Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995.08.02 CITY COUNCIL MINUTESDATE: (080295) State of Idaho) County of Madison( ss City of Rexburg) Those attending: Mayor: Councilman: City Clerk: Attorney: Finance Officer: Pledge to flag. City Council 8/2/95 7:00 A.M. Nile L Boyle Glen Pond Nyle Fullmer Farrell Young Kay Beck Jim Flamm Bruce Sutherland -arriving at 8:00 A.M. Rose Bagley J. D. Hancock Richard Horner Engineer: Joe Laird A motion was made by Farrell Young and seconded by Kay Beck to approve the minutes. All Aye RE: SIDEWALK CHARGE IN INFILL LOTS TOPIC: (20,12,,, SIDEWALKS,SIDEWALK ORDINANCE) Ted Whyte representing Upper Valley Board of Realtors was at the meeting to discuss the lineal foot charge and sidewalks. They have concern of the sidewalk ordinance which was passed. The problem with '.. it is having to put in sidewalks 30 days after the sale of property. ---- He drove around after P&Z last week and noticed there are several streets and blocks that don't have sidewalks. They feel that the transfer of property should not be the policing authority for the sidewalk enforcement. They feel it should be done by the city with an L.I.D. or street improvements and assessed to the actual property owner that maintain those homes and those sidewalks. It should not be a condition to cover a home loan or condition of appraisal. Policing is being handed out wrong. People will buy a lot and have 1, 2, or 3 years to pay them off. When the property is paid off that is their down payment for their construction loan. For them to come up with another $1000 or $1500 to put a sidewalk in and turn around and redo it again after construction because typically the sidewalks are broken up with cement trucks and construction crews. They feel like it is a double cost to put the sidewalk within 30 days of purchasing a lot and turning around and having to put it in again. People also buy lots in appreciation in town to pass onto their kids or waiting for prices to go up. He is in favor of having sidewalks through town. He would like to have it written on new construction to have the sidewalk in within 30 days of completion making it mandatory for the loan or getting an occupancy permit. He would like it stand that 2, 3, 4 years after purchasing a lot it would require a sidewalk. He felt it was an undo -- burden even if there is a home on it. It should not be put in on the transfer of ownership. It should be put in if the city is going to come in and upgrade a street or redo curbs or do an overlay. The city should go to the owners on the street that does not have a sidewalk and say we are going to do an overlay on the street and you have to put in a sidewalk or tell they them have two years to put it in. He is here with representatives from Homestead Construction and also want to address the lineal foot charge. The mayor stated that there is nothing he gets more complaints on than sidewalks. A lady came in the other day and told us how she liked Rexburg, but she was waiting to fill out an application to sue the city. She was walking with a friend from Tennessee and possibly the lady wasn't watching where she was going and tripped on a sidewalk and injured her shoulder and will have trouble the rest of her life. North 5th West is probably the worst place with all those kids walking to school. He wrote a letter to all those people along there. He heard from two residents who was very much opposed. Most people want sidewalks, but there are enough that are opposed he did not think we could get them done even on that street unless we did an L.I.D. Ted agreed, but he did not want the policing authority to be put on the realtors. When you sell a home, they use all their money getting into the home and do not have the money to put a sidewalk in within 30 days. The city should go around and tell people there is a city ordinance on sidewalks and they have 2 years to put it in. J. R. Hayes, Homestead Construction- In the last little while they have built a few homes in the city. They are starter homes and so they have looked for infill lots. Their concern about the sidewalk issue is from a sidewalk standpoint. When they buy a lot if they are required to put a sidewalk in, especially on the infill lots, 30 days after the purchase of the property, at that time we are just getting set up to start to build. They are building on Cul de sac and they have had to replace all the walk on that entire lot. It is almost impossible to get construction equipment across the finished walk without tearing it up. If they don't have services in they have to go out in the street to get the services as a result they go under the walk again and it is almost impossible to save a walk when you dig under it. They recommend on new houses if you would tie it with the completion of the house rather than the sale of the lot. They will even be glad to bond the walk in if the closing took place during the period of year you can't pour cement. The bank escrow everything that we can't complete. They hold out one and half to two times what it costs to complete the project. Jim Flamm stated that was never the intent. Joe stated the problem with new construction we have in hand. The problem he has with the way the ordinance is written is that they have to have the sidewalk in within 30 days of the sale of property. He has no way of knowing when it is sold. (discussion) Adrian Baird- He is putting in a home on 1st South and 3rd East and in that area there is not any sidewalks. He has gone around the neighborhood trying to get a consensus of how we want to put the sidewalks in. He would like to see us get sidewalks in the neighborhoods that don't have them, rather than having one piece of sidewalk on a block. Kay- stated it didn't look like there is any perfect way to do it. if we put it on an L.I.D. it would put a burden on elderly people or people without money. There is money available at the time property changes hands. He said the sidewalk committee should address this rather than the P&Z. Ted Whyte felt it was a mistake