Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Minutes - July 2, 2025 1 (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org City Council Minutes – July 2, 2025 Mayor Jerry Merrill Council Members: Bryanna Johnson Eric Erickson Robert Chambers David Reeser Colin Erickson Mikel Walker City Staff: Spencer Rammell – City Attorney Matt Nielson – Finance Officer Keith Davidson – Public Works Director Alan Parkinson – Planning & Zoning Administrator Scott Johnson – Economic Development Director Deborah Lovejoy – City Clerk 5:00 P.M. Combined City Council/Planning & Zoning Work Meeting to review certain aspects of Ordinance No 1200 City of Rexburg Development Code – Continuation from May 21, 2025, combined meeting. P&Z Commissioners: Attending: Tammy Geddes, Bruce Casper, Dan Hanna, Vern Muir, Brian Thackeray, and Randall Kempton (Vice Chair) Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson said he would pick up the discussion where they had left off previously, continuing with the topic of parking. They have reviewed the parking requirements for each zone in Ordinance No 1200 City of Rexburg Development code, considering different types of development, including housing and businesses. They discussed how many parking spaces were required per thousand square feet or per unit. 2 Council Member E. Erickson mentioned that he had recently visited Blisters for lunch and began thinking about the parking requirements. He recalled that the code required ten parking spaces per 1,000 square feet for sit-down restaurants and questioned how that requirement applied to establishments that shared parking space such as those located on Main Street or in strip malls, as opposed to standalone restaurants like Applebee’s. P&Z Administrator Parkinson clarified that establishments with shared parking spaces, those businesses must demonstrate that the parking would be used at times when other tenants were not using the spaces, and they had to prove that this arrangement was feasible. P&Z Administrator Parkinson explained there are restaurants such as Sparks, which were grandfathered in and had sufficient parking for its needs. P&Z Administrator Parkinson noted that the former Pizza Hut location no longer operated as a sit-down restaurant and had been converted into a drive-through and pick-up-only model. Even with that change, the parking spaces remained overcrowded, although they are no longer subject to the sit- down restaurant parking standard. Council Member E. Erickson questioned whether the ten-space requirement per 1,000 square feet was excessive for small sit-down restaurants. P&Z Administrator Parkinson explained that while ten spaces was the standard, most restaurants voluntarily provided even more parking than required because those businesses anticipated high demand and planned accordingly. Council Member C. Erickson raised the concern when employee parking is not included in parking requirements, it often overwhelms the available customer parking spaces. He also used the example of the strip mall where Pizza Hut is located, it is difficult to find any parking at all. P&Z Administrator Parkinson has addressed such situations by adding the following requirement: in addition to the 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet, parking must also be provided for the highest number of employees working during any given shift to the code. Mayor Merrill recounted a conversation with someone who misunderstood the rule, thinking that parking needed to be provided for every employee on the payroll. P&Z Administrator Parkinson clarified that the rule only applied to the highest number of employees on-site at one time. Discussion regarding a hypothetical scenario involving a 2,000–3,000 square foot restaurant with 15 employees. In such cases, nearly all the parking spaces could be consumed by staff alone, leaving little for patrons. Applebee’s was cited as an example of a restaurant that successfully balanced those requirements and consistently provided sufficient parking. They confirmed that the parking code had not changed in this regard. Council Member E. Erickson shifted the conversation to whether food trucks were required to provide parking. P&Z Administrator Parkinson clarified that food trucks were required to provide adequate parking, depending on their location. If a truck was parked on the street as part of a permitted event or specific use, no additional parking was required. However, if the truck was placed on private property, the owner must meet specific parking requirements. Council Member Johnson recalled that during the development of the food truck regulations, many vendors participated in those discussions, helping to clarify their needs and update the parking standards. P&Z Administrator Parkinson reviewed the cross-connectivity between businesses. They had revised the language in the ordinance to require connectivity between adjacent commercial properties, like what was done in subdivisions. They wanted to avoid forcing people to drive out onto the main roads just to reach a neighboring business. The original language had allowed developers to opt out too easily, so they changed it to require connectivity unless a developer could prove that a physical or legal barrier prevented it. P&Z Administrator Parkinson addressed the multi-family parking standards. They stated that 80% of the required spaces could be compact size (8 feet by 16 feet), as compact cars were becoming more common. However, 20% of the spaces still needed to be full-sized (9 feet by 20 feet). The ordinance allowed for up to 25% of the commercial spaces to be compact. They also required that compact and full-size spaces be grouped together, rather than scattered randomly, to ensure continuity and usability. 