Council delays action on church expansion plan

Saturday, January 16, 2010
Re-elected last fall, Richard Urquidi and Alain Isaac were sworn in by city clerk Nina Patterson Monday evening to begin their new terms on the city council.

by Brian S. Orban

Mountain Home News

During its first meeting of the new year Monday evening, the Mountain Home City Council delayed final votes on conditional use permits involving the local Catholic community as well as Richard McKenna Charter High School.

The city council debated both issues for approximately two hours following the swearing in of council members Richard Urquidi and Alain Isaac, who ran uncontested in the November elections.

Earlier in the meeting, the four-person council unanimously approved recommendations from city hall to maintain Mountain Home's current department heads, including its chief of police and city fire chief. In addition, council members also made changes to which of the 15 different committees each of them serve on as liaisons to city leadership.

Meanwhile, the council unanimously voted to name Councilman Russ Anderson as its new president.

During the evening, the council began initial discussions on the city's parking ordinance. Urquidi said the law, approved in 1996, needed a review to address concerns with future growth in the core downtown area.

As written, the current parking ordinance requires new buildings to include a minimum number of parking spaces, Urquidi said. He used the former Kings building at the corner of American Legion Boulevard and North 2nd East Street to highlight problems with the current law. As written, he said, no one could tear down the building and build a new store there because the lot lacks the minimum number of required parking spaces, despite the fact the now-vacant store has a designated parking lot.

"If someone came in tomorrow and asked us if they could reopen that store, they couldn't because it doesn't meet the (parking) ordinance," said Mayor Tom Rist. "We want to encourage business growth downtown, so we should look at this ordinance."

"Parking is a sensitive topic," added Isaac, who owns an appliance store in the downtown area. "There's not enough parking downtown even with all the vacant store fronts."

Issues with downtown parking took center stage as the council debated a conditional use permit from the local Catholic community to build a new fellowship hall next to its existing church at the corner of East Jackson and North 4th East streets. The goal was to replace several existing buildings around town, including Good Counsel Hall, located a mile from the church. It also aimed to keep its fellowship area, administration offices and classrooms next to the existing church.

In a separate meeting Jan. 4, the city's planning and zoning commission recommended disapproving the church's conditional use permit, saying the plan falls well short of meeting the minimum number of parking spaces required by city ordinance. According to the law, the church needs approximately four times the needed parking spaces than the church's plan allows.

During its presentation to the city council on Monday, members from the architectural firm that developed the building plan emphasized the number of vacant parking spaces within a nine-block radius around the church. Representative Dave Davies pulled up several diagrams showing how many on-street parking spaces the church uses during the week and how many remain vacant despite having a middle school and courthouse within a block of the church.

According to surveys his company conducted last year, Davies said the church has a "plethora" of on-street parking with 50 percent of those spaces remaining vacant at any given time. Even during its busiest service Sunday mornings, the church only uses 65 percent of available on-street parking within a one-block radius around the church, he added.

James Murray, a senior company representative, also emphasized the church's total membership has remained steady over the past 20 years, and the church doesn't plan to increase the number of available seats in its worship area. In short, the building plan wouldn't compound the parking situation around the church, he said.

Battling prior arguments regarding parking around the church, Murray pointed to the nine temporary buildings added to Mountain Home High School this fall. The buildings were needed to accommodate hundreds of new students at the school. Despite the additional traffic around the school this year, city officials had no reservations about allowing the school district to proceed with that plan, he said.

Even if the church took up 134 parking spaces as required by law, "it still leaves many vacant spaces along with parking spaces for business as usual," Davies added.

"Living in the downtown core means parking on the street," Martin told the council.

"For years, everyone worked in harmony with no significant parking infractions."

It's not feasible for new business growth in the downtown area under the current parking ordinance, added Mark Slominski, a member of the church's building committee. As written, a company would need to demolish an entire city block to add just one new building, he said.

