Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004.11.03 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CITY OF REXBURG November 03, 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 Irma Anderson Financial Officer Richard Horner P&Z Administrator: Kurt Hibbert City Clerk: Blair D. Kay PFC: John Millar City Attorney: Stephen Zollinger Pledge to the Flag Roll Call of Council Members: All Council Members were present. Mayor Larsen welcomed the scouts to the meeting. They were working on Citizenship in the Community and Communications. Students from Madison High School attended the meeting for a class requirement. 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 October 20, 2004 meeting B. Approve the City of Rexburg Bills 1 Council Member Young moved to approve the Consent Calendar; Council Member Fullmer seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Public Comment: on issues not scheduled on the agenda (limit 3 minutes) Dr. Gary Lovell asked for discussion time on the Comprehensive Plan proposal. New Business: A. Recognition of Davawn Beattie’s service on the Planning & Zoning Commission. Mayor Larsen presented Davawn with a plaque for his service on the Planning and Zoning Commission for 11 years from November 08, 1992, to December 12, 2001. He was a chairman of the Commission for two years. He indicated that he loves the City of Rexburg. B. Proclamation 2004-06 proclaiming Nov. 13 to Nov. 20, 2004 as Scouting for food week (David Jones Public Relations Director – BSA) David Jones reviewed the Scouting for food program. David indicated that it was the goal of the Scouting Council to notify as many people as possible to improve the donation effort. They will collect the scouting for food bags after 9:00 a.m. on the th 20 of November, 2004. Last year Rexburg Scouts collected over 40,000 cans. They want to collect 50,000 cans this year. Two cans will feed an adult one meal. They go to the Good Fellows and Madison County. Mayor Larsen read the Proclamation for the record. Proclamation 2004-06 A Proclamation from the Mayor and approved by the City Council of the City of thth Rexburg, Idaho, declaring November 13 through November 20, 2004, as Scouting for Food Week. WHEREAS, Hunger is a constant problem facing many lower-income families in the City of Rexburg and the surrounding communities of Idaho Falls and Pocatello, and WHEREAS , Many homes struggle to provide only the basic essentials to sustain life as the result on an untimely death of one or both parents, and WHEREAS, Many agencies, groups, churches, and other organizations depend on generous donations of food items to provide help to those who are struggling with hunger, and 2 WHEREAS, The Boy Scouts of America, and the Grand Teton Council serving youth and their families throughout southeastern Idaho and western Wyoming have organized themselves to assist these agencies in delivering 200,000 bags to homes on thth November 13, and gathering them up on November 20, for distribution to these agencies. NOW THEREFORE , I, Mayor Shawn D. Larsen, Mayor, do hereby proclaim thth November 13 to 20, 2004 as Scouting for Food Week in the City of Rexburg, and urge all people of our community and the surrounding communities to join in supporting this project which provides meaningful service for Scouts and an opportunity for each of us to share and to help eliminate much of the suffering within our communities. By virtue of the authority vested in me as Mayor of the City Rexburg, do herby thth proclaim November 13 to November 20, 2004, as Scouting for Food Week. APPROVED AND ADOPTED By the Mayor and City Council of the City of rd Rexburg, Idaho, this 03 day of November, 2004. APPROVED: ____________________________________ Shawn D. Larsen, MAYOR Council Member Pugmire moved to adopt the resolution as read; Council Member The motion carried. Fullmer seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. Mayor’s Youth Advisory Board:Mayor Larsen C. announced that the new members of the Advisory Board are from Madison High School. He indicated that Tabitha Webster is the new advisor of the Board. Mayor Larsen asked Tracey Stephenson to introduce the members of the Board to the City Council. Tracy Stephenson reviewed the Mayor’s Youth Advisory Board as follows: The Returning Board Members names of the "": Jason Andrus; Shelly Lucas, (Historian); Brandon Bradshaw; Tracey Stephenson, (Chair); and Clarisa Blacker. New Board Members The "": Ryan Madsen; Vanesa Cannon, (Vice Chair); Issac Madsen, (Treasure); Jacob Thatcher; Shaundell Thomas; Karlie Stark; and Stoddard Davenport, (Secretary). Council Member Pugmire moved to ratify the candidates; Council Member The motion carried. Benfield seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The Mayor’s Youth Advisory Board planned their first project as the Halloween safety program with a police officer. Mayor Larsen mentioned that the National Youth Leadership Academy will be attended by himself and Jacob Thatcher. They are one of 15 teams attending the Youth Leadership meeting organized through the Met Life Foundation. 3 Signage proposal: Downtown Vision Committee D. – Jon Weber Jon Weber presented a brief overview of the redevelopment plans for Downtown Rexburg. Tom Hudson Company, Larry Komar, Downtown Vision Committee, property owners, and Downtown Businesses were participants in the proposed plan. The Downtown area is a pedestrian priority destination. Vehicles will be a subordinate transportation method for the Downtown area. Jon reviewed the guiding principles for the development of Rexburg’s Downtown area for the next 20 years. He reviewed some downtown graphics of street layout on the overhead screen. There were some street medians proposed in the graphics presentation. College Avenue would become a one-way street heading south for one block. The proposed parking spaces on College Avenue would be parallel stalls and they would have a similar number of parking stalls as currently exists. They are proposing a historical type sign to encourage traffic to enter the downtown business district. He reviewed some arrow signs that could be placed on the entrances to Rexburg and the intersection on the way into the Downtown area. They plan to have parking signs to indicate where a driver can access off street parking lots in the Downtown area. Council Member Young mentioned that the group could use a picture of the front view of the Tabernacle as was used in the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Pugmire was pleased with the progress of the Downtown Vision Committee. He asked why College Avenue was proposed for a one-way street going south to the University. Jon Weber reviewed the thought process for using a one-way street on College Avenue. Jon indicated that it would provide better circulation of traffic off from Main Street and it would enhance the pedestrian traffic from the Downtown area to the University. The Committee is working on a priority list or plan to present to the City Council in the future that will lay out the proposed priority of projects in the Downtown area. Council Member Anderson asked Jon where the parking lots are located for the Downtown area. There are parking lots by Porters Variety Store and by Gringos restaurant. On the north side of Main Street there is parking by the AMET business st on North 1 East Street. Council Member Benfield reviewed the concept of having diagonal parking in conjunction with medians. Jon indicated that diagonal parking is a priority part of the proposal. Jon asked the Council to present any questions or recommendations to the Committee for future discussion before the final blue print is completed. Council Member Pugmire indicated his admiration for the work that the Committee has completed. Jon thanked the City Staff and others for working as a team to bring this proposal forward. 