Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.07.2021 P&Z Minutes_exppdf 1 City Staff and Others: Alan Parkinson – P&Z Administrator Tawnya Grover – P&Z Administrative Assistant Natalie Powell – Compliance Officer Spencer Rammell – City Attorney Chairman Kristi Andersen opened the meeting at 6:30p.m. Roll Call of Planning and Zoning Commissioners: Present: Greg Blacker, John Bowen, Vince Haley, Kristi Anderson, David Pulsipher, Todd Marx, Randall Kempton, Sally Smith, Aaron Richards, Jim Lawrence. Absent: Chairman Rory Kunz. Minutes: Planning & Zoning Meeting December 3, 2020 (action) Motion: Motion to approve the Planning & Zoning minutes for December 3, 2020, as written. Action: Approve, Moved by Greg Blacker, Seconded by Sally Smith. Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 9, No = 0, Abstain = 1). Yes: Aaron Richards, David Pulsipher, Greg Blacker, Jim Lawrence, Kristi Anderson, Randall Kempton, Sally Smith, Todd Marx, Vince Haley. Abstain: John Bowen. Mayor Jerry Merrill presented a plaque to Jim Lawrence for his service on the Traffic and Safety Committee July 6, 2016 to July 6, 2020. The City of Rexburg appreciates his service. Now he serves on the Planning & Zoning Commission. Jim Lawerence thanked the Mayor and the City. Public Hearings: 1. 6:35PM – (20-00705) – Development Code Ordinance Amendment – Commercial Design Standards. A committee of community members has proposed these amendments to the Commercial Design Standards. (action) – Alan Parkinson, City of Rexburg Applicant Presentation – Alan Parkinson – When we were going through a Design Review Committee meeting, recently on a building, the Committee requested an update to the Commercial Design Standards. They recommended a committee be established to go through the Commercial Design Standards to determine how this section of the Development Code could be improved to apply to today’s building trends. Rory Kunz from Planning & Zoning, Chris Mann from City Council, Jedd Walker from BYU-I, Dean Kunz, who owns a landscaping company, and Johnny Watson, a local Architect, met together in 2-3 different sessions to come up with the draft that is being presented the Commission tonight. The group feels this proposal is a better fit for the community and the standards we see in building today. 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Phone: 208.359.3020 Fax: 208.359.3022 www.rexburg.org Planning & Zoning Minutes January 7, 2021 2 Commissioner Questions: David Pulsipher asked what was removed from the Design Standards. It seems like the requirements are more of a move to general requirements verses specific requirements. The “Roof Variations” section was removed. Is the language strong enough to allow for attractive buildings? Alan said Staff feels this language will be strong enough, but allow the architect to come up more freedom for design. An example was presented for the requirement of two features, which came up with the East Idaho Credit Union, like a clock tower or water feature. There are many credit unions on N 2nd E and we do not want a clock tower on each one. This was overbearing Staff was told and did not fit the purpose of what was trying to be accomplished. Some businesses did not have large enough lots to put two significant features on their lot. Other changes called out specific finishes on buildings, such as no metal siding. Metal siding needs to be defined. Now there are many options from corrugated metal siding to extremely high-tech metal finishes. The purpose is to use high-quality materials. Corrugated metal and delta-rib are not ideal. The code has been opened up to allow people to come in and show what meets that need. The changes are encouraging creativity for today’s architectural designs and materials. Sally Smith asked if the “entrances” section was removed and the “entryways” section is covering this part of the building. The “entrances” section has been moved to a different position in the code on page 8. Alan said we are working with Municode to clarify the green text as new text or as a moved section. We have had the same problem with the P.U.D. draft submitted from Municode to the Commission. Look to see, when something looks removed, if it shows up in a new section. Similar items were consolidated in the same area for ease of access to information on a topic. Sally Smith has the same question about the materials on the exterior. Do any material requirements remain? Alan said developers will need to show you what they are doing and if there are any questions as to if the standards are met, a Design Review Committee will be called to meet what the community determines is acceptable. Aaron Richards asked who usually serves on the Design Review Committee. Jedd Walker, an architect with BYU-I; an architect from the local community, sometimes Johnny Watson; someone from Planning & Zoning and a City Council person. Chris Mann has served on the Committee several times. The driving forces were not to lessen the design standards, but to allow for ever-changing architectural design. Designers are doing things with materials we did not think about 20 years ago. We want to make sure the buildings look good, without stifling the advancement of styles, allowing the use of materials we did not consider. Rory Kunz says the changes allow them to adjust to changing trends. Alan said to him corrugated metal is used for roofs to put on his sheds for his cows and pigs, but there are some creative ways the corrugated metal is being used in high-end homes. Our code used to say “predominant exterior building materials as well as accents visual from the street or public parking shall not include the following: 3. Pre-fabricated steel panels.” Sally Smith asked about cinder block as an allowed material. This material is dominant in chicken coops and dairy barns. Alan said Madison High School uses a cinder block design, with patterns and colors, which make it acceptable. Sally asked about the “teeth” in the ordinance; she says these items have been removed. Kristi Anderson read 6.00.060 Exterior Materials and Colors “Exterior building materials and colors should be aesthetically pleasing and compatible with materials and colors used in adjoining neighborhoods.” In addition, the colors have to be neutral. Alan said if Staff does not feel the standard is met, the design is sent to the Design Review Committee. Kristi asked if this opens up the city to lawsuits, because the decision is based on opinion. Rory Kunz reiterated what Kristi read about the design being compatible with the design of the neighborhood. This sentence sets some standards, because the allowed design is based on what the neighbors are already doing. If you are building a glass house in the middle of a neighborhood of stone houses, this may not be the appropriate area for this home. The decision would be left up to the Design Review Committee. Bringing in the Commission, City Council and community members 3 allows an unbiased decision to be made and to mitigate any legal liability of the City. If Alan was arbitrarily saying we allow this and we will not allow this, and they are the same thing, then the City could get in trouble. The Design Review Committee allows the mitigation of that design. An example would be the new Field House at the High School. The Field House did not meet the design standards of the neighborhood, mainly because the school set the design standards for the neighborhood. Landscaping and paint requirements were required by the Design Review Committee to break up the view from the street. This is an example of something the Committee has the leeway to do. Jim Lawrence referenced Building Form on page 2, (which may be an example of what we are talking about) where we cross out the distances, which is now defined as “large expanses of uninterrupted surfaces”. Is this going to be specific enough language to be consistent? Are we going to forget when someone comes in with a 120’ uninterrupted distance, that we let a previous building be approved with a 150’ uninterrupted distance. Is this covered with the Design Review Committee? Alan said the way the process is designed to give Staff a chance to review the design, as a first look. If Staff does not like what they see, then Staff will request a Design Review Committee. If the Applicant does not like what the Staff says, he can ask for a Design Review Committee. Staff is looking at the patterns in the community. Northpointe is an example of a design verses the neighborhood. For someone who wants to build next to Northpointe, the standards accepted for the Northpointe building will be a measuring tool. Staff immediately identified the Field House for Madison High School as having design issues; the building did not match the Development Code standards. The Applicant argued they believed the standard had been met. The proposal went to the Design Review Committee, because the Applicant and Staff could not come to a consensus. The Committee has more of an unbiased community voice on what designs match. Creative solutions come from a Design Review Committee. Jim Lawrence said this discussion helps him to understand the Design Review Committee. The Design Review Committee is almost like an arbitration. He asked the Commissioners to speak directly into their microphones to make it easier for him to know what is going on in the meeting. Alan said Staff could ask for a Design Review Committee as well. When the Development Code dictates 50’ or 125’, this also creates some challenges. It was simple for them to say I only did 99’, so I do not have to do the requirement. Vince Haley asked about the decision for the trees and shrubs for Walmart. This is regarding the columnar trees obstructing the sight triangle. The columnar trees are being restricted to maintain safety. Columnar trees can be used internally in the lots. Vince confirmed this is the reason for 3.02.100.B to be included. Alan said the sight triangle is a standard in our code. 3’-10’ height should be clear of obstruction for view for all land measured 15’ from a corner or street access along the property lines to form a triangle. Rory Kunz arrived at 6:45p.m. Roll Call. Present: Chairman Rory Kunz, Greg Blacker, John Bowen, Vince Haley, Kristi Anderson, David Pulsipher, Todd Marx, Randall Kempton, Sally Smith, Aaron Richards, Jim Lawrence. Commissioner Questions for Staff: Conflict of Interest? - Chairman Kristi Anderson asked the Commissioners if they have a conflict of interest or if they have been approached by any parties relative to this particular subject. If you believe your prior contact with respect to this subject has created a bias, you should recuse yourself, otherwise at this time please indicate the nature of your conversation or contact. None. Chairman Kristi Anderson reviewed the public hearing procedures. 4 Favor: None Neutral: None Opposed: None Written Correspondence: None Rebuttal: None Chairman Kristi Anderson asked if anyone else would like to speak. She closed the public input portion of the hearing at 6:59p.m. Commissioners Discussion: Vince Haley said releasing the restrictions on one side, also releases the restrictions on the other and allows more freedom. He is in favor of moving forward on this. Aaron Richards likes the direction this is headed; allowing the Design Review Committee to have a heavier say then the black and white print. This allows the commercial design to be more fluid as has been indicated, as trends change, and as neighborhoods evolve. He is in support of the amendment. Rory Kunz said the fluidity in the decision-making process allows more ingenuity and creativeness, giving opportunity as things change for businesses and people to come together and make good decisions. He is also in favor. MOTION: Motion to recommend the City Council approve the proposed amendments to the Commercial Design Standards amendment to the Development Code, because this is better for the community and makes the Design Review Committee process more simple., Action: Approve, Moved by Chairman Rory Kunz, Seconded by Vince Haley. Commission Discusses the Motion: None VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 11). Yes: Aaron Richards, Chairman Rory Kunz, David Pulsipher, Greg Blacker, Jim Lawrence, John Bowen, Kristi Anderson, Randall Kempton, Sally Smith, Todd Marx, Vince Haley. Chair duties were turned over to Rory Kunz. 2. 6:40PM - (20-00914) – Citywide & Impact Area – Rezone from Transitional Agriculture 1 (TAG1) and Transitional Agriculture 2 (TAG2) to Transitional Agriculture (TAG). A Development Code Amendment was recently approved to consolidate the zones TAG1 and TAG2 to a single TAG zone. This request for rezone is to match the zoning with the current adopted code. (action) – Alan Parkinson, City of Rexburg (A map can be viewed at https://bit.ly/33R1dl9 .) Applicant Presentation – Alan Parkinson – This is a rezone following up an amendment to the Development Code consolidating TAG1 and TAG2 to TAG. City Council approved the Development Code amendment. Now the parcels zoned TAG1 and TAG2 need to be changed to the TAG designation to match the Development Code. Staff has reviewed the request and they support this request and recommend approval. Commissioner Questions: Chairman Rory Kunz disclosed people asked him questions like: Does this mean that the Area of Impact is being changed? Does this have an impact on the current uses for those who are in the TAG1 and TAG2 zones? Does this change have a negative impact in any way? Alan said the Impact Area boundary remains the same. This request only applies to the areas zoned, 5 which currently exist. Anyone who is in TAG1 and TAG2 has grandfathered uses until there is a change of use. The changes within the code do not negatively affect the people. The minimum acreage required was reduced from two acres to one acre, allowing people to better manage their lots. We freed up the ability for people to do what they need to do. The change did not take away any permitted uses. The only use that was removed was a caretaker house, which is only applicable on a large farm, for someone to manage and live on the farm, who is not the owner of the farm. Rory asked do we have any of these types of farms in the city limits or the Impact Area? Alan answered, we do not. Alan said he has taken 20-30 calls, which are mainly clarifications. What is happening? How does it affect me? Is it going to cause any detriment to my business? At the end of the conversation, they were positive. He did not have any negative responses. John Bowen asked if this was county, city or both? Alan answered this affects both. This does not force anyone in the Impact Area to annex into the city. This is not an annexation driver. Our Development Code governs the Impact Area, but the County is the enforcing agent. John asked about the costs showing on the application. The fee shown was based on the acres of land covered in TAG1 and TAG2; the computer calculated so much per acre. The fee has been corrected. Conflict of Interest? - Chairman Rory Kunz asked the Commissioners if they have a conflict of interest or if they have been approached by any parties relative to this particular subject. If you believe your prior contact with respect to this subject has created a bias, you should recuse yourself, otherwise at this time please indicate the nature of your conversation or contact. None. Chairman Rory Kunz reviewed the public hearing procedures. Please be patient, especially those online. State your name and address for the record. Be as brief as possible. Favor: None Neutral: Janet and Marvin Goodliffe – 70 K Street, but own property 985 E 8th N and the adjoining property is their son’s - They have a question about the 180’ lot width. Please explain what this would entail on individual properties. On 985 E 8th N, there is a private lane and they have some property issues that have developed over time. They want to know how this will be handled with the one-acre minimum where the property lines are not as clear as they need to be. Alan said any existing lot would not change. Dividing existing lots or requesting a subdivision means the smallest width of the lot