiary process. It is a determination of as to whether an error occurred. Stephen mentioned that there are three options available to the City Council under the Ordinance. 1)To accept the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and uphold their denial of the request for a Professional Overlay. 2)To reject their (Planning and Zoning Commission) recommendation and send the request forward to a Public Hearing in front of the City Council. 3)To send the application back to Planning and Zoning for additional fact finding or a correction of the error that may have occurred at the time they were holding 5 their hearing. Stephen Zollinger clarified that there is a “Finding of Fact” from the Planning and Zoning meeting that is not completely consistent with remarks given by Mr. Taggart. A portion of the Findings of Fact was reviewed by Stephen with the City Council. FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE REXBURG PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FOR REQUESTED ZONE CHANGE & OVERLAY 1.On November 3, 2003, A. Lyle Smith presented to the Rexburg City Clerk a Request and Application for a rezone on a parcel of about 12 acres of property located at approximately 512 S. Millhollow in the City of Rexburg, the requested rezone of the property was from Rural Residential 2 (RR2) to Low Density Residential (LDR) with a Professional Overlay. 2.On December 16, 2003, the City Clerk sent the Notice of Public Hearing to be published in the local newspaper on December 17, 2003, and January 5, 2004. A notice was posted on the property and sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the above mentioned property. 3. On January 8, 2004, Sally Smith appeared before the Planning & Zoning Commission for the City of Rexburg requesting a rezone from Rural Residential 2 (RR2) to Low Density Residential (LDR) with a Professional Overlay on the property located at approximately 512 S. Millhollow (The said property is located between Shoshone Avenue and South Millhollow Road. The north/south boundary is south of Rolling Hills Drive and north of 512 South Millhollow Road in Rexburg, Madison County, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows: see attached map. A portion of the NW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 29, Township 6 North, Range 40 East, Boise Meridian, Madison County, Idaho. There was some input from some of the neighbors who strongly opposed the requested zone change. A motion was made by Planning & Zoning to recommend to the City Council that the request to change the zone from RR2 to LDR be approved; the Planning & Zoning commission further recommended that the however, request for the Professional Overlay be denied, as it was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that it did not represent a transitional area between commercial and residential areas. Furthermore, it was not consistent with the general plan for residential use within the area as evidenced by the property owners in the immediate vicinity. These findings accurately and completely represent the facts as they have occurred as of th this 4 day of February, 2004. __________________________ 6 Stephen Zollinger, City Attorney Mayor Larsen indicated that this meeting was advertised as a Public Hearing. He asked Stephen if the City was required to take public testimony, when the decision is only to decide whether to recommend one of the three options previously outlined. Stephen Zollinger indicated that pursuant to the Statute under Idaho Code, The Mayor is not required to open up a Public Hearing to receive testimony for an appeal of a Planning and Zoning decision. He indicated that the fact that it had been notice up as a Public Hearing shifts the decision to accept testimony to the Mayor. Stephen related the fact that the minutes from the Public Hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission on January 08, 2004, are part of the public record for the purpose of making this determination. Mayor Larsen asked that written comments from Mrs. Marsha Sparhawk, Don Sparhawk, and Exekiel C. Barnard Jr. be entered into the record. They were all against the “Professional Overlay” request. Mayor Larsen opened the meeting to public comments: Sally Smith indicated that the development would be an asset to the neighborhood. Professional Plazas, medical buildings, and professional buildings are taken care of by an Association. They have nice landscaping, mowed lawns, and they are taken care of very well. They are an asset to the neighborhood. She mentioned that the difference between LDR and LDR1 was not discussed at the Planning and Zoning Meeting. Sally discussed the transitional language in the Ordinance and also compared the request to existing overlays in the city that do not have transitional areas. The Mayor reviewed the findings of fact for the Planning and Zoning Meeting. Those in favor of the proposal : None Those against the proposal : Jim Brannon – 321 Millhollow Road thanked the Planning and Zoning for treating the issue fairly. He discussed his concerns with the area having an outpatient surgical center. He has talked with people that work in facilities in Idaho Falls. He was told by them that the staff could be as many as 40 people that equate to 10 to 12 staff positions per bed. Jim reviewed the schedule for a day surgery facility. Surgery preparations for a surgical center start at 6:00 in the