4 Walker Family proposal E. City Attorney Zollinger presented a proposal that referenced a prior City agreement with the Walker family to construct a road through the Walker Subdivision Phase II th from 4 North to the existing Barney Dairy Road. The City would design the road to keep the cost of the road to a minimum. There are 8.3 acres along the river that the Walker family would dedicate to the City for a greenway development under this agreement. The agreements in place for purchase of the lots in the Subdivision would pay for the curb, gutter, asphalt, and buried infrastructure. Street funds would be used to develop the road. Council Member Young asked where the funding for the bridge over the canal would be accomplished. City Attorney Zollinger indicated that the agreement with the Walker family required the City to construct the bridge and road as growth required it to be built. City Attorney Zollinger mentioned that the agreement calls for a 2007 date for completion of the project. The economic impact to the City would be minimal. Council Member Erickson asked to see the (previous agreement) to build the bridge over the canal. City Attorney Zollinger confirmed that it was a 1998 agreement under the City Council and Mayor Boyle. In the previous agreement, the Walker family th agreed to reconfigure a lot on 4 North at the City’s request to allow for right of way th for the construction of 4 North. The Staff indicated that there are plans to get a cost for the road and bridge construction before the Council moves forward for approval of the bridge project. If approved, the road would be built and graveled before the end of July, 2005. Council Member Pugmire indicated a need to proceed with this proposal after the Staff has provided additional information on design and costs. The lot that will be donated to the City is for the greenbelt is 8.3 acres along the south side of the Teton River. It will be placed on the next Council agenda to approve a legal document. Winston Dyer from the City Planning and Zoning Commission indicated that the 8.3 acres have been approved by both the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission for development into a green belt area. City Attorney Zollinger indicated that the 8.3 acres is included in the Plat as a stand alone lot that is to be donated to the City of Rexburg for the development of a green belt area in consideration for the City acting as the project designer and the project manager for the construction of a gravel road and (bridge, previous agreement) over th the canal to extend 4 North to the east over the canal connecting to the Barney Dairy Road. City Attorney Zollinger will prepare the documents for this proposal for Council to approve. 5 Street Impact Fees F./Hofman contract proposal Mayor Larsen introduced the proposal to have Hofman Planning begin the process to develop a Street Development Impact Fee for the City. He asked the Council if they were in agreement to move ahead and begin this process. Council Member Pugmire indicated his approval to begin the process. Council Member Pugmire moved to approve the contract document to have Hofman Planning begin the process for developing Street Impact Fees; Council Member Benfield seconded the motion; Discussion: Richard Horner indicated that it would take 3 to 6 months for the review process which would include a Citizen’s Review Committee of at lease 5 citizens. The review will include numbers from the County Transportation Plan. There will likely be a fixed fee for a home and a transportation usage fee for non residential buildings (so much per trip). The basic premises of all Impact Fees are that they have to increase capacity with a 20 year asset life. The The motion carried. Mayor called for a vote: all voted aye, none opposed. Revitalization of Porter Park G.– Parks & Recreation Committee Rich Ballou reviewed the failure of the past Bond Election for a swimming pool. He discussed the possible reasons for the Bond failure. The facts remain that the City’s water slide is failing and the City does not have an option for summer water recreation. Families are leaving town to get water recreation. He offered another option that is different than the traditional rectangular swimming pool. Rich proposed to fund water recreation in other ways besides a Bond Election. Rich proposed a Spray Park for Porter Park. Kids want three things in the summer: 1)Being outside in the sun. 2)Having fun with their friends. 3)Getting wet with their friends. Rich proposed that the Standard Journal and their parent Company (Pioneer Newspapers) will pledge $10,000 for a Spray Park in Porter Park. He showed an interesting short video about Spray Parks with computerized and synchronized water spouts. Chris Moore presented some overhead drawings of possible designs for Porter Park which included a slide area. This is a very preliminary discussion. The estimated cost would be around $130,000 for a Spray Park. An additional $180,000 would be needed to repair the existing slide ($30,000) and for the installation of a Speed Slide, ($150,000) if it is added to the proposal. These costs do not include the costs for a parking lot or the renovation of the bath house in Porter Park. Chris reviewed some layout options for a Water Garden project that could be used in Porter Park or other areas of the City on the overhead screen. He asked the Council to direct the Recreation Committee on the direction they should go with this proposal. 6 Council Member Anderson discussed the costs for the repair of the old slide. She asked Chris why they are proposing a second slide. Rich indicated that it was just another attraction to invite people to come to the Park. There would be a small charge for some of the attractions in the venue. Council Member Erickson reviewed the costs for the proposal. He thought it was a great idea. He asked for all of the costs to be summarized for the Council. He indicated that it was an affordable proposal. He proposed to have a new bathhouse and parking in the proposal. Council Member Benfield mentioned that the Community could support and would help construct this type of Project. A bath house needs to be part of the proposal. Rich indicated that this proposal could be a reality in a short period of time with Community support. Richard Smith asked if Impact Fees could be used to help fund the project. Staff indicated that the new slide and Spray Park would be fundable under the Impact Fees. Council Member Pugmire asked to use the Impact Fees for undeveloped land like the LP property. He wanted further discussion on location before making a decision. Brad Smith indicated that the Committee did look at other locations; however, Porter Park was their choice due to the need to renovate the Park. Council Member Benfield indicated that it would be an economic benefit to the Committee. It would bring people into the Community. The Council discussed the need to revitalize Porter Park. The ball diamond is inadequate for older youth due to its small size. Chris Moore mentioned that the time line could allow for a project next summer. Council Member Young asked if consideration was given to having a place for children to learn how to swim. 300 kids each summer take swimming lessons at the slide pool in Porter Park. He asked for a teaching pool the size of a tennis court, (even if it had to be phased into the proposal over time), to be included in the proposal. Council Member Fullmer agreed that Porter Park needs revitalized. He was in- favor of this proposal. It would enhance the Park and add to the investment of the Carousel in the Park. Council Member Benfield mentioned that private enterprise may step up to build a swimming pool in the City. 7 Council Member Anderson moved to have the Parks and Recreation Committee prepare and submit a formal proposal with all costs and amenities of the Spray Park proposal to the City Council; Council Member Fullmer seconded the motion, all The motion carried. voted aye, none opposed. Mayor Larsen is looking forward to the fund raising project for the pool. He indicated that the Community would probable provide many service hours to the effort. Discuss the reclassification of H.Hwy 33 through Rexburg – John Millar John Millar review a proposal to change the designation of Hwy 33 through Rexburg. John indicated that through discussions with the Idaho Transportation Department the following options could be possible for the City. It would allow the City to maintain some control of the Hwy. 1)Change the existing route of Hwy 33 to a Business Loop. 2) Re-align Hwy 33 from Rexburg to Sugar City. This option would continue nd Hwy 33 north from Rexburg on 2 East to the North interchange with Hwy 20. A second Business Loop would exit Hwy 20 onto the South Sugar City th Interchange and go through Sugar City’s Main Street to 7 East before going th back north to the current intersection of 7 East and Hwy 33. The existing Hwy 33 south of Sugar City to Rexburg would be transferred to the County. nd The portion of 2 East that is currently under the control of the City of Rexburg and the County would be transferred to the Hwy 33 system. These changes would have to be approved by the City of Rexburg, Madison County, and Sugar City. 3)Change the Business Loop through Rexburg to Hwy 20. This option would change the funding from a State Hwy to a federally funded Hwy. Tom Cole from ITD indicated that the State would not allow miles to be added to the road system with any of these changes. Any changes that would decrease the State Hwy system would be looked upon favorably by ITD. To initiate a change in the Hwy system designation through the area, ITD would require a formal request by letter from Rexburg, Sugar City, and the County. This action would take formal approval by the State Board of Transportation. Mayor Larsen asked the Council to help draft a letter that would request the proposed changes. Council Member Pugmire asked for pros and cons of the proposals. John Millar could not think of a down side to these proposals. Council Member Pugmire asked if the City could get a joint designation of the road system through Rexburg. He wanted to put it on the next agenda. 