would be 180’. What is the context? Somewhere in the lot, the parcel should have a 180’ width. There can be a flag lot with a narrow driveway to access the lot, then the lot would have to open up to at least 180’ within that lot. Janet clarified some point on that lot has to be 180’ wide. Alan answered street frontage does have a requirement; it is believed this is 35’. The 35’ allows room for an adequate driveway from the road. Lots are all different shapes parallel to the street. Janet asked in the future, if the East Parkway Corridor goes in, what would be the ability of the landowner to come to the Commission or City Council to talk about the change in lot dimensions and the use of that land is no longer feasible? Is there an appeal process? Is there a variance? Alan answered in this kind of situation, when a non- conforming lot is caused by the government, the government cannot force you to meet the new standards. The lot would have a grandfathering status, and the only time it would affect you is if you came in and wanted to change the use of that property or subdivide. For example, if the government required 10’ off the side of your land, which would take you down to a lot width of 170’, you would be okay. The government cannot force you to the 180’ if we forced you into a non-conforming lot. Marvin asked if the area is large enough to make three lots, do we still fall 6 under this requirement. The Goodliffes have a doublewide and a singlewide there; they have had problems with the property lines. If the road goes in, he will not want to build a nice home out there and make three lots out of the two lots. Alan said the standards for the three lots would have to meet those required by the zone at time of subdivision, including a minimum of one acre for each lot and the minimum 180’ width. Janet confirmed the sewer and water are dependent on the Health Department; they will have requirements for the one-acre minimum. Alan confirmed the Goodliffe’s lots could stay as they are. The Goodliffes thanked the City for the stoplight on 7th N and N 2nd E. Opposed: None Written Correspondence: None Rebuttal: None Chairman Rory Kunz asked if anyone else would like to speak. He closed the public input portion of the hearing at 7:17p.m. Commissioners Discussion: Sally Smith thinks this is a good plan to put these two zones together. Many people were affected and where the people were mainly seeking clarifications, she believes people realize this gives them more options with their property. One-acre lots make sense close to town. She said this is a good change to the ordinance and a good zone change. Greg Blacker agrees with Sally, this change makes it simpler for the community’s benefit. MOTION: Motion to recommend City Council approve the rezone of the TAG1 and TAG2 properties to the single TAG designation, which brings these parcels into compliance with our current Development Code., Action: Approve, Moved by Kristi Anderson, Seconded by Todd Marx. Commission Discusses the Motion: None VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 11). Yes: Aaron Richards, Chairman Rory Kunz, David Pulsipher, Greg Blacker, Jim Lawrence, John Bowen, Kristi Anderson, Randall Kempton, Sally Smith, Todd Marx, Vince Haley. 3. 6:45PM - (20-00606) – RPR6N40E173007 (E Moody Rd) and land moving south along N 2nd E – Rezone from Light Industrial (LI) to Community Business Center (CBC). The parcel is designated as Commercial on the Comprehensive Plan Map. This request was initially on the December 3, 2020, agenda, but due to a publication error, the request was reevaluated, additional property owners contacted, and a larger area is being proposed for rezone. (action) – Craig Gummow for Beehive Credit Union, Alan Parkinson, City of Rexburg Chairman Rory Kunz consulted Alan on the procedure in this hearing. Alan said the original applicant is Beehive Credit Union. Due to a problem, the city contacted owners from Moody down to Stationary Drive on the East side of N 2nd E. Those land owners wanted to participate 7 and the area for rezone was expanded. The border is about 400’ east into the parcels to the Development Workshop lot on the south end of this area where the depth is closer to 300’. Shane. Berger is online to represent Beehive Federal Credit Union. Applicant Presentation – Shane Berger – Craig Gummow could not attend tonight; he has been the one primarily involved in preparing for this application. He thanked the Commission for listening to their proposal. Beehive Credit Union joked, they felt there weren’t enough credit unions on N 2nd E, so they purchased their lot on Moody. They want to construct a branch for the Beehive Credit Union on the corner of N 2nd E and Moody. Beehive Credit Union asks the group entertain a zone change at this location. Shane turned the time over to Alan for any technical explanations that need to be made. Applicant Presentation and Staff Report - Alan Parkinson – City of Rexburg - This was an original application for the Beehive Credit Union property that grew into a rezone of a larger area. There are changes happening with N 2nd E, and this rezone will allow further development. Staff has received some inquiries along Stationary Road and the purchasing of that property. This request fits within the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Staff has reviewed the request and we feel this fits the design and