3 Discussion regarding parking structures. P&Z Administrator Parkinson explained that compact space allowances also applied there. For commercial uses, the standard space was 9 feet by 20 feet, but 25% could be compact. An 18-foot-long space was allowed if it was placed adjacent to a sidewalk that was at least 6 feet wide. This prevented vehicle bumpers from blocking the pedestrian walkway. They had encountered problems when sidewalks were only 5 feet wide and shorter parking spaces caused obstructions, so they now required a 6-foot sidewalk in those cases. P&Z Administrator Parkinson reviewed the off-site parking requirements. Previously, a supplemental lot had to be located within 200 feet of a business’s front door. The ordinance was updated to extend that distance to 500 feet, which they felt was more consistent with the form-based code. They emphasized that the 500-foot distance had to be measured along the actual walking path using sidewalks, not just a straight line. He noted that the University District was allowed some flexibility and could exceed the 500-foot standard in certain circumstances. P&Z Administrator Parkinson reviewed the parking space location near property boundaries; he stressed the need for high-back curbs or wheel stops to prevent vehicles from rolling onto neighboring properties. These curbs were required when parking lots bordered other parcels. If a curb was not feasible, wheel stops were mandated, though it was noted that businesses disliked them because they make snow removal difficult. P&Z Administrator Parkinson addressed front yard parking in residential zones. He reiterated that parking spaces and maneuvering areas were not allowed in the required front yards, with certain exceptions. If a home had a garage, one additional parking spot was allowed directly in front of each garage door. For example, a two-car garage could legally accommodate four vehicles—two inside and two directly behind the doors on a paved surface. 4 Discussion regarding whether they were comfortable allowing homeowners to pour a wider parking pad in front of the garage, if the pad was constructed from concrete or asphalt and did not exceed the allowed percentage of front yard coverage. They expressed support for this flexibility. P&Z Administrator Parkinson clarified that side-yard or backyard RV pads were still permitted, provided they were behind the front façade of the house. These pads could also accommodate car parking but not RVs in the front yard. Commissioner Thackeray explained that when the Sunrise Apartment complex was constructed, residents had been blocked on both sides of the street. He mentioned that the property was located right across from Porter Park. After the area was switched to residential parking, the situation improved significantly. However, there was still only enough room for a single car to park. Mayor Merrill added that someone living on 3rd West had experienced a similar problem with college students parking right up to her driveway, making it difficult for her to see oncoming traffic when pulling out. Law enforcement officers gave her permission to paint the curbs yellow on both sides of her driveway, which helped resolve the issue. Commissioner Thackeray emphasized that parking issues were a significant problem. He recounted an incident where people fought over parking spots and would even block driveways because they did not want to walk very far. He referenced the recent event at Porter Park as an example. P&Z Administrator Parkinson reviewed the city's street access requirements. Driveway access points could not be within 20 feet of a local street intersection, 40 feet of a collector street intersection, or 60 feet of an arterial street intersection. He added a clause requiring that all access points be approved by the city Public Works Director or designated personnel to prevent traffic stacking and other hazards. P&Z Administrator Parkinson reviewed the parking surface requirements for sidewalk construction across parking lots. Although concrete was usually used, exceptions were made. For instance, at Pony Express Car Wash and DL Evans Bank, painting the crosswalks yellow was allowed instead of pouring concrete. This was due to weather-related wear and tear on materials caused by snowplows. P&Z Administrator Parkinson addressed storage facilities, particularly self-service ones. These facilities were required to have at least 60 feet of concrete at their exits, since asphalt tended to deteriorate under the weight of trailers and heavy vehicles. Additionally, there needs to be a 43-by-12- foot area off the street for temporary vehicles to stop. 5 P&Z Administrator Parkinson introduced changes related to the pedestrian emphasis district, explaining that the updates mainly clarified existing language and consolidated information into a chart format. 6 P&Z Administrator Parkinson reviewed the joint uses of required parking spaces including the 500-foot distance rule for joint-use parking. P&Z Administrator Parkinson reviewed regulations on the storage of commercial vehicles and construction equipment. Equipment such as backhoes or trucks used in active construction zones was exempt from certain requirements, but only if construction was actively occurring. This prevented individuals from using the exemption as a long-term parking excuse. Council Member Reeser asked for clarification on the term "actively," suggesting it should mean the presence of a valid building permit. P&Z Administrator Parkinson confirmed that active work, such as excavation or hauling materials, was expected. Council Member C. Erickson mentioned that on 12th West, construction equipment had been parked on the property for about eight months, though work had been intermittent. P&Z Administrator Parkinson explained that as long as the vehicles were on private property and not the street, the rule permitted it during periods of legitimate construction activity. Delays caused by subcontractor availability or material back-orders were considered in enforcement decisions. Discussion regarding residential parking allowances. A single-family detached structure was permitted one required parking space behind an existing space that is not the front yard. This could apply to situations where there was no garage—residents could park one vehicle in front and one behind, often using an RV pad. P&Z Administrator Parkinson expressed concern that allowing parking in front yards could result in unsightly "parking lot" yards. 7 Council Member C. Erickson mentioned a situation on 4th South where apartment residents had to park in tandem, which proved inefficient since no one wanted to be parked in those parking stalls. P&Z Administrator Parkinson noted that even in shared units, people preferred not to move each other's vehicles. In one specific case at Juniper Sands, two roommates drove around the block to avoid being blocked in by the other, trying to arrive last to claim the easier parking space. P&Z Administrator Parkinson clarified the current rules, stating that single-family homes without garages were allowed to park one vehicle and one behind another. If there was a garage, two vehicles could be parked in tandem. Council Member Reeser asked if the setback requirements still applied, such as a 20-foot front setback and a 6-foot side yard setback. P&Z Administrator Parkinson responded the setback requirements only apply to the building. A parking pad is allowed to the property line. 8 P&Z Administrator Parkinson addressed the changes in the visitor parking in the Pedestrian Emphasis District. The visitor parking spaces need to meet the city's full-size parking space requirements. These spaces cannot be included in the developer’s required parking contract requirements. He explained that in many developments, only about 75% of the required parking was provided. Although developers can add another 10%, that additional parking cannot be counted toward the required total, it had to be designated separately as visitor parking. P&Z Administrator Parkinson emphasized that visitor spaces needed to be clearly marked with signage. Discussion regarding the option of using time-based signage, such as labeling a space for visitor use until 10:00 or 11:00 p.m., and then allowing resident parking from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. However, any such time-sharing had to be clearly stated on the sign. P&Z Administrator Parkinson noted that there was no reason for visitor parking spaces to sit empty overnight if they could be used during certain hours, especially in areas where parking was limited. However, all usage needed to be clearly designated and regulated by signage. 9 Commissioner Geddes expressed hope that she is understanding everything correctly. She questioned whether the changes were being made due to potential problems or nuisances. P&Z Administrator Parkinson explained that the changes to the Development Code were typically made to address existing nuisances, resolve problems, or clarify conflicts. That is usually the reason behind the modifications. 10 Commissioner Geddes questioned if the goal is to prevent these nuisances before they become more formal issues, she wondered how such concerns are handled. P&Z Administrator Parkinson responded that, in most cases, because the properties were privately owned, the police or traffic control authority would not be responsible for enforcement. P&Z Administrator Parkinson explained the city, county, and GIS Department have been working on the revisions to the ordinance for subdivision names. They are having issues with roads being named the same as subdivision names, which causes confusion for emergency services. P&Z Administrator Parkinson reviewed the ordinance related to family and congregate living. They addressed one of the immediate challenges facing the city, which was the university's new policy stating that individuals who were 26 years or older and single were no longer allowed to live in single student housing. As a result of this policy, several people have contacted the city to inquire about the possibility of renting a house to a group of students. This raised concerns under the city’s current code, which required such living arrangements to qualify as dormitory use. P&Z Administrator Parkinson explained upon further review of the code, the Planning and Zoning Staff recognized that it was ineffective to require single individuals to meet family-related definitions—specifically being related by blood, marriage, adoption, or up to the third generation. They, including City Attorney Rammell, explored how to accommodate modern living arrangements while still protecting neighborhoods from becoming overcrowded or unsafe. Three options for defining "family" are presented in chapter 2 definition under family. Discussion: concerns were raised about the impacts of high-occupancy rentals on neighborhoods, with personal anecdotes illustrating issues such as overcrowded driveways, unsafe conditions for children, and disruptive behavior—likened to a “frat house”. P&Z Administrator Parkinson emphasized the 11 importance of maintaining neighborhood integrity while acknowledging the financial reality that drives many individual students and temporary workers alike—to seek shared housing as a cost-saving measure. P&Z Administrator Parkinson recognized the presence of non-university educational institutions like Evans Hairstyling College, Paul Mitchell Hair and Beauty School, and massage therapy schools, whose students also needed flexible housing arrangements. Clarifications were made regarding living arrangements such as multiple married couples in one home. Two married couples were permitted, but three or more would likely exceed occupancy limits unless approved through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), with parking and other logistics being key considerations. P&Z Administrator Parkinson concluded that Planning and Zoning staff would make amendments to Ordinance No 1200 City of Rexburg Development Code as discussed and present the amended ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Commissioners for recommendation and then to the City Council for consideration. Work Meeting Adjournment 6:22 P.M. 6:30 P.M. Council Member Reeser said the prayer. Council Member E. Erickson led the pledge. Roll Call of Council Members: Attending: Council Member Johnson, Council Member Chambers, Council Member C. Erickson, Council Member E. Erickson, Council Member Reeser, Council President Walker and Mayor Merrill. Public Comment: Items not on the agenda; limit of 3 minutes; issues may be considered for discussion on a future agenda. Please keep comments on point and respectful. Staff Reports: A. Public Works: - Keith Davidson 1. Surplus 2 Johnston Street Sweepers - Action Item Public Works Director Davidson presented a request for the approval of surplus items. He explained that the topic had been discussed at the previous City Council meeting, but it had not been 12 officially placed on the agenda at that time. The items in question are two street sweepers that the city no longer uses and have not been used for several years. He requested that these sweepers be declared surplus. Mayor Merrill asked if the sweepers were operational. Public Works Director Davidson responded that they were only partially functional. He noted that the back engine on one of the sweepers no longer runs, and the hydraulics on the other were completely inoperable. He indicated that the machines were essentially “fixer-uppers” that someone might be interested in purchasing at a low cost. Council Member C. Erickson moved to approve the Surplus of two Johnston Street Sweepers; Council President Walker seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Johnson none Council Member Chambers Council Member C. Erickson Council Member E. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council President Walker The motion carried. 2. Approval for Well #1 Pump Rebuild Bid - Action Item Public Works Director Davidson explained that the well had worn out over time and required reconstruction. He stated that the city had received three bids for the project, with Agricultural Services submitting the lowest bid at $86,172.88. He requested approval from the City Council to award the project to Agricultural Services. Mayor Merrill confirmed that Agricultural Services was based out of Blackfoot and has been in business for a long time. Council Member C. Erickson asked for the location of the well. Public Works Director Davidson stated that Well 1 is situated near the blue reservoir off of 5th South and 2nd East, where both Well #1 and Well #6 are located. Mayor Merrill acknowledged that this was likely one of the city’s oldest wells. Council Member E. Erickson moved to approve the low bid of $86,172.88 from Agricultural Services, Inc. for Well #1 Pump Rebuild; Council Member Chambers seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Johnson none Council Member Chambers Council Member C. Erickson Council Member E. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council President Walker The motion carried. Mayor’s Business: Mayor Merrill reported that it has been a busy week, particularly for the Parks Department. He explained that the department had fallen behind on regular maintenance tasks due to their ongoing efforts to install a new main irrigation line at Porter Park. This project was the reason the grass on the west side of the park appeared dry. Although the work was nearly complete, the team had encountered setbacks while locating wires that had become buried or lost over time. Mayor Merrill explained that once the Porter Park project was finished, the Parks Department hoped to address other areas around town where the grass had begun to dry out, such as the strip along Main Street. To assist with the backlog, the city organized an “all-hands-on-deck” workday, a practice occasionally used during the summer. City employees, including those from City Hall, volunteered an hour or two to help with priority projects. That day, the team completed the remaining work on the retaining wall at Smith Park. The Streets Department had previously dug out the area behind the wall, and