8 Council Member Young asked to have a letter drafted to ITD before the Council is presented with approval options. The Council discussed the option of having co-signage for Hwy 33 and Hwy 20 on Hwy 20 instead of routing Hwy 33 through Rexburg. This would not eliminate the Business Loop. Council Member Erickson asked about the Hwy 20 proposal which may add mileage to the State Hwy System. John indicated that Hwy 20 is a Federal Hwy which is administered by the State. John mentioned that the Hwy 20 re-route proposal may add miles to Hwy 20. It was thought of as a possibility due to the enhanced funding options that may be available from the Federal Hwy System. Mayor Larsen proposed to have a letter drafted sent to ITD with Council approval. Further discussions can be held with the County and Sugar City through the monthly joint meeting. Engineering Technician/ I.Position Authorization John Millar explained that Construction projects are not getting done as budgeted due to lack of personnel. This is a request for help. The Engineering Department has been laboring with a myriad of projects trying to get things done the last 2 or 3 years. The City is not keeping up with the Construction load, and the design load that is required resulting from the growth. Last year the City had between 1 million to 2 million projects that did not get built. The Staff was unable to get to them earlier in th the year. An example is the construction work on 7 South and North Hill Road. Therefore we are seeking to add an Engineering Technician to be able to take a project from start to finish. John would like to assign projects to this position like LID 34 which would include inspections. It would be a full time position requiring several years of experience in Engineering, drafting, and can work with the public. It is a self funded position from the engineering costs added to a project. John indicated that the down side is that the City would have to locate an office for the proposed employee. The Council discussed the need to start and complete budgeted projects that go without consideration due to a lack of Staff resources to begin the projects. Council Member Young asked if there was a place to house the new position. John indicated that there was space available in City Hall and the Community Development Center. Council Member Erickson moved to create a permanent position as an Engineering Technician; Council Member Anderson seconded the motion; all voted aye, none The motion carried. opposed. 9 Chimes Apartments J.– Brent Whiting Kurt Hibbert reviewed the Chimes Apartments proposal to extend their parking facilities to a lot over 200 feet from the Apartments. There were 8 stalls leased on property adjacent to his property. The balance of the parking was contracted for property a City block away from the Apartments. Brent Whiting – 1406 West 1600 South, Mapleton Utah, is the owner for three months. It has been student housing for over 15 years between the Spori building and the Snow building. He proposed to keep the four spots in front of the building and allowing only pedestrian students (boys) without a vehicle. Council Member Erickson reviewed the issues that are involved with these Apartments. He indicated that the fourteen students at this location should have to have fourteen parking stalls to comply with the City’s Zoning Parking Ordinance (one parking stall per student). Brent Whiting indicated that they have 16 people with nine vehicles at the Apartments. He understands the problem; however, he believes that he can find rental students that do not have a vehicle. Council Member Pugmire mentioned that it is a good idea to allow dormitory housing without a parking requirement for students that do not have a car. The Council could change the City’s parking statute to allow this type of housing. Attorney Zollinger passed out a revised booting Ordinance to assign parking to a car by stall (see section 9). The Council took it under advisement for a future meeting. Dr. Gary Lovell offered some suggestions concerning parking permits for residents on a City Street. Richard Smith (Attorney for the University) indicated that the University would be supportive of housing for students without vehicles; however, the University would not be in favor of changing the parking ratio of one parking stall per student in the City’s Parking Ordinance. City Attorney Zollinger indicated that it is a first step to address historical problems with non conforming dormitory style housing. This is a tool for parking enforcement. The Planning and Zoning Commission could create enclaves of pedestrian only zones with this enforcement mechanism. Council Member Erickson was struggling with the need to find a way to help non compliant properties come into compliance. 10 City Attorney Zollinger and Council Member Erickson discussed the compliance issues with the applicant. The Attorney indicated that the applicant’s units preexisted before the 1981 and 1990 Zoning Ordinance. Council Member Pugmire would like to create an incentive to have students come to the University without cars. Cherie S. – offered an opinion on how to regulate parking next to the University with Zoning Parking Permits for residents (Conditional Use stickers for their cars). Council Members Pugmire and Fullmer would like to have some time to review this proposal for the next meeting. Council Member Young asked Richard if the University is opposed to Students coming to the University without a car. Richard Smith indicated that the University is not opposed to having students without cars; however, the University would strongly oppose changing the Parking Ratios. They would not approve of changing new construction requirements. The University wants to maintain the established parking guideline requirements. Council Member Young asked why this topic is on the agenda again. Mayor Larsen indicated that it is a new proposal to address the parking concerns of residents and visitors to the City. Richard Smith explained that they have been given a directive to come up with a resolution to the parking problems with student parking around the University and in the City. There are procedures for parking around the University. Some students will drive two blocks to avoid walking up hill on the way home from class. Council Member Erickson reviewed the size of the lot and the allowance for only five parking stalls for the Apartments in this proposal. Brent Whiting can only find 8 parking stalls under a lease agreement with the property owner next door to his Apartments. Mayor Larsen asked the requestor to put forth a written proposal to the Community Development Office for the creation of an Ordinance that would address his issues for parking. Randall Porter mentioned that the City must take into consideration the visitors that come to the City to visit people in location that do not have adequate parking. 