to piece meal a sidewalk from transaction to transaction. The mayor stated that under this same resolution it says if a major repair to a street is done, sidewalks need to go in. We are doing major repairs to several streets. Some don't have sidewalks. How are we going to enforce that without an L.I.D? Kay felt the Sidewalk Committee should study it more and make a proposal. Glen suggested that they have some town meetings and get - input from the rest of the citizens. The council felt we should look at it again with the committee and come back with a recommendation. (discussion on enforcement) RE: LINEAL FOOT CHARGE ON INFILL LOTS TOPIC: (20,13,,, LINEAL FOOT CHARGE) Lineal Foot Charge- Lee Gagner representing Homestead Construction. They target the starter home for young people in the $60,000 to $70,000 range. They build in the cities in this area. As a result of trying to keep the house affordable for the market they have chosen to build for, they have found that infill lots make more sense. They found that Rexburg fees were higher to build the standard home but they still opt to come in and build here because they think there is a market. They find when they go into an infill lot, the water main is in the street but the stub outs for sewer and water are not and it costs about $1000 to go into a street to put water and sewer stub outs to the property and they knew they would have to absorb that cost. The way the ordinance reads on a 60 foot lot the lineal foot charge would add another $1200 to the cost. In many cases that $1200 would make the difference of whether to build there. When they have to go into the street for water and sewer stub ins they would ask for relief from the ordinance if they have to incur that cost. .. J. R. Hayes- He gave a copy of the permit costs for different cities in this area. (on file) (discussion) Glen asked him if he had compared the taxes in these surrounding cities because the people in Rexburg have a lot of relief on the property taxes? He felt that cost should be part of the comparison. The mayor stated on the lineal foot charge. This was done mainly for one developer that was not going to develops this year and we ran that water line through there. Usually the developer has paid for it and the lineal foot charge is a mute point. He was not about to pay this charge at that point and we put the lineal foot charge in there to recoup the money we put into that line. That will be passed onto the developer. Ted stated that on a 100 Foot lot you are looking at $2000 so it is hard to justify the cost on the infill lots. On the tax issue it is an incentive for the homeowner to live in Rexburg to save on taxes but not an incentive for the developer to build on Rexburg. Mr Gagner stated that in Idaho Falls there is not a lineal foot charge on infill lots because when they put the main lines in they did not know where the stubouts should be and they realize the cost to go into the street to put the stubouts in. There are no lineal foot charge on infill lots in any of the surrounding cities. Mr Baird stated that there is no sewer line in where he is building his house so the sewer lineal foot charge will be waved. There is a 6" water main that runs down the west side of the property. It has probably been in 30 or 35 years. He think that had probably been paid for when it was put in. He is looking at some sort of relief on it. -- There are 330 feet along that side of his property. Jim suggested that the point of this lineal foot charge was to allocate the expense of the development of these facilities to the growth and to the people that build rather than absorb it in taxes. The mayor stated that we didn't really get into the detail of infill lots as we discussed it. We did say a lot of the early ones were put in under a G.O. Bond and even though the property on a vacant lot paid on the G.O. Bond, the ones with homes paid more. John Millar- In the 1970's a lot of the bigger lines were put in with Revenue Bonds and G. 0. bonds earlier. Typically water lines were put in with Revenue Bonds or through L.I.D.'s. Richard said we are still paying Revenue Bonds for water and sewer lines. The council felt we should research it and have the water and sewer committee discuss it and table it to another meeting. Rose said she would research the minutes and ordinances. RE: BIDS FOR FIRE DEPT. GAS CONVERSION TOPIC: (20,14,,, BIDS,FIRE DEPT.,UNITED PLUMBING,INTERMOUNTAIN GAS) Chief Spence Larsen was at the meeting with bids for Fire Department Gas Conversion. They had money in the budget to convert over to gas for the living quarters. They requested three or four bids. The two bids they got were, United Plumbing and Heating for $9995 and one from Jewel Electric for $15,799. Nyle Fullmer had reviewed the bids and did not see a problem and recommended that we go with the low bid. A motion was made by Nyle Fullmer that we approve and accept the low bid from United Plumbing for $9,995. Spence said United did not show the electrical which they thought would be $800. The motion was seconded by Farrell Young. All Aye RE: BID FOR SPRINKLING SYSTEM AT NATURE PARK TOPIC: (20,15,,, BIDS,SPRINKLING SYSTEMS,STANDARD PLUMBING,NATURE PARK) Bid for Material for the Sprinkling System at Nature Park. The bids were Standard Plumbing which was the low bid of $4,437.57, Falls Plumbing $4,794 and Norman Supply $4,800. A motion was made by Nyle Fullmer to approve the low bid. Seconded by Glen Pond. All Aye. RE: SIGN ORDINANCE DISCUSSED TOPIC: (20,15,,, SIGN ORDINANCE,SIGNS) Sign Ordinance- We have had a couple of calls on the sign ordinance. Representatives from Outdoor Advertising were at the meeting with some questions about the ordinance. (copy of letter with concerns on file) Most cities address them under "Non Accessory Signs". He understands that the city would deal with them under the "Billboard Signs". They would like some clarification in the ordinance for future administrations. The ordinance provides a maximum height of 24 feet. Most of their structures will be 12' x 24' that