morning and continue through the day until about 6:00 p.m. This request is not a request for simple Doctors Offices. There could be several different types of Doctors facilities in this location if this proposal is approved. He reviewed the variance process that may allow the developer to seek additional changes at a later date. Larry Wickham – 310 Millhollow Road – indicated that the LDR Zone that was just approved is the desired Zone for the residents in the neighborhood. Larry reviewed the past 7 lack of scrutiny for Professional Overlays that have been approved in the past. He read a letter from Don Sparhawk, a resident that lives near a professional Overlay. Don indicated that he was not happy with the expansion of the Doctor’s Offices into his residential neighborhood. Larry reviewed the transitional property issue as outlined in the Planning and Zoning Ordinance. This property does not fall into that category for a transitional area. There is no Commercial property in the neighborhood. Reed Stoddard –249 Millhollow Road was concerned with the language of the Ordinance that states that an Overlay is allowed in a residential area. He was concerned with using past Overlays as a model perhaps they were done incorrectly. He asked the Council to uphold the Planning and Zoning decision to deny the request. Past Professional Overlay decisions should not govern the current or future decisions concerning Professional Overlay requests. Chad Price – 269 Millhollow Road reviewed the discussion in the Planning meeting concerning the additional traffic that could be generated for people coming into the area if the Overlay is approved. He reviewed the increased capacity of the road that was projected by Winston Dyer. Winston projected that14% of the total capacity of the road would be used by this proposed development. That percentage related to 2 additional cars per minute on the road. Chad mentioned that the neighbors are looking for qualitative data to be considered in this decision. We look out for our neighbors they look out for us. Ron Mills – 290 Shoshone Avenue -was concerned with a creating another problem down the road. This project will become landlocked immediately. There is only room of a certain number of buildings in this development. The hospital will grow in the next 20 years. This proposal is only a short term proposal for the hospital support structure. Ron was concerned with the long term solutions verses the short term solution for the growth of the Community. This proposal is for the short term goals of developers. Rod Keller – 518 Rolling Hills Drive – clarified the distance to the hospital. It is ½ mile to the Hospital not just two City blocks. rd Blake Willis – 264 South 3 West – purchase land in Richard Smith’s subdivision called Harvest Heights Subdivision. They were excited to raise a family in this area. He is opposed to professional business lighting in the area. He asked the Council to leave this area for residential growth for their children, who will want to build in this area. Mayor Larsen closed the floor to public testimony. He asked the Smiths if they wanted to offer a rebuttal statement. Sally Smith read a letter from her mother-in-law Ethel Smith on the proposal. th “Ethel Smith mentioned in her letter that she lives at 154 North 4 East. She has lived at this location on and off for the last 40 plus years. They built their current home at this address in 1977. When she first moved to this address, it was all residential. Smith Park is located one block to the south, and the old hospital was two blocks south. Since her home was built, a 8 new LDS Stake Center was built to the west with a ball field and a parking lot separating them. Madison High School was constructed one block to the east and the LDS Seminary building and its parking lot is directly behind her on property they sold to the Church. Across the street to the north is the Rexburg Medical Center, which houses many Doctors. To the west of the Medical Center is another medical building. The Madison High School football field is located to the east of her property. Two doors down from her is a four plex, which is rented out to renters. The new hospital is 2 ½ blocks to the south of her home. She has had requests to buy her property even though they are near medical offices. She indicated that she was in favor of this proposal. These medical facilities have been good neighbors to her and her late husband. She indicated that the medical facilities and parking lots have been utilized by her family and grandchildren. She indicated that she has not had any problems with crime, with over a l,000 students crossing near her property to the High School or ball fields each day. Ethel indicated that it was a wonderful idea to locate medical facilities as proposed with this request“. Sally Smith concluded that they do take into consideration all of these comments. They still feel that it is a compatible use for the neighborhood. They are planning to go through the site plan review process with the City to review traffic flow, lighting requirements, and entrances. The site plan review process is when these items should be considered. Mayor Larsen closed the Public Hearing to public comments. Rex Erickson reviewed the public testimony that was given in the Planning and Zoning meeting. The majority of the people were against the proposal in the hearing. Rex mentioned that the Commissions turned down the request based on concerns with safety, compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan and it is the last residential area in town that is not Commercialized. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the request be denied. Paul Pugmire indicated that mixed use neighborhoods are vital for a City. However, he could not find a reason to approve this request as a mixed use neighborhood. Paul agreed with Mr. Stoddard, in that even though it is an allowed use, the City Council does not have to approve the request to add a Professional Overlay to the neighborhood. Paul mentioned that it is a requirement that the Council exercise their judgment. It was Paul’s judgment that this neighborhood is not appropriate for a Professional Overlay. Nyle Fullmer was in agreement with Paul comments. Garth Oakey indicated that people can be legally right or morally right. He thought that the moral issue should have precedents with this decision. Donna Benfield reviewed the previous traffic safety meeting where the number one desire of the Committee was to preserve neighborhoods and the safety of pedestrians and traffic within ndst those neighborhoods. They reviewed the transition of neighborhoods on 2 East, 1 South 9 st and 1 North as neighborhoods that have been impacted with additional traffic. She mentioned that the Council does have the authority to be proactive. From the Traffic Safety Committee’s point of view, this would be a hard area to monitor for traffic concerns. Rex Erickson reviewed the errors that may have been committed in the past for Professional Overlays. He was in agreement with Sally’s comments; however, maybe they were done incorrectly and not being done in the long range goal for Rexburg Paul Pugmire moved to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning and Zoning decision; Garth The motion carried. Oakey seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. New Business: City of Rexburg Audit Report for fiscal year 2002-2003 Brad Reed and Josh Bingham were present to present a 49 page audit to the City Council. Brad reviewed the 49 page document with an unqualified opinion. The controls seem to be in place. The balance sheet of the City on September 30, 2003 had about $1,000,000 in cash and 1.9 million dollars in operating funds. They recommend a 3- 4 month in reserve in cash. The audit reviewed 22 different funds in the financial statement. There were some funds with deficit balances. That is usually associated with State and Federal funding lag times. Capital project and other funds were reviewed. Next year there will be a balance sheet similar to private business. Farrell Young asked about the Utility Income fund on Page 6. Brad reviewed those items. Brad continued to review the budget, indicating that the total operation revenues are 4.3 million dollars, and Operation expenses were 3.5 million dollars. There was a positive net income in the utility fund. Discussion on the fees that are charged for garbage pickup. Brad continued to review 22 different funds that are contained in the budget. Farrell Young asked for more information on the golf course budget. There was some fencing that was installed by a grant. The fund will be reimbursed when the grant money comes into the budget. He asked about the donations that are coming into Community Center fund. Brad indicated that it is one of the line items in the budget. Until they receive a charitable donation status, the City has included them in the City budget as a line item. There are a couple of other funds that are being carried in the same manner until the charitable taxing status has been obtained. Brad continued to review the several funds in the budget which include bonds, warrants, and the Urban Renew Agency. 10 Farrell Young reviewed the payments in the budget for the golf course to purchase the private lots inside the Teton Lakes Golf Course. This was the final year for a $28,000 land payment to acquire these lots. Rex Erickson asked how this payoff would affect the budget. It will increase cash for the City. Brad discussed the accounting treatments that come into play for purchasing these lots. Mayor Larsen indicated that the Finance Committee will meet with Brad next year before the City Council review of the budget. Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plat for Woodshed Apartments 355 West 2nd South – Kevin Snell Kevin Snell from Rigby, Idaho, managing Woodshed Properties reviewed the conditions that they were required to adhere to in the Planning and Zoning approval. Kevin indicated that they have complied with the requirements of the Planning and Zoning Commission. They are going to use off site contracts to maintain the common area. That language is to be included in the protective covenants. They have three buildings under construction for this project with two existing buildings. Rex Erickson reviewed the prior approvals for the property. Kevin indicated that he is only requesting a subdivision not a zone change. Lot size was discussed because these 5 lots do not comply with the Zoning Ordinance. He asked Kevin if he planned to put in a fence. Kevin Snell reviewed the recorded easements on the project that allow adjoining properties to access the street. Kevin indicated that he was planning to put in a fence; however, it was not required in the Planning and Zoning review of the Plat. Kurt