11 Public Hearings: A.7:45 p.m. BILL No. 928 Annexation of properties # 04 00260 - John Deere, Matthew Dronin, President Kurt Hibbert reviewed the proposed annexation parcel on the overhead screen. It is th adjacent to 12 West south of University Boulevard. Adjacent neighbors were contacted; however, they declined to be included in this proposal. Mayor Larsen opened the Public Hearing. Dave Tietjen, Regional Manager for the John Deere Company is excited to be before the City with this proposal. He discussed the proposal with the Council. They would like to present and attractive entry to the City. Those speaking in favor of the proposal – None Those speaking in opposition to the proposal – None Mayor Larsen closed the public input for the Public Hearing. Council Member Young asked Dave how the John Deere Company is planning to provide access into their facility. Dave indicated that the access would be off from th 12 West. Council Member Erickson asked about the home on the west side of the property. The applicant indicated that the home would be buffered by landscaping. Council Member Young asked if all property owners were notified. The Staff indicated that it was a requested annexation and due process was given to the adjacent owners. City Attorney Zollinger reminded the Council of the six month delay that the applicant has endured waiting for the City to complete the Comprehensive Plan process. The Staff requested that the Council approve the annexation proposal on the first reading of the Annexation Ordinance. Council Member Pugmire asked if it was expedient to waive the rules to pass this proposal. He has strong feelings about waiving the rules; especially in an annexation proposal. Even though the John Deere Company has been very patient with the City; Council Member Pugmire would not support waiving the rules for passage of the Annexation Ordinance on the first reading. Council Member Pugmire reviewed the need to follow the Design Standard review process under the City’s building permitting process. 12 Council Member Young moved to suspend the rules for this proposal; Council Member Fullmer seconded the motion; Role call vote: Those voting ayeThose voting nay Paul Pugmire Donna Benfield Nyle Fullmer Rex Erickson G. Farrell Young Irma Anderson The motion carried. Council Member Fullmer BILL No. moved to approve the Annexation proposal in 928 (Annexation of properties # 04 00260); Council Member Anderson seconded the motion; role call vote: Those voting ayeThose voting nay Paul Pugmire None Donna Benfield Nyle Fullmer Rex Erickson G. Farrell Young Irma Anderson The motion to Annex the John Deere property carried. Old Business: A.Resolution 2004 – 22 (Adopt the COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2020) Kurt Hibbert reviewed the draft document for the Comprehensive Plan 2020. He reviewed the Zones that were allowed under each land use designation on page 48. There are a series of Zones allowed under each land use designation. These Zones link the Comprehensive Plan Document to the Comprehensive Plan Map. The Council and the Planning Commission requested these changes. Council Member Pugmire was concerned with the changes to the Comprehensive Plan Document after the Comprehensive Plan Map was approved. He was concerned with adding the Project Redevelopment Option to the Comprehensive Plan before it is established. Kurt indicated that the Comprehensive Plan Ordinance is generally changed after the Comprehensive Plan is in place. This is being done at this time in this meeting to develop the Comprehensive Plan Ordinance. 13 Council Member Fullmer reviewed the Project Redevelopment Option and noted nd that it was being limited to Mixed Use land use. He indicated that the residents on 2 East were led to believe that the Project Redevelopment Option (ProZone) could be applied in Residential One designations and Residential Two designations in the Comprehensive Plan in impacted areas of the City. Kurt indicated that the ProZone can be applied to Residential Zones and Mixed Use Zones. Kurt mentioned that the flexibility of the ProZone option could be applied in Commercial Zones; however, that discussion has not occurred at this time. Council Member Pugmire asked if the Comprehensive Plan would need to be changed if the ProZone was made available in the Commercial Zones. He asked if it would be proper to add the ProZone option to Commercial Zones at this time before the Comprehensive Plan 2020 Document is approved. Council Member Pugmire understood that the ProZone options are not a requirement; however, it does allow the governing bodies to apply it where impacted areas are identified. Council Member Pugmire asked that the ProZone option be included in the Commercial Section of the Comprehensive Plan Ordinance. Kurt Hibbert indicated that the ProZone option is for blighted areas that have been identified for redevelopment. They are areas needing new investment, or the values in an area need to be established. The application of a ProZone in the Commercial designations has not been discussed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Chairman Winston Dyer mentioned that the ProZone option would be a useful tool to address the redevelopment of blighted areas. Council Member Pugmire and Kurt reviewed the opportunity to change the Comprehensive Plan Document any time during the six month time period when the Comprehensive Plan Map can not be changed. Council Member Fullmer indicated that the ProZone option is applicable for some Commercial areas like the development of One Stop Auto. He reviewed the obstacles that One Stop Auto endured to comply with the set back requirements of their lot. Council Member Pugmire moved to insert the wording Project Redevelopment Option Zone, on page 49, after the wording (Technology and Office Zone); Council Member Fullmer seconded the motion; Discussion: all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Dr. Gary Lovell – 36 Professional Plaza (in business for 22 years at this location) learned yesterday of some Land Use designation changes to the Comprehensive Plan nd Map in his area along 2 East and homes along Main Street. He asked the Council 14 why the change was made to this area surrounding his properties. The Land Use designation in this area was changed from Commercial to Residential. They were surprised that the City would change this area given the previous Comprehensive Plan Map designation for Commercial use. He indicated a need for additional parking for nd his employees. He was planning to utilize some of the property he owns on 2 East for a parking area. Mayor Larsen indicated that there is not a change in the current Zoning for this area. The current Zoning reflects what is on the new Comprehensive Plan Map 2020. He asked Kurt Hibbert to review the Comprehensive Plan Map and the changes that were made in the recent approval of the Comprehensive Plan Map. Dr. Gary Lovell mentioned that he was speaking for the surrounding property owners to include the Davis’s property, the Arnold’s property, the Tuckett’s property, and Dr. Doug Smith’s property. These property owners are opposed to the changes to the long term plan. Mayor Larsen reviewed the history of the Public Hearings that were conducted in these current Comprehensive Plan discussions. He mentioned that the Comprehensive Plan Map would be available for future changes after a six month waiting period. Dr. Lovell asked the Council why the change was made in this neighborhood from Commercial to Residential. Council Member Fullmer stated that the Council was led to believe that the neighbors and the property owners in this area wanted to remain a low density residential type neighborhood. Council Member Fullmer thought that a parking lot would be allowed in this area. City Attorney Zollinger indicated that a parking lot is not allowed in a Low Density Residential One Zone (LDR1). Dr. Lovell indicated that the Professional Plaza has added 8 new practicing professionals to their staff. The Hospital is going to remain in the current location. He indicated that the City should look for ways to accommodate the growth of the Medical Community. The City should not be frustrating the growth of the Medical Community. The City should be encouraging the expansion of Professional space for the Medical Community. City Attorney Zollinger mentioned that Dr. Lovell could go through a Public Hearing Process to petition for a Professional Office Zone. 15 Mayor Larsen indicated that a Professional Office Zone is not allowed in Residential One in the new Comprehensive Plan. City Attorney Zollinger indicated that it was allowed in the Comprehensive Plan when it was recommended to the City Council by the Planning and Zoning Commission. He did not understand that the Professional Office Zone was taken out of the Residential One designation on the proposed Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Fullmer asked Kurt if the Comprehensive Plan Document had been changed enough to require an additional Public Hearing. Kurt Hibbert asked Chairman Winston Dyer if he had any recollection of the Planning Commissions intentions for the inclusion of a Professional Office Zone in any of the Residential Zones. Winston Dyer indicated that the current Zoning Ordinance allows for a Professional Office overlay Zone. The Professional Office Overlay Zone has long been considered in that area of a Residential Zone. The new write up of the Zoning Ordinance is in draft form dispenses with the concept of a Professional Overlay and creates a Professional Office Zone