plan for this area. Infrastructure can support this rezone. We recommend the Commission recommend to City Council the approval of this request. Commissioner Questions for Staff: None Conflict of Interest? - Chairman Rory Kunz asked the Commissioners if they have a conflict of interest or if they have been approached by any parties relative to this particular subject. If you believe your prior contact with respect to this subject has created a bias, you should recuse yourself, otherwise at this time please indicate the nature of your conversation or contact. None. Chairman Rory Kunz reviewed the public hearing procedures. Favor: Doug Sakota – 1245 N 2nd E – He sees this as a natural change for the Comprehensive Plan. He and his brother, Ken Sakota, are for this change. They feel this is a logical move. They thanked the Commissioners for their time and hard work. Doug received a text message from one of the co-owners, Russell Squires, who talked to Alan Parkinson. Russell Squires wrote and Doug Sakota read, “Doug, I would have loved to be at the meeting, and I am in favor tonight of the zone change.” Neutral: None Opposed: None Written Correspondence: None Rebuttal: None Chairman Rory Kunz asked if anyone else would like to speak. He closed the public input portion of the hearing at 7:25p.m. Commissioners Discussion: Vince Haley thinks this change makes sense. Walmart is industrious and there is a lot of business that is going this direction. MOTION: Motion to recommend City Council approve the rezone of RPR6N40E173007 and land moving southeast along N 2nd E, as shown on the map, from Light Industrial (LI) to 8 Community Business Center (CBC), because the transition makes sense and the change fits what the community plans to see developed in this area. Action: Approve, Moved by Vince Haley, Seconded by Aaron Richards. Commission Discusses the Motion: John Bowen believes this is a good use for this area; he is in favor. VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 11). Yes: Aaron Richards, Chairman Rory Kunz, David Pulsipher, Greg Blacker, Jim Lawrence, John Bowen, Kristi Anderson, Randall Kempton, Sally Smith, Todd Marx, Vince Haley. Tabled from Dec. 3, 2020 meeting: 1. (20-00851) – Development Code Ordinance Amendment – Planned Unit Development. A Planned Unit Development is a type of subdivision and has been amended to match the approved subdivision ordinance changes. (action) – Alan, City of Rexburg Chairman Rory Kunz said the item was tabled, because it appeared more was added and removed than the Commission was prepared to discuss. After the item was reviewed, it was determined more language was moved to a new location in the document, showing it was removed at the previous location. He asked if the Commissioners were prepared to discuss the item this evening or if it should be prepared for another meeting. Motion: Motion to remove the item from the table and discuss the item tonight, Action: Approve, Moved by Sally Smith, Seconded by Kristi Anderson. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 11). Yes: Aaron Richards, Chairman Rory Kunz, David Pulsipher, Greg Blacker, Jim Lawrence, John Bowen, Kristi Anderson, Randall Kempton, Sally Smith, Todd Marx, Vince Haley. Commissioner Discussion: Alan brought the proposal to the Commission. The Commission found it difficult to determine what had been removed, what had been changed and what had been moved. He thanked the Commissioners for reviewing the proposal. The proposal began with changes to the Plat process, simplifying a preliminary and final plat to a single plat process. Alan explained a preliminary plat is designed to show what is being built, the developer puts in the infrastructure and a final plat is submitted to show what has been built. The city has not been following this procedure and the preliminary/final plat procedure is not required by state law. The process was being used in repetition, two drawing prior to the commencement of any construction. The developer comes in and presents the plan for development, then can move forward on construction. The City will retain the ability to accept the built infrastructure. The Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) has the same situation, requiring a preliminary and final, a duplication in the process. The process has been combined to match the approved subdivision process. One of the concerns with these changes was the ability for the Planning & Zoning Commission to see what is happening. Did we have a chance to make sure it is correct before we move on? Staff’s job is to check the engineering standards. The Commission decides if the Plat matches what we want to see in the city and answer the question, does the proposal match our Development Code? In a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.), a few things are different from a regular subdivision. Usually, an applicant is 9 coming in for a P.U.D. to increase their density above what is stated in the Development Code. The P.U.D. requires them to do certain things to meet a higher standard to increase density to a certain point. The Commission will review these higher standards; this part of the Development Code has not changed. The Commission will look at the type of buildings, the lights, the landscaping, which are these higher standards. The only thing changing is the actual plat process. Where do those lots lay? What could