In her opening comments on this topic, Isaac aired her concerns regarding on-street parking problems, adding that people will park wherever they want -- even in reserved spaces -- to make it easier for them to get to the church. She also called the parking surveys a "snapshot" look and may not accurately reflect the number of parking spaces used in a given week. Isaac also raised concerns regarding the impact the church would have on people hoping to open businesses in places currently vacant. If these places reopen, it would cause new problems regarding downtown parking.

Supporters of the church's plans packed into city hall to hear the debate and lend their support, with two people coming forward to speak on the subject. Barry Peterson supported the church's plans while Frank Monasterio said debating the parking issue is "worthwhile" for the good of current and future downtown growth.

"Our downtown is key to the city, and right now the status of the downtown area is very fragile," Monasterio said.

After asking the church to look at its plans again in hopes of finding ways to ease the parking burden, the city council agreed unanimously to postpone its final vote on the conditional use permit. At the earliest, the council could make a final vote at its regularly scheduled meeting Jan. 25.

Comments
View 9 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • *

    No matter the outcome, someone is going to shot themselves in the foot over the whole deal, if its now time to break the rules in place and redo all the parking problems going to take more than the council to fix it but that is what they are paid for.

    -- Posted by Eagle_eye on Sat, Jan 16, 2010, at 2:38 PM
  • *

    I am feeling a change coming. A change to the standard for parking. I just have to play devil's advocate (no pun intended) and wonder how some of the other recently opened buildings in town meet the parking standard. Look at he building on American Legion where Spa on the Blvd opened. My spouse and I used to go there but parking was impossible. There is a garage out back and only single parking along the other 3 sides of the building. And there is NO STREET parking near it on American Legion.

    Based on this article the standard needs changed to allow for expansion in downtown but the church needs to try better to MEET THE CURRENT standard. It is either that or wait till the standard is changed then apply for a permit again.

    -- Posted by B Mullen on Sun, Jan 17, 2010, at 4:31 PM
  • Old Guy... leave it to a church to destroy all those "thriving" business downtown. Are you kidding me? Who's above the regulations? First of all the current rules are flawed and outdated. The city council during their last meeting acknowledge that same fact. God forbid the Catholic church expand it's complex in Mountain Home...what would be next, the parish trying to convert all of Mountain Home to the Catholic faith.

    Have you seen the latest church project behind McDonald's by our LDS brothers and sisters..it rivals the one in Salt Lake City. News flash, most of the residents near that project didn't even know about it...let alone voice their concerns. What about parking for that project? You have business and a school and also a nursing home located in that area... but the city council and the P&Z showed no concern or objections.

    We just want FAIR and EQUAL treatment by the P&Z and our elected officials. Have you seen the proposed project? The parish is wants to build a "beautiful" facility that would not only enhance the operational function of the parish, but to enhance the beauty of the downtown area.

    It's a win-win for all involved.

    I encourage you to take a look at what the parish is proposing, then hopefully you will see the positives instead of the negatives. Remember change is not always a bad thing.

    -- Posted by DUMBFOUNDED IN IDAHO on Tue, Jan 19, 2010, at 2:56 PM
  • Hey Old Guy...news flash, the church has only been there at that same location since 1953..let's see,if my math is correct, that is over "half a century". During that "half century" there has never been a problem with parking. But of course you could be right, if downtown suddently erupted into a business mecca..then there could be a slight problem...somehow I don't see that happening.

    If the city is so concern about parking in a "dying" downtown district, then they should purchase that continuing eye sore called King's and turn that into a parking lot...wow what a concept...but wait, that means that the city would have to spend MONEY or better yet, they could place King's as a "historic site". Keep the building in-place to enhance the cosmetic beauty of downtown.

    The bottom line is simple...while our LDS brothers and sisters build a temple of all temples, adjacent to a residential area which will cause massive conjestion in and around that area, the Catholic parish is "restricted" maybe even prohibted to build ANYTHING on a piece of property of which they have owned for over half a century. If anything, this proposed complex would enhance the beautifcation of a already very "ugly" and rundown downtown. I wonder if the city council/P&Z voice the same concerns with the LDS project...umh..something tells me NO!