on its own merits. Kurt Hibbert asked Winston if the Professional Office Zone would replace the Professional Office Overlay in a Residential Zone. Winston indicated that the application of a Professional Office Overlay would be removed from the Residential Areas in the new Zoning Ordinance and people would be considered for a Professional Office Zone when the Planning Commission changed the Zoning Map. Winston indicated that the Planning Commission did not look at this specifically in this area in that light. City Attorney Zollinger clarified his comments by stating that he was not referring to a specific area. Professional Office by its very nature is to integrate residential neighborhoods with offices. He did not know why the City would want it in any other area except Residential neighborhoods. He was unaware of the document change; however, if the current proposed verbiage in the Comprehensive Plan is approved, a Professional Office Overlay would not be allowed in a Residential neighborhood. Mayor Larsen indicated that the Council had considerable discussion about this neighborhood. This came before the Council six different times. The Council decided that this is a residential neighborhood. The fact that the Professional Office Overlay was put into that neighborhood (an LDR1 Zone), does not mean that it is not 16 nd a Residential neighborhood. The Council agreed that the area along 2 East and Main Street in this neighborhood is a Residential neighborhood. The new classification for the Professional Plaza is a Professional Office Zone. This protects the neighborhood as Residential neighborhood. Council Member Erickson reviewed the past discussions and Public Hearings with testimony from neighbors on both sides (east & west) of the Professional Plaza who wanted the area to remain a Residential neighborhood. There was not one person in a six month period of time that came in to the Council and spoke in favor of changing the neighborhood to a Professional (Commercial) designation on the Comprehensive Plan Map. There have been legal notices in the paper for two public hearings before the City Council on the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan. There have been so many different discussions on this neighborhood in the recent past and no one has objected to keeping the neighborhood Residential. Dr. Lovell indicated that Mr. Arnold did communicate to the Planning and Zoning Commission by letter that he was in favor of the area remaining Commercial on the Comprehensive Plan. Dr. Lovell and other neighborhoods were not aware or did not get notified of the changes to the current Comprehensive Plan Map. He indicated that he has been before the Council before to let them know of his intension to expand nd into properties he owns west of the Professional Plaza that border 2 East. Mayor Larsen indicated that Dr. Lovell’s anticipation of putting a parking lot on the property before mentioned the lots that would require a Zone change. The nd speculation being that “I have a home on 2 East and eventually transition it into a different Zone”. It is not an allowable use under the current Zoning and it is still not allowed. Dr. Lovell explained that when they approached the City for requested changes before, they were required to notify the neighbors of the proposed changes. He stated that they were not aware of and they were not notified of the changes to the long term plan. Council Member Erickson asked Don Sparwhawk if the people in this neighborhood were part of the East Main Street Neighborhood Association. Don indicated that several people in this neighborhood had the same desires as the East Main Street Neighborhood Association to keep this neighborhood as a Residential neighborhood. Mayor Larsen reiterated the process of Public Hearings to take public comments before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council concerning the Comprehensive Plan. In a quasi-judicial manner the Council listened to the 17 arguments pro and con before deliberating and making a decision on the new Comprehensive Plan Map. Dr. Robert Lofgran an associate of Dr. Lovell’s, who works in the same building, was concerned with parking issues they are facing in the Professional Plaza. He spoke very seriously about the safety concerns for the Professional Plaza Street. He mentioned that the Hospital was hiring 4 new practitioners that would work out of clinic in that very building. He did not have any idea where the new employees would park when they start July, 2005. Professional Plaza is a through street that is causing lots of problems because there is not enough parking. Dr. Lofgran was concerned with small children and older people trying to unload out of cars on that road where there is lots of traffic. He understood that years and years ago, Professional Plaza was not intended to be a through street. He indicated that he proposed to establish additional parking for the Professional Plaza to alleviate the problem. The way the Ordinance reads now, there is absolutely no option to add parking in the Professional Plaza. He was afraid that if the parking issue is not addressed, there will be some very serious safety issues. Council Member Erickson reviewed the status of the Professional Plaza road as a Street. City Attorney Zollinger mentioned that the Council voted to call it a street about six months earlier. Whether it is or is not suppose to be, it is officially called Professional Plaza Street. Council Member Pugmire asked Dr. Lovell what he intended to do with the properties to the west of his office. Dr. Lovell indicated that they planned to use the two or three properties to the west for parking. Council Member Young asked why the building owner would allow additional Doctors to come into the building if he knew there was initially a parking problem. Dr. Loftgren indicated that the reason of the additional doctors being added to the Professional Plaza is because of the need to be next to the Hospital for emergencies. Dr. Lovell asked to have the sign changed to Professional Plaza Street instead of Harvard Avenue to identify the Professional Plaza. Council Member Erickson asked Dr. Lovell to identify the three properties that he owns to the west of his office in the Professional Plaza. Tuckett’s, Davis’s, Lovell’s, and Dr. Doug Smith’s property face nd 2 East. Dr. Lovell indicated that the growth of the Hospital and the additional Hospital Staff indicate that there is a need to have the opportunity to expand Medical Services adjacent to the Hospital. He discussed the problems with trying to maintain nd a residential neighborhood along 2 East. The homes are not selling as residential homes. 18 Council Member Fullmer mentioned that in June, 2004 there were over 15,000 cars nd per day going past his front door in 2 East. It is not the same as it used to be in the nd past. He indicated that the residents on 2 East will want to use the new ProZone option and use it aggressively to prepare a plan for the re-development of the nd properties on 2 East in the 200 block and even the 300 block. In a prior meeting nd with the City Council, there was discussion on the amount of homes on 2 East that nd is not owner occupied. He mentioned that 2 East is transitioning and the Council needs to take a look at it. Council Member Fullmer asked Dr. Lovell to come into the nd City Council with a very specific plan for the re-development of his property on 2 East. Mayor Larsen asked John Millar to follow through with an earlier request to change the signs on Professional Plaza from Harvard Avenue to Professional Plaza Street. An underlying sign on Main Street could indicate that Harvard Avenue ? was south of the Professional Plaza. John Millar indicated that the signage on the south end of the Professional Plaza Street will be correctly addressed showing the Professional Plaza Street to the north st and Harvard Avenue to the south of 1 South. Dr. Lovell asked to be notified of changes to the Comprehensive Plan in the future. He was not familiar with the ProZone terminology. He asked the City to change the designation for this area back to Commercial like it was on the Comprehensive Plan 2010. Mayor Larsen indicated to Dr. Lovell that he could apply to change the new Comprehensive Plan Map in six months. Dr. Lovell was surprised that the designation for the City Block around the Professional Plaza was changed on the Comprehensive Plan Map without notification to the property owners. Mayor Larsen understood Dr. Lovell’s frustration; he asked Kurt to clarify the notification requirements for changing the Comprehensive Plan. Kurt Hibbert indicated that