potentially be built on these lots according to the code and the Density Standards? The proposal can change from what the Commissioners are presented, as long as they still follow the approved or set requirements. To change those requirements, the Applicant comes back to the governing bodies. Kristi Anderson recalled last time we had a question about the density bonus points. Point criteria were removed from the Infill/Redevelopment Area and this is what members of the Commission were remembering. The amendment allows the Commission to see the request twice, once with the Planned Unit Development, and a second time with the phasing. Alan confirmed the Commission did not have the opportunity to review the phases in the previous written process. The minutes were reviewed and the ordinances; Staff found the infill requirements were removed, not the density bonus points requirements. Sally Smith looked at the definitions page and asked how it will read. It was dependent on the copy printing. Sally’s and Kristi’s were different. Page 4 of the P.U.D. rewrite, plat definition will read: “Plat: A map of a subdivision including supporting data, indicating a proposed subdivision development, prepared in accordance with this ordinance and the Idaho Code. A. Recorded Plat: A Plat bearing all of the certificates of approval required in this ordinance and duly recorded in the Madison County Recorder’s Office. B. Short Plat: A platting process for small subdivisions, five (5) lots or less, that allows for a shortened, quicker process for subdividing land that is approved by city staff only. The Zoning Administrator and City Engineer can consider other simple plats on a case-by-case basis.” Kristi Anderson read it thoroughly last night and felt a lot better about it. Sally Smith agreed that it makes more sense now they know how to read it. Aaron Richards feels there are a lot of moving parts, but he feels better. Jim Lawrence liked having the extra time. MOTION: Motion to recommend City Council approve these amendments for the Planned Unit Development section of the Development Code, because the changes simplify the process for the developer and allow the P&Z Commission to be more involved., Action: Approve, Moved by Vince Haley, Seconded by Kristi Anderson. Commissioner Discussion regarding the Motion: None. VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 11). Yes: Aaron Richards, Chairman Rory Kunz, David Pulsipher, Greg Blacker, Jim Lawrence, John Bowen, Kristi Anderson, Randall Kempton, Sally Smith, Todd Marx, Vince Haley. Chairman Rory Kunz continued, there are no hearings scheduled for January 21, 2021. Vince Haley asked if any applications could still be received in time. Alan Parkinson answered there is not sufficient time to make the January 21st meeting. City Staff are working with Municode. The Planned Unit Development proposal in Municode has shown us there are some major glitches in Municode’s system. We are trying to resolve a way, when code is moved, the program recognizes moved, rather than new and strikeout. Code actually disappeared from our live site. The proposed and live sites are supposed to stay separate, but at this 10 time, they are not working accordingly. Staff is working with Municode to try to make the situation better for all of us. For the January 21st meeting, do we want to hold that meeting? There are no work meeting items at this time. Vince asked about the Comprehensive Plan rewrite. Staff is working on the Comprehensive Plan draft; there have been some setbacks due to COVID. Kristi asked about form-based code. Alan anticipates, best-case scenario, the Commission will see the form-based code at their first meeting in March. Staff is trying to reduce potential problems. The form-based code was turned over to some architecture students at BYU-I to see what they could design. They were assigned different streets. The result was amazing and an aerial-view video was created. This was awesome to see some things they created, but also revealed some flaws. Rory Kunz said he would be interested to see those things Staff did not want, so the whole group could decide if that is true. Alan said, to put it very simply, one of the flaws was a city-block long, constant brick wall with a window every so often. No pedestrian features were used. They called it Goolog, using the old-style Ricks College brick colors. Brett Sampson, with BYU-I, confirmed no offense was taken for the color of their brick. Alan is working on the Mixed Use section, due to a mandate from both governing bodies, which stated they no longer want to see a Mixed Use proposal without a commercial component. He is also working on some refinement, consolidation and streamlining of the uses in our zones. There are duplications, with just a little bit different wording. Then, these uses can be consistently defined. An example would be the listing of different types of offices, with one that says, “miscellaneous offices.” None of these will be ready by the January 21st meeting. MOTION: Vince Haley motioned the January 21, 2021, meeting be canceled. Sally Smith seconded the motion. VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 11). Yes: Aaron Richards, Chairman Rory Kunz, David Pulsipher, Greg Blacker, Jim Lawrence, John Bowen, Kristi Anderson, Randall Kempton, Sally Smith, Todd Marx, Vince Haley. Heads Up: January 21st Hearings: None Adjournment