Hibbert reviewed the requirements for an MDR lot size. These lots do not fit that requirement without applying the Planned Unit Development (PUD) provision in the Subdivision Ordinance. The easement to the south is a 20 foot easement and the parking complies with the 60/40 ratio in the Zoning Ordinance. Rex Erickson asked Kurt if the parking lot had to be paved. Kurt indicated that it did require pavement. Nyle Fullmer asked why it was a Preliminary Plat and final Plat request before the Council while the buildings are under construction. Kurt Hibbert reviewed the history of the project being approved under a single ownership project with combined common area and parking. This requested Subdivision Plat approval breaks the development up into 5 separate lots with 5 possible separate ownerships with shared common areas. This subdivision is allowed under the Zoning Ordinance with a Home 11 Owners Association to govern the common areas. Winston Dyer reviewed the Planning and Zoning Requirements. Rex Erickson discussed the problem that Planning and Zoning faced with trying to approve this request. This was approved under a special provision in the Subdivision Ordinance. Stephen Zollinger indicated that this project has been built under an allowed use. Part way through the development, the decision was made to sell off parts of the project. This would allow several different ownerships instead of a single ownership. It has nothing to do with the permitting or the construction that has taken place. Mayor Larsen reviewed the process that the owner is going through to sell of the property and have a Home Owners Association agreement to take care of common areas. Stephen Zollinger mentioned the funding forces that drive a single parcel development into a parceling out of the property into multiply single developments. Stephen indicated that the five parcels could still be owned by one person. The City is writing an Ordinance to preclude this type of parceling out process in the future. Nyle Fullmer move to approve the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission with staff approvals; Paul Pugmire seconded the motion; Discussion: Garth Oakey asked if the single lots loose rights that would be included in the whole lot that was originally held for the development. Stephen mentioned setbacks and size restrictions. The smaller the lot the more restrictive the set back becomes, there may be a benefit to having separate units and pool the The motion carried. common areas. All vote aye, none opposed. Review Annexation request for three parcels: th Property #1 - 863 South 5 West – Ted Whyte Mayor Shawn Larsen reviewed the process to have City Council approve annexation requests before they proceed to the hearing process before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ted Whyte reviewed the property on the overhead screen. It was purchased by BYU-I for a power line easement across the property. He plans to develop the property into a subdivision with two additional four plex buildings. Ted has talked to some of the neighbors about the annexation request. He reviewed the new road planned for the south interchange as starting the process for additional annexation requests in this area. Ted passed out a site plan for the parcel to the Council. He has not contacted Wes Lawrence or the Steiners who are neighbors between this parcel and the City. 12 Rex Erickson reviewed the problem of annexing this property without the adjacent properties to the north. It would create an island north of this property within the City boundaries. If the annexation process continues for this property, Rex recommended annexing all three properties at the same time. Garth Oakey explained that the same thing has happened to Ora Green’s property on West Main Street. This property has not been annexed and it is surrounded by the City. Ted Whyte mentioned that this property is in the Impact Zone. He is unable to obtain permits for utilities and develop this lot unless this property is annexed into the City. He indicated that there is City water and sewer across the street from this parcel. Mayor Larsen explained that this review is only to decide if this proposal should move forward to formal hearings. This review is not to recommend or deny the request; it is only to see if the proposal has merit to move forward to the public hearing process. The discussion on the annexation proposal was deferred until later in the meeting after the Public Hearing on the “Professional Overlay” Hearing. Continued after the Public Hearing: th Rex Erickson was concerned with only annexing this one parcel on 5 West. Farrell Young explained that the other parcelsare not requesting annexation. Paul Pugmire indicated that there is a need to do “do-diligence”. Maybe other properties will be added in the area. Stephen Zollinger indicated that this annexation review is to allow the Council a heads up for upcoming annexation requests. Mayor Larsen asked if all three requests fall in the category for annexation that the City must act on and proceed with the annexation requests. Stephen Zollinger indicated that the requestors may want to make comments. Winston Dyer asked the Mayor to proceed with asking additional properties in the area to annex by consent of the Council. The properties would include the Steiner’s property and Wes Larwence’s property. The consent of the Council was to contact the additional property owners (Wes Lawrence and the Steiners) to see if they would be interested in annexation. 