    As far as councilwoman Issac is concerned, I'd like to know her religious affliation. Something smells rotten in good old Mountain Home.

    -- Posted by DUMBFOUNDED IN IDAHO on Tue, Jan 19, 2010, at 2:58 PM
  • *

    Wow I did not mean to stike a nerve with you DumbFounded. All I am saying is that the Church might try harder to meet the CURRENT standards. The Church emphasized the number of vacant parking spaces within a nine-block radius around the church. Now correct me if I am wrong but isn't a nine block area made up of mostly residential buildings? I agree the standard needs changed but until that happens, efforts should be made to meet the standard as it is written.

    I agree with you about the LDS temple. As for those living in the area not knowing about it, that would be on them. There was a huge sign there for months prior to any construction about a public hearing. I drove by it everyday and it clearly stated what was proposed and the date for people to voice their opinions.

    If you feel so strongly about this issue, then go in front of the P&Z or Council and ask the questions you asked here. I do not have the answers for you and the only people who do are these folks.

    I think your battle should be with the city and not with me.

    -- Posted by B Mullen on Wed, Jan 20, 2010, at 8:29 AM
  • Old guy, I "have" voiced my concerns with the city on this issue, so has many others. However some of our elected city officals have very "biased" feelings towards certain religious/polictical affliations. There are a certain "few" in this community who mandate and delegate to the many.

    The demographics of this community and state is changing daily. There is a power struggle with those who been here forever, who see any change as evil and that anything not from Idaho is bad.

    To those of us who are transplants, like me who feel moderate change is a good thing which only enhances the quality of life in Mountain Home, I aplore you to take a stand. This community is changing from a "small town" limited mentality that disregards anything not from here to a more progressive mentality, tolerate to others in race, religion and policitcal views.

    I will continue to voice my concerns with the city council and fight for what is the right.

    I am a transplant for the east and want to put roots down in Mountain Home. This community has "tremendous potential". I speak for many who feel the same way that those of you who keep resisting those who want to be part of this community...Change is coming to Mountain Home, whether you like it or not, you can embrace it and work together for the betterment of our community, our you can be like some of those who have been here forever, and keep fighting a losing battle.

    Let the church build, and let's be down with this issue once and for all, so we can focus on much bigger issues that need our immediate attention. If this issue is so important that it takes considerable amounts of time and energy then we as a community are in BIG trouble.

    -- Posted by DUMBFOUNDED IN IDAHO on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 5:27 PM
  • *

    DumbFounded,

    Whatever you say. You seem to have the answers for all of us. So my suggestion is if you have all the answers and know better than the rest of us, run for office next election and then you can make all the changes that you seem to have the answers to.

    Yes let the church build whatever they want and not follow the rules that others have to follow. Throw out all the rules and let anyone build whatever they want where ever they want. Way to go.

    -- Posted by B Mullen on Sat, Jan 23, 2010, at 2:29 PM
  • Old Guy...as I thought, you are one of the "old-timers" who thinks anything not from here is poison. Let's talk about the rules...here in Mountain Home the rules are set for some and set-aside for others. (hint, hint) Being narrowminded must be a native trait...Way to go Old Guy!

    -- Posted by DUMBFOUNDED IN IDAHO on Sun, Jan 24, 2010, at 11:34 PM
  • *

    Dumb,

    I do not fit your thoughts of me. While I am proud to call Mt Home my hometown, I am not from here at all. Like you I am from the East. I tend to think I am not NARROWMINDED. I stated my opinions and even suggest you take your arguements up with those that make the rules and standards.

    Go back and read and reread what I have said. I think that everyone should and must follow the rules as they are written. Guess that comes from over 20yrs of military service. If the rules need changed then they should be changed but until that happens, we have to live by them.

    Oh, good luck if you run in the elections. You should do well based on what you have written here and to others.

    -- Posted by B Mullen on Mon, Jan 25, 2010, at 5:23 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: