Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES DECEMBER 29, 2005 ORM F EQUEST R RAVEL T P&Z LANNING ONING M INUTES 19 E. Main (PO Box 280) Phone: 208-359-3020 x326 Rexburg, Idaho 83440 Fax: 208-359-3024 www.rexburg.org planning@rexburg.org December 29, 2005 Commissioners Attending: City Staff and Others: Rex Erickson – Council Member Shawn Larsen - Mayor Thaine Robinson-Acting Chairman Kurt Hibbert – P&Z Administrator David Stein Mike Ricks Blair Kay – City Clerk Joe Laird Charles Anderson JaNell Hansen – Secretary Ted Hill Acting Chairman Thaine Robinson opened the meeting at 7:01 p.m. Roll Call David Stein, Joe Laird, Thaine Robinson, Mike Ricks, Charles Anderson, Ted Hill, and Councilman Erickson were present. Winston Dyer, Mary Haley, and Randall Porter were absent. Mary Ann Mounts arrived at 7:05 1.Minutes: December 1, 2005 & December 14, 2005 Joe LairdTed Hill motioned to approve the minutes for December 1 & December 14, 2005. seconded the motion. Motion carried None opposed. . 2. Unfinished/Old Business: A.Design Review Committee Report – Delayed Submissions for Walgreen’s Landscaping & Lighting Plans & signage approval. Kurt Hibbert reported that Walgreen’s did submit final plans. He said reviews have been done and staff recommends approval on the plans. Walgreen’s is waiting on us to decide the final types of lighting, the bench, the receptacle and the bike rack. We are going to get them started on a building permit and will get back to them on the above items. They agreed to make the changes we recommend. They will be setting a standard for rest of the town. David SteinKurt thought there was an issue in terms of square footage of signage on the side of the building. Hibbert responded that there wasn’t a problem on the side of the building. The issue was on the monument sign on the corner. They will put up a “Welcome to Rexburg Downtown” monument sign. This will allow them to put their signage, that wouldn’t otherwise comply, behind that welcome sign. They have agreed to use the new city logo and typeface. The signs will tie in and blend together. Kurt has the plans in his office and he welcomed the commissioners to come down and take a look at them. Mary Ann Mounts came in at 7:05 p.m. 1 2. Public Hearings – 7:05 p.m. Public Hearing continued from December 14, 2005 (Annexation of Properties south of the Rexburg North Interchange to Hwy 20.) Petitioner (Kurt Hibbert) made a power point presentation regarding the properties south of the Rexburg North Interchange to Hwy 20. He said the action was initiated by the City, not the property owners and so they are responsible for initiating this action. Idaho has authorized cities within the state to annex properties which are reasonably necessary to assure the orderly development of Idaho cities; to enable orderly, cost effective economically vital provisions of tax supportive municipal services. Also, to enable the orderly development of private land, which will benefit from the cost effective availability of municipal services in urbanizing areas; to equitably allocate the costs of public services in management of development on the urban fringe. Cities have authority to annex lands in their city upon compliance of the procedures required in that section. Rexburg has worked with Madison and Sugar City in establishing planning areas for each of the municipalities, which are referred to as impact areas. Rexburg has twice negotiated to expand their impact area to accommodate several high growth areas in other regions in the city. Rexburg has comprehensively planned this entire impact area which is within the urban growth area. Water and sewer services are available within 1000 feet of the proposed north annexation area. Rexburg has participated in completion, a city and county transportation plan which includes this area as part of Rexburg’s 20 year build out analysis. Madison County and Rexburg have both officially adopted this transportation plan. Kurt referred to the map of the impact area which shows the history of Rexburg and Sugar City’s annexations over a 10 year period from 1991 to the present. The purple area represents new construction or new address points within the annexed areas. Purpose shows that Rexburg has been consistently filling up the areas that they have annexed into the city. Petitioner is proposing annexation of all properties shaded in gray less property parallel to the railroad tracks which is the Farm Service Center. (See map, item 17). Thaine Robinson opened the public hearing. Steve Zollinger Bill Moss asked if the public would be allowed to ask questions to the commissioners. Thaine Robinson responded that this meeting is for public input not a question and answer session. responded that questions can be answered by city staff during office hours. In Favor Louis Clements, 125 East Moody Rd is concerned with a portion of the annexation. His property is south of the nd interchange and on the west side of 2 E. nd John Hegstead, 1419 N 2 East. Concerns same property mentioned above. Neutral Bruce Shirley, 2328 N 1000 W. He owns property against the freeway off ramp. Dave HoKum, CEO of Valley Wide 1175 west main. We have property that Kurt pointed out that won’t be part of the annexation. At this time they don’t want to be part of the annexation. He expressed appreciation for the services that the City of Rexburg has provided. Bill Moss, 410 Partridge Lane. He tried to follow from the outline given under Title 50, to understand under what authority these proceedings are going forth. He doesn’t see anything that identifies which category this actions falls under. Statute says prior to this hearing that letters will be sent to all property owners notifying them of proposed actions. Is it known that the statute is being followed? He showed concern about not having his questions answered and wanted to know if the commissioners really looked at the statutes. No one has been forthcoming with the information. 