Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCITY COUNCIL PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES JANUARY 14, 2004 Mary Haley CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CITY OF REXBURG Meeting with Planning and Zoning Commission January 14, 2004 7:00 P.M. STATE OF IDAHO ) : ss. County of Madison ) Present were the following: Mayor: Mayor Shawn Larsen Council Members: Paul Pugmire Donna Benfield Nyle Fullmer Rex Erickson G. Farrell Young Garth R. Oakey Planning Commission Chairman: Winston Dyer Members: Robert Schwartz Mike Ricks - Excused Mary Haley - Excused Steve McGary - Excused Jerry Hastings - Excused David Stein Joseph Laird Randall Porter Financial Officer Richard Horner P&Z Administrator: Kurt Hibbert City Clerk: Blair D. Kay PFC: John Millar City Attorney: Stephen Zollinger Portions of the meeting were recorded. Pledge to the Flag 1 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 the January 07, 2004 meeting Nyle Fullmer moved to approve the Consent Calendar; Farrell Young seconded the . The motion carried. motion; all voted aye, none opposed Non Controversial Items Added to the Agenda : None Work Session with the Planning Commission: Old Business: Mayor Larsen invited the Planning and Zoning Commission to join the City Council at the table for a work meeting. Work on the Planned Residential Developments (PRD) Ordinance 854 (Planning and Zoning Commission) Mayor Larsen asked for a presentation from Kurt Hibbert and John Millar on the problems with the past Planned Residential Development. Kurt asked the Mayor if John could speak on the technical side of the Ordinance first. John Millar reviewed the problems that were created with the PRD Ordinance. The intent of the Ordinance was to cluster the housing for a larger green space area. John used a recent development as an example of how the intent of the Ordinance was not followed. The developers used the back yards of the four plexes and the open space required to separate an adjacent residential area from the PRD as an aggregate open space area. John indicated that there are three things in the old Ordinance that need to be rectified. The number of minimum units allowed in a building 1). Financial institutions allow financing of four plexes similar to how a residential home is financed. Basically, a developer can pay 10% down, and finance the remainder of the cost of the four plex as a home would be financed. John discussed the potential problems of having an owner of a four plex falling into a financial hardship if all of the units in the four plex are not rented. If this happens, Association dues may go unpaid, causing a deterioration of the project. 2 The development could have a minimum contiguous open space area. 2) John indicated that a minimum contiguous green space area should accommodate a play area the size of a small soccer field. Carports are another problem in the PRD Ordinance. 3) They may cause a problem with the development due to the International Building Code requiring them to be located away from the building. If a car catches on fire, the car port would reflect heat towards the building; therefore, the Building Code requires them to be located away from the building. Discussion on the cost difference between a car port and a garage. The car ports cost $3,000 to $4,000, whereas the garage could cost $5,000 to $6,000. The City has several requests to do away with the car port requirement. There have been suggestions to spend the car port money on landscaping. Mayor Larsen opened up the floor to discussion by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. Winston Dyer commented that there were other issues and changes to the PRD Ordinance that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended as follows: Planning and Zoning discussion December 04, 2003, on the changes that need to be done to the Planned Residential Development Ordinance. 1)Require a size change between buildings every so many units. 2)Require different designs for buildings every so many units. 3)Possibly add curved roads to the developments. 4)Allow an either/or stipulation on the requirements. 5)Keep the Ordinance simple to administer and enforce. 6)Keep the changes at a minimum cost. 7)Explore the possibility of having a model to follow for a ratio of single family to multi-family housing in a development. Rex Erickson indicated that car ports may need to be evaluated as to their necessity in the Ordinance for this area. Discussion on the reason that car ports were required in the Ordinance instead of garages. Nyle Fullmer asked John why car ports were required instead of garages in the Ordinance. John indicated that car ports were used because they were less restrictive in the Ordinance than garages. Paul Pugmire reviewed the intent of the Ordinance to increase density while allowing for larger green space areas. 3 Discussion on the Ordinance allowing increased density in a smaller area without changing the Zoning Density. Garth Oakey discussed the need to have a specified area for green space in the development. Paul Pugmire indicated that the old Ordinance allowed total green space to be non- contiguous. The green space needs to be proportioned in such a way that it is usable. David Stein recommended changing the language in the old Ordinance describing the size of contiguous space. The minimum size of the open space needs to be increased, plus the dimension of the open space needs to be increased. Rex Erickson concurred with David that the Ordinance could be modified without starting over with a new PRD Ordinance. Mayor Larsen asked the group to view the changes in the PRD Ordinance that they are proposing with the developer’s point of view in mind. Farrell Young reviewed the need for garages in the PRD Ordinance. The old Ordinance required a car ports. Kurt Hibbert discussed a recent PRD Development that thought garages would have been better to build for their development than car ports. This developer was required to put the green space in their development on one side of the development in order to buffer one resident. Discussion on garages verses car port for existing PRD Developments in the City. Rex Erickson recommended giving a developer a choice of building a car port or a garage for a future Planned Residential Development. He reviewed a Planned Residential Development in Salt Lake that requires car ports. Rex indicated that car ports would be harder to keep clean in Rexburg due to the snow blowing into the car ports. Garth Oakey commented on a development that the renters do not utilize the car ports which are located away from the buildings. They park in parking by the building instead of utilizing the car ports for parking. Donna Benfield reviewed the reasons for the developer locating the green space in a Planned Residential Development adjacent to a residential home adjacent to the project instead of a more central location in the development. Kurt indicated that the PRD Ordinance required a single residence to be buffered from the Development, thus frustrating the developers because the street buffering was held to a minimum at two adjoining streets with that requirement. 