13 th Property #2 - 668 East 7 North – E. Joy Huskinson Kurt Hibbert reviewed Joy’s property on the overhead screen. Joy’s had requested annexation about a year ago. She was not contiguous to the City at that time. This request would allow her to be annexed so she could receive water and sewer services from the City. There was discussion on the location of the water and sewer lines in the area. E. Joy Huskinson asked to be annexed into the City so that she could have water and sewer services installed in her home. She planned to continue to use her private well for irrigation of her property. Mayor Larsen asked about the City’s plan to extend services into that area. John Millar indicated that there were two possible routes for the City services. He mentioned the Hasting project has services which are adjacent to this parcel. Mayor Larsen asked the developer to maintain access and a trail system for the City along the Teton River. th Property #3 - About 600 East 7 North – Brian D. Partridge Brian Partridge from Provo, Utah, (one of the owners) proposed to have a planned LDR1 Zone for the property. He reviewed the site which has 27.26 acres in the project. It is the old Burn Brothers gravel pit property. They have reviewed the road system and possible future th traffic patterns. They are concerned with putting homes adjacent to 7 North; therefore, they th have a plan to buffer 7 North from the development. They plan to improve an area on the west side of the lake and donate it to the City for a City Park. They plan to extend the donated jogging path from the southwest corner of the property to run along the west side of the ponds and rejoin the river on the east side of the development, where it could be connected to the proposed jogging path that would cross the Teton River. Brian reviewed the rundown condition of the river at this location. They are proposing to bring the jogging path into the development along the north side of the proposed ponds. The City would have to contribute some assistance in the maintenance of the proposed City Park. Brian asked his associate Richard, to assist him with an overhead presentation of the plan. They reviewed the mixed use plans for the properties on the overhead screen. They plan to have a mix of single family residential homes, upper scale residential duplexes, multifamily housing, condominiums, then professional buildings with medical, dental, and other professional offices which would include an assisted living type professional building. They plan to have about ten to twelve home sites with the lot sizes running from ¼ acre to 1 acre. The duplexes would be on the west side of the ponds. They plan to work with the Hastings project to the west to allow the jogging path to access to the adjacent Hastings development to the west. They may need assistance with water rights to maintain the water level in the 14 ponds. The homes will be protected with strong covenants for a classy development. They may have a gated community to buffer the development for joggers and others with a fence. th The buffer for 7 North would include four professional buildings. Farrell Young asked the developer “When the river goes dry, will the lakes go dry also?” Brian Partridge indicated that they would need some help with water rights to keep the pond full of water. They have some water rights, however there would be a need for additional water resources to maintain the lakes. They do not know how much water it will take to maintain the ponds. Brian indicated that they do not want a stagnate lake. They want to maintain the lake for a beautiful park and development. Donna Benfield asked Brian if this is a phased in project or is this proposal for the entire 27.26 acres. Brian indicated that it was for the entire 27.26 acres. She reviewed the proposed Zoning requested (LDR1) which does allow duplexes. There seemed to be a question on the Multifamily Zoning requirement for the development. Nyle Fullmer indicated his approval of the intent of the project. Rex Erickson asked about the proposed overlay on the north end of the property. There are plans to have a walking path from Rexburg to Teton. Brian was concerned with losing the land mass to a jogging path. He could not develop the property without the river access. He is submitting this proposal on the merits of a Planned Development. Paul Pugmire was appreciative to the developer for the plans that have been presented in a professional manner; however, Paul expressed a concern with the public access issue to the Teton River. Paul indicated his concerns with preserving the public access to the river for future generations 50 to 100 years into the future. Paul’s opinion was that the river should not be blocked off to public access. There was discussion on the depleted condition of the river in that area and the low water levels in the summer. Brian indicated that the numbers would not work for the developer to provide public access to that portion of the river in question. It would not allow them to develop prime residential lots. The gravel pit is too expensive to fill; however, the beauty of this project is that you can develop the location into something that is beautiful. By filling the gravel pit, you would have a fabulous water feature. Brain indicated that the gain would be 10 times better by running the jogging path past the ponds and public use park verses running it along the river in that location. Brian discussed the possibility of changing their plan for the jogging path if the Irrigation District would allow the water to remain in the river. It is an expensive project to line the gravel pit to hold water. Brian indicated that liner would cost about $100,000. 15 Rex Erickson reviewed the comment by the developer that without Commercial development this project is not feasible. Brian concurred with that comment. Rex indicated that a recent “Professional Overlay” was denied because it was not in close proximity to the hospital. Rex indicated that people representing the County in Washington D.C. are adamant that we protect the water areas along the Teton River. “They visualize a pathway from Rexburg to Teton along there”. Rex reviewed the pathway that is along a water way in St. George, Utah. Rex indicated to the developer that it would be an uphill battle to complete this development; however, there was adequate information provided to the City Council to make an annexation decision to proceed with the proposal. Brian Partridge posed the question to the City Council: “What the heck has been done with that, it is a mess”. There is concrete stack there that is taller than Brian. “Who is going to clean that up?” “Who is going to fix that river bank?” “If the City wants to take it on, then let them take it on, they can have the path any where they want!” Brian indicated that if private enterprise is going to do it, it will have to be done with a planned development. A planned development is the only way that Brian can see that this proposal can happen. Mayor Larsen mentioned that this project does bring up the requirement for a mixed use zone concept. A “Professional Overlay” or a “Mixed Use Zone” may be applied for this development which the City does not have in place. Farrell Young move to consider all three annexation requests; Garth seconded all voted aye The motion carried. none opposed. Old Business: th Rezone properties from (MDR & HBD) to MDR2 – 4 East & Barney Dairy Rd - Tom O’ Toole (See minutes from 05-21-03) Also, discuss preparation of a Development Agreement Mayor Larsen read the minutes from May 22, 2003, which approved a zone change contingent upon a traffic study by the developer. There were two conditions in the motion to re-zone. First, the staff would rewrite the MDR2 Zone to allow 24 units per acre. This has been done. The second condition was to require the developer to have a traffic study completed which would be binding on the developer relative to the traffic impact of the development on the City. rd Tom O’Toole reviewed the request for a traffic study on 3 North on the Zone change request. The State did a traffic study 5 years ago. They are willing to stand by that study. Tom indicated that the traffic has not decreased since that study. He realizes that his ndth development is going to impact that intersection on 2 East and 4 North. Tom nd recognized that a portion of the cost of that light for 2 East would have to be born by his project. He is requesting that the condition for a traffic study be removed. In exchange 16 for this, Tom is proposing the zone change to MDR2 be contingent upon an acceptable Development Agreement with the City. They are allowing an easement through the property from Barney Dairy Road. They are anxious to allow a greenway path to go through their development along the Teton River because it will be an asset to the development and to the City. They would be willing to build the greenway through the development in exchange for credits just to make sure it gets done. They would like it to be built while the project is being completed. Rex Erickson asked about the need to have MDR2. Tom explained that MDR is 16 units per acre. MDR2 is 24 units per acre. They are planning an upscale townhome project along the river. This will act as a buffer to the residential homes that are going to be built on the north side of the river. They are planning to build multifamily housing for about 300 units of 2 and 3 bedroom units on the rest of the development. Mayor Larsen reviewed the minutes from May 21, 2003. Two contingencies, the first one has been dealt with. The Mayor asked Council if we can do a zone change contingent upon a development agreement. Stephen indicated that it is difficult to do; however, it is an option. Tom O’Toole indicated that he would allow conditions to be included in the development agreement that would lock the developer into the agreement. If the developer did not perform to the conditions, they could be passed to the next owner. Paul Pugmire asked if the Development Agreement is attached to the land. Stephen indicated that it is attached to the land. Stephen explained that it is a complicated process because it is an “All or Nothing” situation. Stephen offered to prepare a memorandum explaining the conditions for zoning that would be in a Development Agreement. Paul Pugmire indicated that when we establish zoning, the City is establishing density and allowed use for the land. In a zoning action, the Council is not voting on a particular proposal; we are voting on what is contained in the City’s Zoning Statute. Density is the big dog with this request. Tom is asking for a density greater than what is planned for in Tom’s proposed development. Paul is agreeable to work with the developer to allow river frontage for the green way and other zoning requirements if the Development Agreement is attached to the land. Tom O’Toole is asking for a speeding resolution to this request. He needs to move on an investment package. Mayor Larsen asked for a motion on this proposal. 17 Paul Pugmire moved to release the requirement for the traffic study and use the prior State traffic study to stand with an MDR2 Zone contingent upon the City Council accepting a properly constituted Development Agreement pursuant to Idaho Code 67-6511A; Nyle Fullmer seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Assessment Roll for Local Improvement District 32 (L.I.D. 32) L.I.D. for 2002 third reading for Ordinance 913 Assessment Roll for Local Improvement District 33 (L.I.D. 33) L.I.D. for 2003 third reading for Ordinance 914 Richard Horner indicated that all of the concerns from residents have been addressed. rd Rex Erickson moved to approve Ordinance 913 for it’s 3 reading and final passage; Donna Benfield seconded the motion; Discussion: Those voting ayeThose voting nay: : Paul Pugmire Donna Benfield Nyle Fullmer Rex Erickson G. Farrell Young Garth R. Oakey The voting was unanimous; The LID 32 was approved. rd Rex Erickson moved to approve Ordinance 914 for it’s 3 reading and final passage; Donna Benfield seconded the motion; Discussion: Those voting ayeThose voting nay: : Paul Pugmire Donna Benfield Nyle Fullmer Rex Erickson G. Farrell Young Garth R. Oakey The voting was unanimous; The LID 33 was approved. Update on Projects: None 18 Committee Reports: Donna Benfield reported that the Traffic and Safety Committee is concerned with nd pedestrian safety on 2 East in the Legacy Ridge area with snow forcing them to walk on the street. Snow removal on the east sidewalk is lacking. Sidewalks are totally filled with snow. Can the City require snow removal on the east side sidewalk? Does the City take care of that so students don’t have to walk in the street? The Committee is concerned with pedestrian traffic in the street. th Garth Oakey had a list of 52 concerned students on that live on Main Street to 5 West. They can’t walk on the sidewalk due to snow. Also, mailboxes and driveways are being buried by City snow plows. Some people can’t lift the snow due to illness. One resident got up and shoveled the snow from the driveway and then left for work; before his wife could leave for work, the driveway was plowed in again. Garth compared the City of Rexburg’s plowing of snow to City of Idaho Falls plowing of residential streets. John indicated that Idaho Falls only plowed the residential area once this year. When we plow the snow to the side, debris gets pushed on to the lawns. Garth asked if there were other ways of doing things. John Millar indicated that the City has a fixed wing plow that can not be adjusted to change angles for snow removal. He indicated that the Evergreen Subdivision was given some help to clear driveways on an intermittent basis for some residents, who were physically limited. John asked if the City should get in the business of plowing private driveways. Garth requested an investigation on the cost for snow removal in driveways to solve the problem for these people. John Millar reviewed the two different types of sidewalks that exist in the City. They do not attempt to clear sidewalks due to the encumbrances that are in the path of the snow plow like mail boxes. Continued discussion on the snow removal problems. Rex Erickson indicated that 50 years ago the sidewalks were cleared with horses and plows. Now we don’t do it. Is the desire of people in town to do that again? Seminary students have a problem getting to the building due to the snow banks on the street. John Millar indicated that there are options to look at for snow removal. One plowing takes 4 graders 14 hours to do at a cost of $5,000 to $10,000. The policy is to plow when there is more that 2 inches of snow. In pleasing one group to get snow off the street, the City is aggravating another group. There are 5 ½ employees used to remove the snow from City streets. Two years ago the City plowed 17 times. Last year the city only plowed once. 19 Garth Oakey asked about the liability to the City if someone was hurt due to snow on the side of the street or the sidewalk. Stephen indicated that issue would be a private property issue. The Council discussed the options available for the City to explore for solving the problems of snow being plowed onto the sidewalks that are against the curb. Rex Erickson discussed the feasibility of doing the cleaning of the sidewalk and billing the residents. John Millar asked if the City should compete with private snow removal contractors. nd Stephen Zollinger recommended taking all parking off 2 East on the East side and provide a walking path on that side of the street. There was an injury on that street with a student falling. rd Donna Benfield had a neighborhood asked for signs to limit parking on 3 South for one ndrd and ½ hours between 2 East and 3 East. Rex Erickson discussed parking options on College Avenue. Donna Benfield indicated that residents on College Avenue would like to move the area into a High Density Zone. Paul Pugmire notified the Council of a Golf Course Architect meeting next Thursday at 8:00 a.m. Tabled requests: Parking Ordinance 911 Mayors Business: None = Adjourned 20