Public Hearings involving over 200 parcels do not require individual notifications. The notification in the City’s official newspaper is sufficient. Mayor Larsen asked Dr. Lovell to get with Kurt at the Community Development Center at 19 East Main Street for information on the new ProZone option and its uses. Council Member Pugmire indicated to Dr. Lovell that the changes to the document on page 49 this evening have not been incorporated into the Document. The application of the new ProZone option will have a Commercial use. It may not apply on the particular street because of the zoning of the particular street. He indicated 19 that the City Council is trying to think through these applications right now and the Council is trying to leave the option of applying the ProZone to this use as the Council completes the task of developing the ProZone option. It is yet incomplete. Dr. Lovell was still unsure why the long term designation of this City Block was changed from Commercial to Residential. Council Member Pugmire indicated that most people that testified in the Public Hearing wanted the designation of Residential instead of Commercial. Kurt Hibbert discussed the intent of the ProZone application. The whole purpose of a professional Zone is to create a buffer between residential and Commercial Zones in a non intrusive fashion. Mayor Larsen asked Dr. Lovell to contact Kurt to get an application to change the Comprehensive Plan in 5 ½ to 6 months. Council Member Fullmer asked if it was the intension of the City to pass the Comprehensive Plan tonight. Mayor Larsen indicated that the Plan could be passed tonight by Resolution with the recommended changes by Council Member Pugmire. Council Member Fullmer asked the City Attorney if it could be passed tonight. The Council and Staff discussed the reason for removing the Professional Office overlay and replacing it with a Professional Office Zone. It was intended to be a buffer between Commercial and Residential Zones in a non intrusive fashion. The Zoning Ordinance would regulate the possible locations where the Professional Office Overlay could be applied. After discussing the Residential One application on the Comprehensive Plan Map with members of the Planning and Zoning Committee, Mayor Larsen was under the understanding that a Professional Office designation would not be allowed with a Residential One (low to moderate density) designation. Kurt Hibbert mentioned that he was under the understanding that the implementation of a Professional Office Zone would completely eliminate what the City has had in the past as far as Overlays are concerned, which many people saw as Zone busting. Basically, they would eventually be removed from the City’s maps. In order to do that change, Kurt would have to take the existing areas where Professional Offices exist and overlay those areas with a Professional Office Zone. Kurt asked how he could do that without it being designated in the Comprehensive Plan. City Attorney Zollinger indicated that there is no point to have a Professional Office Zone in the Comprehensive Plan Map if you don’t allow it in Residential Zones. The whole purpose is to create a buffer between Residential and Commercial. Those uses 20 are allowed in Commercial. You can’t create the buffer on Commercial Zones. He gave an example of a buffer by taking an LDR1 Zone (10,000 square feet and greater) and allowing incursions into those Residential enclaves for Professional Offices developments that would buffer the Residential area from a Commercial Zone in a non-intrusive fashion. Mayor Larsen asked Kurt, “If a Professional Office Zone is allowed in a Residential area, would it then expand to all Residential neighborhoods in the City”. Kurt indicated that it was correct until the stricter controls are delineated in the Zoning Ordinance. He gave an example of LDR “controls” making a Professional Office Zone off limits in the Zoning Ordinance to a Residential Area. Don Sparhawk mentioned that the Mixed Use Zone was created for Professional Office uses and Residential uses. He thought there was a real need to separate professional offices from Residential areas. He did not think the residents wanted to have the option of putting Professional Offices in Residential neighborhoods. So, the whole purpose for the Planning and Zoning Commission setting an area up for Mixed Use was to allow both Professional Offices and Residential uses in a Zone. Otherwise, why would you have a Mixed Use area if you are going to allow the Professional Offices in a Residential area? Don indicated that there should be a distinction between Mixed Use and Residential. City Attorney Zollinger indicated that Mixed Use was initially designed to address the integration from Commercial to Residential. The problem is that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended this very area to be a Mixed Use area. The East Main Street Neighborhood Association represented that this area was not appropriate for Mixed Use; however, they did agree that this was a Low Density Residential One (LDR1) neighborhood. The Planning and Zoning Commission had to figure out how to replace overlays in Residential (LDR1, LDR2, & MDR) Zones. The overlays were always used in Residential neighborhoods. There was no such thing as a Mixed Use option. The Planning and Zoning Commission has had several Public Hearings for Zone changes in this area that have been denied because they did not fit the timing for the neighborhood. The applicant has the right to ask for a land use change; however, it is up to the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve or deny the request. Overlays were not needed in Commercial areas. They fell into Residential use areas as an overlay. City Attorney Zollinger indicated that he understood that Planning and Zoning anticipated that the Professional Offices Zone would be available to them in the Residential One underlay. It is not to say that they would give it to anybody right away or that they would give it to specific areas. It would be available because there will be residential areas as evidenced by history in Rexburg, Idaho, where 21 Professional Offices would desire to be located or co-locate with Residential neighborhoods. Every one of our Professional Offices presently exists as a result of a specific Public Hearing coming to this body and asking to be considered in a Residential neighborhood. Council Member Erickson reviewed the past requests from the residents of the East Main Street Neighborhood Association. They have requested to maintain a residential neighborhood in this area. The Council agreed that they had a legitimate reason to protect their neighborhood. Council Member Erickson discussed the reasoning for changing the Commercial designation of the Professional Plaza Block to Residential. He indicated that the Council should have left the properties west of nd the Professional Plaza against 2 East as a Commercial designation on the Comprehensive Plan Map. City Attorney Zollinger mentioned that the Staff misinformed the Council at some level concerning the history of the discussion on this area. As Dr. Lovell pointed out, this has been a process that predates a number of the City Council Members. The Staff made this monumental mistake about 2 ½ years ago to change this Residential area (3 ½ square blocks) to create a Professional Overlay without the means to carry the proposal forward. That is where this issue got its genesis (origin). Dr. Lovell’s information did come before the City in those discussions. In those discussions, nd property owners along 2 East did indicate that they would be willing to see a change to Commercial use in the future. Council Member Erickson indicated that the Council should never have made that change in the Land Use Map. He mentioned that the Zoning has not been changed, so the Council has not created any problem. Council Member Erickson indicated that there was a need to review the Land Use Map again in six months. The Council can make changes at that time if needed. City Attorney Zollinger expressed concerns from a legal point of view, when he learned that the Professional Office Zone had been taken out of Residential One (low to medium density) in the Comprehensive Plan. Without the ability to go to a public nd hearing on a Professional Office Zone along 2 East, we probably have (because of a lack of communication on the part of Staff), locked some of these property owners into a problem. It can be corrected in six months; however, the City Attorney did not suggest it needed to be corrected if there is an option for a Professional Office Zone