gravel was added to reduce soil pressure and prevent future movement. Mayor Merrill noted that the wall had begun to shift again, but with the new improvements, it is now stabilized. Mayor Merrill also mentioned upcoming work at Rexburg Rapids, where tall Arborvitae plants were scheduled to be planted within the next day or two. Mayor Merrill praised city staff for their teamwork 13 and willingness to step outside their usual roles to assist other departments. He specifically thanked City Attorney Rammell for helping clean up around Rexburg Rapids and acknowledged Public Works Director Davidson and his team for contributing to the wall repair at Smith Park. Council President Walker asked when the resurfacing of the tennis courts at Smith Park would begin. Mayor Merrill stated that progress had stalled due to difficulty getting the contractor responsible for resurfacing the courts to respond. Although the site was ready, the contractor had not provided a firm date for completing the work. The contractor was recommended by the school district, who had previously had a positive experience with them. Mayor Merrill noted that the delay contributed to the cancellation of a pickleball tournament the previous weekend. However, a broken sign-up link on the website was the primary cause of the low registration numbers. The issue has since been fixed, and a new tournament was scheduled for the upcoming weekend. Mayor Merrill assured the City Council that city staff would continue reaching out to the contractor to expedite the court resurfacing work. Item of Consideration: NONE Calendared Bills: A. Tabled Items: 1. Approval for budget adjustment in Mayor/City Council Department to book artist for Stadium 250 Event - Action Item B. Second Reading: Those items which have been first read: 1. Ordinance No 1332 Annexation of 1036 McJon Ln into the City of Rexburg #25- 00318 – Alan Parkinson - Action Item ORDINANCE NO. 1332 Annexing 1036 McJon Ln in the Impact Area for the City of Rexburg into the City of Rexburg, Madison, Idaho AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING CERTAIN LANDS TO THE CITY OF REXBURG, IDAHO; DESCRIBING SAID LANDS AND DECLARING SAME A PART OF THE CITY OF REXBURG, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING WHEN THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. Council Member Chambers moved to approve Ordinance No 1332 Annexation of 1036 McJon Ln into the City of Rexburg and consider second read; Council Member Johnson seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Johnson none Council Member Chambers Council Member C. Erickson Council Member E. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council President Walker The motion carried. 14 C. Third Reading: Those items which have been second read: NONE 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 June 25, 2025, Meeting B. Approve the City of Rexburg Bills Council President Walker moved to approve the Consent Calendar containing the minutes and city bills; Council Member C. Erickson seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Johnson none Council Member Chambers Council Member C. Erickson Council Member E. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council President Walker The motion carried. Council President Walker provided an update regarding the upcoming parade. He informed the City Council that participants could begin arriving at the staging area any time after 8:15 a.m., with the parade scheduled to begin at 10:00 a.m. He noted that parade entries were organized into color-coded zones, and the City Council group had been assigned to the green zone. Their position in the lineup was number 9 out of approximately 98 entries, placing them toward the front of the parade. Mayor Merrill reported that during a recent Chamber of Commerce Board meeting, he requested that the pace of the parade be slowed down. He explained that the previous year’s parade progressed too quickly, which resulted in some participants struggling to keep up and large gaps forming between groups. The Chamber of Commerce staff acknowledged the concern and agreed to adjust the pace for this year’s event. Council President Walker added that performing groups will be given the opportunity to stop and perform for 30 seconds at each intersection, a measure expected to contribute to a more controlled and steadier pace throughout the parade. Discussion regarding the bead distribution protocol: The City Council discussed safety protocols regarding the distribution of beaded necklaces at the parade. Mayor Merrill clarified that participants should not throw the necklaces from moving vehicles unless they first pull over to the side. He recommended a method to encourage children to remain behind the safety line—advising participants to throw necklaces over the heads of any children who crossed the line, while instructing them to return to the designated safe area. This practice had been effective in the past and was emphasized to maintain safety standards. Staging and Attire: Council President Walker confirmed that vehicle staging would occur at the same location as the previous year—behind the junior high school in the bus lane area. The Councilmembers were reminded to wear their City of Rexburg red shirts for the parade and to bring their assigned name placards for cart decoration. Adjournment 6:46 P.M. APPROVED: ________________________________ Jerry Merrill, Mayor Attest: ________________________________ Marianna Gonzalez, City Deputy Clerk