they would be building in an area like Rexburg. Their signs would be about 12 foot above grade. There are circumstances when there are changes in road grade and sign heights should be higher just for safety reasons. They build signs where there is a lot of commercial traffic and like to have their signs high enough that semi vehicles could pass under the sign. They would like the maximum height of the sign to be 30 feet. Under the billboard section the height is acceptable. The size of the signs is at 200 square feet for non accessory signs and their signs are 240 square feet. He did not see the zoning for the allowed billboard. John Millar- The sign ordinance is applicable everywhere except in residential. The ordinance was not to encourage billboards on the highway. Signs could not be higher than 24 feet without a Conditional Use Permit. Representative from the sign company stated that on the height also when they build their signs they like to be above on premises signs so they don't obstruct the view. The extra 6 feet would help on that. Right now anything higher than specified in the ordinance would have to come in for a Conditional Use Permit. Bruce said they discussed the highway and felt it would be easier to have them come in on a case by case basis. Kay stated the P&Z have looked at it long and hard and gone through the channels they should. He felt we should approve it. The sign company would still like to have some clarification on the non accessory signs and billboards. John Millar- Non accessory signs are covered under the billboards. John and Joe would discuss it and make the clarification. Joe wondered if we need to add more definition to the billboard definition to separate it. John said we could add the definition of billboard. The council felt we should hold the ordinance until the next meeting for passage. RE: L.I.D. & GRANT FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS TOPIC: (20,15,,, L.I.D.'S,GRANTS,STREET REPAIRS,ECIPDA,7TH SOUTH) Possibility of forming and L.I.D. and applying for a grant for Street Improvements. Ted Hendricks from E.C.I.P.D.A. was at the meeting to explain basically we have been talking about applying for a Block Grant for refinishing of 7th South and with that the community will have to have some sort of matching funds in order to apply for it. The eligible cost would be to resurface 7th South from Yellowstone all the way to 2nd East. John Millar and he had been working with the state as well as getting proposals to whether we do different sections of that road or the entire road and also doing some work along Yellowstone Highway. The application for the grant would have to be in by November and matching source of funds would have to be secure at that time. The city has some State Transportation money that is available. In addition to that there would also have to be some local share which would be created by the establishment of an L.I.D. The mayor stated if we could get it, we have some areas that really need improvement. 7th South from the Nursing Home down to Erickson Ponitac really needs some improvement. For several years we have talked about doing something on the old highway from Taylor's in. John Millar gave a copy of figures which were rough estimates. (Handout on file) He explained it. Bruce asked about curb and gutter along the Middle School area? It was agreed when they came in for a permit, we gave them an exemption until we made improvements there and they said they would put in the curb and gutter. The mayor agreed they need to put in curb and gutter. John said the school is the only portion on 7th South that is in the city. The city has no authority to do an L.I.D. out of the city. The mayor said we could tie the L.I.D. to the approval of the grant. If we are going to go for it we would need to start the L.I.D. now. (discussion) A motion was made by Jim Flamm and seconded by Bruce Sutherland to proceed with the Grant Application and proceed with the L.I.D. Seconded by Bruce Sutherland. All Aye A motion was made by Jim Flamm and seconded by Kay Beck that we go with all of it so they can share the match and then talk to the property owners and see how they feel. All Aye The council told them to go ahead with procuring professional services. RE: LOCATING STATE FARM INSURANCE ON WEST MAIN TOPIC: (20,16,,, STATE FARM INSURANCE,BJORNN*STEVE,MAIN STREET,PARKING) Nancy Whyte and Steve Bjornn was at the meeting to discuss locating the State Farm Insurance office on West Main in a Professional Office Overlay across from the Real Estate Office. Discussion on Parking. They need four parking places, and would like to park one car in the garage and widen the driveway so they can park three cars in the driveway. Most cars will park along the curb. P&Z suggested that they remove the garage and park some cars in the back. The council felt that they would like the house to fit into the residential neighborhood and felt if the garage was torn down it would take away from the residential look. (showing a diagram of parking) John Millar discussed the requirements of the ordinance. It would require a Conditional Use Permit and a Variance for the parking. The council suggested that he go back to the P&Z with a request for the Conditional Use Permit and Variance. A motion was made by Nyle Fullmer and seconded by Jim Flamm to pay the bills. All Aye RE: PARKING BEHIND PORTERS DISCUSSED TOPIC: (20,16,,, PARKING,DOWNTOWN,PORTER'S,A.D.A.,HANDICAPPED) Glen Pond discussed that we approve the parking plan behind Porter Variety but we did not designate any Handicapped Parking Spots. We need to designate two spaces one behind Porters and one in the middle by the light. Vern Liljenquist and Chuck Porter agreed. Jim, Glen, Bruce, Joe and DeLynn will meet Tuesday at 7:30 A.M. to discuss the Lineal foot charge. RE: MONEY FOR THE CLERKS OF THE COURT TOPIC: (20,16,,, BUDGET,COURT) Brooke Passey from the county reminded the council to consider money for the clerks of the court. Meeting adjourned. [u Mayor, N'le L. Boyl City Clerk, Ros/6 aglW