2 Opposed Gaylin Bean, 3041 N Cotton Wood Lane. She brought a copy of a petition which the commissioners received at the last meeting which lists 92 residents in Salem area who are opposed to annexation. She showed concern about the process and timing of this annexation and the precedent of forced annexation. She also voiced concern that her rights aren’t being heard. She toured the Rexburg waste facility and was told it was recently expanded with the intent that Teton and Sugar City would utilize facility. The waste would end up there whether Rexburg was paid for the use of this facility or not. She is concerned about the Sugar City school district which is affected by the annexation, and the tax dollars that may not be available to Sugar City. Todd Harris, represented his mother, Wanda Harris, who owns 78 acres that is contiguous to I-20. This piece of property we’ve been working on isn’t something we haven’t been aware of for several years. When the time came for development, it was emphasized that this property was to be kept in tact. It has been in their mind to do something with this property for 15 or 20 years. The Harris family would like to develop this land but they aren’t in a hurry. They want something that’s comprehensive and valuable to the community. He contacted Ken Brown and Sandra Ball. They have an understanding that they aren’t going to compete in selling off their property to the lowest bidder. As a result of that they have had successes. When it came time to decide where to go for annexation, they looked at both sides. We have no ax to grind with Rexburg. Whatever happens will complement both communities with hundreds of jobs. They do not intend to alienate either city. In order to bring balance and create a good atmosphere for both communities, they felt their property should go to Sugar City. They were aware of sewer and water issues but they feel it best that we end up in Sugar City. One reason is to allow the free market system. They attempted to come to Rexburg and were denied. They want to have a good working relationship. This development means hundreds of jobs, and possible millions of sales tax and property tax revenue, which they don’t gain from as property owners. As they evaluated where to go with the highest value they felt the best direction is Sugar City. He feels there is a major constitutional flaw because it takes away the right to control their property. When they asked for annexation, then they are voluntarily giving that away. All they ask is if something can be worked out without going through the judicial process. They are just interested in doing what is right. They have formerly asked to be annexed into Sugar City because it was the neighborly thing to do and to give Sugar City an infrastructure and at the same time complement Rexburg’s. They don’t have any intent of doing anything that would degrade the community but will only enhance both communities. They would like to be allowed to proceed in the direction they have chosen to go. th Ronny Yardley, 834 S 7 West. She agreed with the former two who were opposed. She felt strongly about the importance of the fairness of forced annexation. She said property owners should have the right to do what they want with their property and not be forced to do this against their will. Because it is in a Sugar City school district, it should go to Sugar City. BYU-Idaho and the proposed temple have helped Rexburg grow and this land being annexed into Sugar City will help Sugar City grow. Rexburg should allow this to be what the property owner wants and be willing to share the growth. The bigger issue should be what the property owner wants and not the 15 years that Rexburg has been planning this annexation. th Garry Jeppsen, 1030 S 7 W. He owns property adjacent to the proposed area. He received a letter that said the City Council members would here and he wanted to know why they weren’t. The fact that Rexburg didn’t follow their notice should make this process illegal. They shouldn’t have made their impact areas this large. He said that state law says when both cities want the same area then the process is to have property owner’s vote where they want to go, not to have the City decide. And that vote can’t be appealed. He looked online at Rexburg’s annexation proceedings, which says the City Council will hold a meeting after Planning & Zoning offers a recommendation. The City Council can’t legally meet directly after this meeting because they have to set a date. Voluntary annexation is only a few paragraphs long and forced annexation is several pages and is hard to understand. Only 4 states in the union that allow forced annexation. Rexburg’s actions tonight might make it 47 states. This annexation is full of holes. Sugar City is looking for one opportunity to overturn this annexation. He advised Rexburg to make sure they follow state code tonight. 3 Bruce Ard, 4315 Wanda, Ammon, Idaho. He lived in the proposed area for 12 years. He brought a letter from Bud Squires and Russell Squires who own property in the impact area. They own from Stationary road to moody highway. Both Bud and Russell are opposed to the annexation. Bruce advised Rexburg to make sure things are legal with this annexation. Doug Sakota, owns property that is not affected by the annexation. He is opposed to this forced annexation. Property owners’ rights should be heard and understood and respected. Bill Moss, 410 Partridge Lane. Referred to the map Asked if it included the right away across the railroad. Kurt responded that the City limit goes beyond the southern border of the Davenport property. Bill Moss said they were notified last time, that the City doesn’t want to create islands and now they are creating an island. He said that no notifications were mailed to property owners 28 prior to the hearing. Statute says consent will be given, and no one has given consent. There are several instances where notice was given to property owners and they declined. Also, there is nothing in the statute that tells what section the City is proposing. Category A is out because annexation where all private land owners raise no objection to annexation. Category C says annexation wherein the subject lands contain more than their separate properties”. That is not this case. We would surmise it to be under Category B which says that not all land owners have consented to annexation. There aren’t any land owners who are consenting in this annexation. I would oppose because of the evidence of quickness without considerate action to push this through. There wasn’t any action by the City of Rexburg prior to the letter from Sugar City. However, he applauded the attempt between Rexburg and Sugar City to have a reconciliation meeting. He feels this annexation is being forced in haste and that the City is not thinking of the land owners. This action doesn’t ring true to a community where we try to look out for everyone around us. He felt the annexation should not be done. Kim Harris, 3460 Owen Street, Ammon. He spoke on behalf of his mother who owns the Harris property. He attended the meeting when Mayor Larson suggested that this be tabled. He indicated that Sugar City and Rexburg have been good neighbors. In that relationship, the residents in Sugar City have gone to Rexburg to buy goods and services for many decades. One of the major flaws of impact area created 15 years ago is that they never anticipated the potential for any commercial development in Sugar City. Sugar City wasn’t benefited 15 years ago by this decision. He believes their needs would be met being annexed into Sugar City. He said they requested annexation into Rexburg but were denied. They aren’t angry about being denied. They have people who are ready to develop. Even if they were annexed into the City of Rexburg they would still have to have a zone change from an agricultural zone to a commercial zone in order to develop. He feels if Rexburg wanted to be a good neighbor and reciprocate all the money that has been received from Sugar City residents buying goods and services in Rexburg, they would allow this. A compromise has been offered by Sugar City and Rexburg isn’t willing to compromise. Written Input Brent Bean, 3041 North Cottonwood Lane, opposed Chess and Stephanie Blackham, 217 N Teton Ave, opposed Gerald & Joan Jeppesen, 125 North Fremont Ave, opposed Don & Dorothy Rydalch, 214 S Idaho Ave, opposed Wanda Harris wrote that she canceled prior legal representation and has handed everything over to her son, Todd Harris Bud Squires, 153 W 3 S, opposed 4 Also, there were several petitions signed by many citizens in Sugar City, Salem, & Rexburg in opposition Acting Chairman Robinson closed the public input portion. Ted HillKurt asked what the original petition for annexation into Rexburg was and why was it denied. Hibbert responded that it was a dual petition for a rezone and an annexation into Rexburg. Commission felt there wasn’t enough information and nothing was presented. The Commission felt it was eminent that it would happen but the time wasn’t right. Mary Ann Mounts asked if part of the denial in July was because of infrastructure issues as well as safety issues on that road. She thought since then the state has put in more lighting and traffic is better controlled. th David Stein responded that he read the minutes from the July 7meeting. Prior to meeting they requested that the annexation be eliminated and just to have a comprehensive plan change. This was discussed at length for an 18 month period. There was a lot of time spent discussing this area from agricultural to commercial and where commercial area should be. The assumption was that this has been in our impact area and that this would be th part of Rexburg because that is what a planning area is. We did have that public hearing on July 7, and there was no representation in that meeting. There was a lack of information to make a justification for opening it up for business development. A letter was received from Sugar City recommending that we deny the comprehensive plan because of the ongoing discussion. He made the motion to deny it at that time because there were those impact area discussions. This is the first time up until 2 months ago that I was aware that there was concern that this wouldn’t be part of Rexburg. What chapter of state code is the city utilizing for annexation? Steve Zollinger responded that Category B doesn’t require any of those to be voluntary. The mailing matrix was checked and it was mailed. Mary Ann Mounts said she has read the statute and has spent a lot of time understanding this because she is a City Planner. She would like Mrs. Bean to realize that some of those students in the proposed annexation do go to Madison. Some of them may be shocked to find out their tax dollars are going to Sugar City when their kids are attending Madison. This proposed annexation is not a rushed issue. This has always been an area they have assumed would be part of Rexburg. They would like to be allowed to due their duty. Rexburg citizens have rights also. Individual property rights are important until a Maverick goes in next door to you. That’s when you would hope the City or someone would step in and keep them from doing that. That is what Planning & Zoning is here to do. She addressed Mr. Jeppesen’s remark about being one of four states that allows forced annexation. This year the US Supreme Court ruled that City’s have the right to condemn property to build shopping malls. That is not what they are doing although the neighbors to the south have done that. They have a responsibility to the people they represent and they can’t please everyone. Mike Ricks said he understands the position that most of you feel like because his property is surrounded by city limits. When a person has a parcel of property within the annexation of a city then eventually it will be incorporated into the city. He feels he has to represent what is best for the city. Along with that he feels strongly to not give developers an open checkbook. He said they have been kicked in the teeth before when developers have come in requesting annexation without plans for the land they are requesting to be annexed. It’s not always the land owners. Some land has been sold four or five times before any developing is done. Sometimes what is intended and what comes about is different. The reason there has been so much time spend upgrading the ordinances is because they have been blind sighted by the need for quick development in this community. He doesn’t have ill feelings toward Sugar City residents, but when it comes to this issue, he feels Rexburg should be the one to take control of those entrance ways because they are part of Rexburg’s impact 5 area. He feels there is plenty of opportunity for Sugar City to have commercial development on the north side of their city. He offered counsel to Sugar City to take the time to develop a solid foundation of their ordinances. Joe Laird said he was associated with the comprehensive plan back in the 90’s when Rexburg went through their plan. It was always considered that this area would be part of Rexburg. Sugar City was always concerned with getting the half interchange at this location. They have a full interchange at the other location. So they have a big area that could be commercially developed if they choose to do so. On the more recent comprehensive plan, Rexburg’s boundary was extended so that the people would know what they had in mind. There were numerous public hearings on it and meetings with Madison County and Sugar City. At that time, they felt that this interchange would be Rexburg’s north interchange because it is the major feeder into the north of Rexburg. They were concerned that the development would meet the standards of development that we would like to see for Rexburg. The City has continually been expanding their facilities, and they have installed a traffic signal. There will be some looping required no doubt. The ordinances have been carefully looked at as far as the types of commercial, industrial, and residential development and the standards have been set that they feel will make Rexburg a better looking city. So the city has always figured that this area would be part of Rexburg. Sugar City probably felt the same way as they built their half interchange and the full interchange north of Sugar City. This area has no connection to the Sugar City commercial area or its downtown area. It would be an area of commercial sitting off to the side of Sugar City that would leave us with no control over the entrance into our city. This is a vital and important part of our comprehensive planning and development to be able to control the type of development in this area. Mary Ann Mounts made a motion to propose the annexation because “The proposed annexation meets the qualifications for annexation that is reasonably necessary to ensure the orderly development of the City of Rexburg. Annexation of the property proposed for annexation allows for the efficient and economically viable provision of tax supportive municipal services. It will enable the orderly development of private lands, which benefit from the cost effective availability of municipal services. And finally it will allow for equitable allocation of the cost of public services on the urban fringe of Rexburg. Therefore, I recommend that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommends the annexation of the proposed properties, less the existing fertilizer plant located on the southwest corner of hwy 33 and the Moody Road.” nd Joe Laird 2 the motion. David SteinMary Ann Mounts asked for clarification on the designated zoning. recommended the annexation as it’s currently zoned. David Stein felt it important to recognize that the Planning and Zoning Commissioners are not elected officials or attorneys. They have been asked to look at the facts and make a recommendation based on that. They can’t make the judgment that what they are doing is illegal. This area has been planned and discussed for years. The Planning and Zoning Commissioners are asked to plan and that’s what they are doing. Motion carried None opposed. . Meeting adjourned at 8:28 pm 6