in Residential areas. He indicated that it can also be addressed by the ProZone. The City Attorney’s Office is a little uncomfortable with creating a ProZone option that circumvents all of the underlying rules. He wanted a ProZone option to massage the rules, not jerk them out and throw them away. The Professional Office Zone left the City in a position to entertain applicants like (Steve Davis, Terrell Arnold, Tuckett’s, 22 and Topham’s) to request a Public Hearing to seek a Land Use change for a Professional Office development that would be conducive to a Residential type neighborhood. If that option is not available, then maybe the City needs to revisit the issue. Council Member Erickson mentioned that only one lady came to the Public Hearing nd on the 2 East properties west of the Professional Plaza. He was concerned about not being informed of the prior discussions on this area. The other properties owners (Arnolds) did not come in and provide any input to the Council in the Public Hearing. That history should have come out in the Public Hearing. He was concerned with being unaware of the neighbors being against a change in the Comprehensive Plan for nd this area along 2 East. The Council did not know this information because the property owners informed the City two years ago. Council Member Erickson was really concerned with making this decision without all of the facts. City Attorney Zollinger indicated that Staff may not have provided the City Council with all of the facts on this issue as they were conveyed to the City by the property owners in the past. Council Member Erickson indicated that the change could be reviewed and corrected if approved by the Council. Mayor Larsen indicated that the City Council heard the arguments for converting the area west of the Professional Plaza into Professional Office Space. The Council reviewed it and said no because the Professional Plaza was put in a residential neighborhood. The reason that it was put there was because the Zoning Ordinance was not enforced at that time. Since it was put in a Residential area, can the City encroach upon the rest of the block and increase the size of the Professional Plaza? The Council looked at it and said no. The Council designated it as Professional Plaza and approved a Professional Office Zone for the Professional Plaza in the middle of that neighborhood. That was the decision of the Council. He indicated that if the members of the Professional Plaza wanted to apply under the ProZone requirements and bring the request before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, it would be reviewed. City Attorney Zollinger asked the Council if the ProZone option would be allowed to circumvent the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Larsen indicated that the ProZone option would not be allowed to circumvent the Comprehensive Plan. City Attorney Zollinger indicated that the applicant could request a ProZone option in that case. The proposed Comprehensive Plan specifically precludes the uses they would be requesting. 23 Council Member Erickson asked if the applicants could come to the City and request a Zone change from Low Density Residential (LDR1) to Commercial. City Attorney Zollinger indicated that they could not make that request under this Proposed Comprehensive Plan. City Attorney Zollinger indicated that there were representations made in broad generalities that according to Dr. Lovell should not have allowed the properties west of the Professional Plaza to be changed for Commercial to Residential on the Comprehensive Plan Map. He indicated that he did not know where the misrepresentation took place. Council Member Erickson asked for the procedure to make a Zone change. City Attorney Zollinger indicated that the request has to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan that the City has adopted. City Attorney Zollinger mentioned that the verbiage in the proposed Comprehensive Plan that is being considered tonight can be changed again in two weeks. Council Member Erickson asked if they could request a Zone change at that time. City Attorney Zollinger indicated that the request could be acted upon only if the Zone they are requesting is allowed in the underlying Zone which is Residential One (R1) and Residential Two (R2) designations in the Comprehensive Plan Map. The ProZone is allowed; however, the problem with a ProZone is that it is not intended to go in and circumvent minimum standards in a Zone. He gave an example of Residential Zones (LDR1, LDR2, LDR3, R1, and R2) that do not allow a Commercial Zone. He asked if the Council would want to allow a ProZone to be able to go back and create a Commercial Zone in an underlying Zone if it otherwise did not allow a Commercial Zone. If the answer is yes, then City Attorney Zollinger mentioned that the ProZone is a lot more progressive and vibrant than he could contemplate. nd Council Member Erickson asked if the properties on 2 East west of the Professional Plaza could be changed from LDR1 to Commercial. City Attorney Zollinger indicated that two things would have to happen: 1)Have the ProZone written in a manner to allow it. 2)Petition the City to amend the Comprehensive Plan in six months. Council Member Erickson concluded that the applicants do have a tool to address this Land Use change request. He commented that the Council could review the request in six months. 24 The Council discussed the changes that were made to the Comprehensive Plan to create this discussion. Mayor Larsen indicated that it was based on the understanding that if you allow a Professional Office Zone in a Residential One designation on the Comprehensive Plan then you allow a Professional Office Zone in LDR1, LDR2, and LDR3 Residential Zones. The whole Community would be opened up to a request for Professional Office Zones. City Attorney Zollinger indicated that same option was available in the past under a Professional Office Overlay. The Staff was given the instruction to replace Overlays with actual Zones. The Professional Office Overlay was replaced with a Professional Office Zone. Mayor Larsen was of the opinion that it was not the intent of the City Council to allow a Professional Office Zone in any Residential neighborhoods in the Community. Council Member Fullmer indicated that it was his understanding that it was a recommendation from Planning and Zoning that Professional Office Zones would be allowed to apply for option and it would be reviewable under the Public Hearing process. Mayor Larsen asked if it would be applicable in an LDR Zone which is the most restrictive Residential neighborhood. City Attorney Zollinger reviewed a recent Public Hearing for the Smith property for a Professional Office Overlay in an LDR Zone. The process worked. After hearing the request it was recommended to be denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission and was denied by the City Council. Although it was an allowed application, it was acknowledged in that particular Zone it did not work. It gave the City the ability to consider what the City has considered for the last 50 years. There will be times when it may be applicable. Every Professional Office Plaza in Rexburg came into existence in a Residential Zone. Don Sparhawk mentioned one more time “that is why we created the Mixed Use” Zone. Why did we create that if we are going to allow Professional Offices in Residential areas? It was explained to him that it would not be allow in Residential neighborhoods. Council Member Pugmire explained that Mr. Sparhawk’s point is entirely right based from Council Member Pugmire’s recollection. The whole Mixed Use Zone 25 rd experience in part was inspired by what has happened on 3 East with Mr. Sparhawk’s efforts and his group’s position. He recalled that in the discussion of the block in question, Mr. Sparhawk’s reasoning carried that day. He viewed Main Street as allowing Commercial expansion on that block. That would allow Mr. Arnold to move to Commercial; however, it would not get Mr. Tuckett. It would be problematic for Raymond Hill’s property because of the depth of the lot. He did not nd perceive that 2 East properties would change to Commercial. He asked the Council if his recollection was correct. Council Member Fullmer indicated that his recollection was correct in that it was specific to Don Sparhawk’s area. Council Member Pugmire clarified the area of Don nd Sparhawk’s group as a square corner from Main Street and 2 South. His discussions with Don have primarily been on the Main Street frontage issues with which they disagree. Don indicated that there are people divided on this issue. The Doctors came tonight; however, there are others with Don’s views. Council Member Erickson indicated that the majority of the testimony on this block asked for a Residential classification on the Comprehensive Plan Map. Council Member Fullmer mentioned that there was information presented that nd indicated many homes on 2 East are non owner occupied and they have no intention of remain residential. Council Member Erickson did not recall that discussion on the nd homes (Arnold property and others) on the first block of 2 East. Mayor Larsen mentioned that Steve Oakey, from the Historical Preservation nd Committee, testified that night concerning Historic Preservation along 2 East. That was one of the arguments that went with Mr. Sparhawk’s argument. Council Member Fullmer agreed, and he indicated that the Comprehensive Plan draft that the Council was given 90 days ago has dramatically changed from what we have tonight. Mayor Larsen indicated that none of the definitions were in the document. Council Member Pugmire indicated that these issues can be addressed as the nd ProZone is developed; particularly as they apply to 2 East. It is his expectation that nd ProZone will be the place to address the 2 East issues. He mentioned that the Council has standing (position) to do so under the City’s current documentation. He indicated that it was an open issue still as the Council completes the process of defining how a ProZone will function. Subsequent to the definition, there will be the process of actually applying the ProZone and putting it on the map in different places. With the definitional change that was made tonight, the Council can do Project Redevelopment in much of the City. 26 Mayor Larsen indicated that it could be done in Residential as well as Commercial Zones. Council Member Pugmire indicated that the City will have the tools in place to address these requests in a very specific way with the completion of the Project nd Redevelopment Option Zone (ProZone). He indicated that these streets (2 East and East Main Street) are really changing. Council Member Fullmer asked to table the Comprehensive Plan for two weeks; Council Member Benfield seconded the motion; Discussion: all voted aye, none The motion carried. opposed. Council Member Young asked about the term Mixed Use where it is designated in st the Comprehensive Plan. It is on 1 North and the Professional Plaza off East Main Street. B.BILL No. 929 – Franchise Agreement Renewal – PacifiCorp (Utah Power) – Staff The Council referred to the previous meeting where this item was introduced. The Council instructed the City Clerk to begin the standard notification process at that th meeting on the 20 of October. Council Member Fullmer moved to have Bill No. 929 second read; Council Member Benfield seconded the motion; Discussion: Council Member Young stth reminded the Council that the Bill was not 1 read at the October 20 meeting. Council Member Fullmer withdrew his motion with permission of the second. Council Member Fullmer moved to have Bill No. 929 first read; Council Member The motion carried. Anderson seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. C.BILL No. 930 – Establish new local limits for specific discharges , wastes, and provide for surcharges on excessive strength wastewater flows John Millar explained that this Bill is for housekeeping to update Ordinance 800 per EPA requirements. This Bill will change local limits for discharged waste; verbiage changes on how the City handles septic tank wastes; and some of the excessive strength discharges that the City handles for the Industrial users. John indicated that time is of the essence for EPA compliance on the new standards. They are due by the last of November before they find the City in non-compliance with the City’s own regulations. These requirements are communicated to the City by mandate letters. 27 Council Member Fullmer moved to suspend the rules for Bill 930; Council Member Erickson seconded the motion; Roll call vote: Those voting ayeThose voting nay Donna Benfield Paul Pugmire Nyle Fullmer Rex Erickson G. Farrell Young Irma Anderson The motion carried. Council Member Fullmer moved to approve Bill 930; Council Member Anderson The motion carried. seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. D.BILL No. 931Smoke-free Air Act of 2004 ( – Madison County Health Coalition) bumped to next agenda Spencer Michael City Attorney Zollinger did not have the Document to review. It will be put on the next agenda. Mayor Larsen asked the applicant to provide an electronic copy to the City. Council Member Pugmire asked to have the proposed document simplified, sighting the State Code and then adding bowling alleys for the City of Rexburg. E.Supervisor’s Handbook Approval Richard Horner handed out a copy to the Council. He asked for changes from the Council. He indicated that he added some age limits on Page 6 for hiring supervisors that follow the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Council discussed the wording on page nd 10, section 302 (2 paragraph) concerning the temporary time period of 180 days before a temporary employee is given permanent employment. They concluded that a 180 day temporary time period was appropriate and this time period should not be extended. Richard added a paragraph to section 306 for promotions, demotions, and suspensions needing to be reviewed by Staff before they are acted upon. The Council agreed that the title City Financial Officer (CFO) referred to in the manual should be changed to the Human Resource Director. The references to Mayor and City Attorney will remain in the Handbook as currently stated. Council Member Benfield moved to approve the amended Supervisor’s Handbook revised draft as discussed; Council Member Fullmer seconded the motion; all voted The motion carried. aye, none opposed. 28 City Council Report: A. Council Member Young mentioned that the Community Orchestra Concert th on the 11 of November which includes a Veterans recognition program. The Community Carousel Chorus will also perform. B. Council Member Benfield waiting on minutes for her Committees. There is th a Parade on the 26 of November to begin the Holiday Season. There will be participants from the Fire Department (Fire Truck) and the Police Department. The Council is invited to participate and ride on the Fire Truck. It is the Friday after Thanksgiving at 6:00 p.m. The Festival of Trees will be opened after the Community Parade. The Festival of Trees will be in the Community Care Building. Council Member Benfield represented the Council at the recent Spirit Week for the University. The next Spirit Week will be on February 08, 2005. C.Council Member Erickson indicated that the Airport Board projects were discussed at the meeting today. They are working on the black top for the Airport. The City will push the snow away from the two south gates because their snow plow is too big for the gates. There are problems with Hart Enterprises lease. The lease is being taken over by Lewis. D. Council Member Pugmire discussed Public Art and Beatification programs for a City Project. The basic idea is that percentage of a construction project would be targeted for Public Art. He mentioned 1% as a possible percentage. It would require an Ordinance for Public Art. Council Member Pugmire discussed several other locations that have incorporated this fee to enhance the City Arts programs. There is a Board of a variety of public and private participants with varied backgrounds that would administer the funds. F. Council Member Fullmer indicated that there are new lights in the Tabernacle. G. Council Member Anderson commented that the plans for theSnow fest are going good. Mayors Report: Report on Projects: John Millar John Millar reviewed the following projects: 1) North Hill Road is paved. th 2) 7 South is paved. 3) Airport apron is under the testing phase with paving next week. 29 4) SCADA project is 90% complete. 5) Sanitation building is 90% complete. 6) Bike path on the LP property is under construction. 7) Business Park road is in the design phase. Tabled requests: Calendar Items: November 06 to a luncheon for Council November 08 Dare night at McDonalds November 17 at 6:30 Tom Hudson th November 18 Joint meeting with the County and Sugar City st 1 Week in December – NLC Conference December 08 City Council Meeting December 09 City Benefits Explanation Seminar Dinner December 15 City Council Meeting December 16 Joint meeting with the County and Sugar City Adjournment _________________________________ Shawn Larsen, Mayor ___________________________________ Blair D. Kay, City Clerk 30