4 Mayor Larsen reviewed the advantages for requiring a Development to be buffered from a residential area. Rex Erickson reviewed the differences between a Residential Development and a Planned Residential Development. Green space is located adjacent to homes in a Residential Development whereas the green space is centrally located in a PRD. Rex recommended that the City require a PRD to have garages or car ports. He preferred that option instead of a large parking lot. Paul Pugmire asked if car ports and garages should be regulated by Ordinance or let it be market driven. Paul indicated that he is more concerned with the green space requirements for a Planned Residential Development. G. Farrell Young asked if the City needed to revive the Planned Residential Ordinance. Would anyone be offended if the City did not have a PRD? Discussion on the origination of the City’s Planned Residential Development Ordinance. Stephen Zollinger explained that a developer from Utah proposed a Planned Residential Development for Rexburg. The City adopted the Ordinance after that request was made by the developer. Rex Erickson indicated that an owner of a unit in a Planned Residential Development has a marked or private parking stall in a Planned Residential Development. David Stein reviewed a Planned Residential Development in Driggs. He recommended having a garage for each unit in the development. The PRD should be an upscale development verses a rental development. The developer can cluster his housing, however, there should be other requirements to comply with in a PRD. David indicated that the biggest issue is the “barracks look” for a Planned Residential Development. David indicated that different building design requirements would help break up the look of the development. This would allow the buildings to have a neighborhood look except that they would not all look the same in a development. Nyle Fullmer agreed that the following requirements should be included in a Planned Residential Development: 1)Garages 2)Additional contiguous green space 3)Establish a minimum number of units per building 4)Design standards to provide variety 5)Communal (common) area that is accessible by the individual units Continued discussion on how the Ordinance originated. Rexburg adopted the Provo 5 Ordinance with some adaptations. Mayor Larsen reviewed the possibility of making the Ordinance too restrictive to drive developers to use the regular zoning Ordinance. Rex Erickson discussed the need to modify the PRD Ordinance in such a way that the developer would not try to avoid the PRD Ordinance by developing the Planned Residential Development to the requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Winston Dyer reviewed the reason that developers use four plexes initially and then convert them to condominiums for individual sale. This allows the developer to realize his profits at the time of sale instead of 18 years into the future. Winston read the recent recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission on page 3 of these minutes. Randall Porter reviewed the requirements that were given to a recent Planned Residential Development. He asked what type of buyers is buying these units. Are they retired, students, etc.? Winston Dyer recommended increased the contiguous green space in a Planned Residential Development. Nyle Fullmer recommended a specific location for the green space in a Planned Residential Development. Robert Schwartz indicated that a Design Standards Review Committee could review the Planned Residential Development requests for compliance. Mayor Larsen recommended that the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission present ideas that the City Staff could enlarge upon for inclusion into the Planned Residential Development Ordinance. Randall Porter recommended changing the Design Standards for every so many buildings in a development. Randall requested that the group list recommended changes to the Planned Residential Developments on the board. The following list was the changes recommended to the proposed Planned Residential Development by the group: 1)Variation of building facades in a development 2)Clustering with useable open space in a park setting 3)Remove car ports and replace them with garages (location of garages is at the developers’ discretion which are allowed by the International Building Codes. 4)Street design would allow for curvilinear streets 5)Avoid the barracks look – recommend an upscale look and feel 6 6)Require a buffer for residential neighborhoods – define buffer, define buffer placement, define buffer types; buffers need to be scale based with examples 7)Mix of building sizes and scales 8)Lighting/utility requirements/reduced road widths 9)Underground power 10)Variation of density throughout the development 11)Review MDR requirements/provide PRD type incentives Discussion on a recent PRD project and the green space and buffering that was included in the project. Winston Dyer commented on the pleasing presentation of the green space in the Wagon Wheel Apartments development. John Millar discussed similar developments that were done under the Zoning Ordinance. Some use ¼ acre buildings with individual parking lots. John recommended changing the MDR Zoning requirements to be similar to the PRD Zoning requirements. He recommended the concept of clustering in the MDR Zone. Mayor Larsen asked the Planning and Zoning Commission to move some of these recommendations into the MDR Zoning Ordinance. Discussion on presenting the ideas and changes for the Planned Residential Development to the City Council for their approval. Nyle Fullmer indicated that there may be other Zones in the City that could be improved by this same review process. Nyle recommended moving the process forward with the appropriate reviews. Winston Dyer indicated that there are developers that are looking to fill a void in the upscale market. They recognize that the current market has been saturated with developments. The Planning and Zoning Commission was excused to proceed with the City Council’s Public Hearings. Public Hearings: 8:30 p.m. Assessment Roll for Local Improvement District 32 (L.I.D. 32) L.I.D. for 2002 Richard Horner mentioned that there are 354 parcels in these two LIDs. Almost all of the 7 construction has been completed on LID 32 with only minor complications. Notices have been set to each property owners explaining what each individual amount would be for their portion of LID 32. Richard reviewed the Public Notice process to the City Council. A second mailing will be sent to the property owners explaining the method of payment. The payment can be paid in full within 30 days or by default, on an annual billing of 1/10 of the principal at a 5% interest rate on the unpaid balance for 10 years. The billing can also be done monthly on the property owner’s utility billing with the City. Garth Oakey reviewed the 5% amount on the Ordinance. Richard explained that Warrant buyers are willing to buy the Construction Warrants when they are converted to Local Improvement District Warrants. Richard Horner reviewed the dates for the two LID Ordinances. LID Ordinance 32 was a Sidewalk Improvement Ordinance for 2002. There are 187 participants in LID 32. The City provides the Handicap access on the street corners. Discussion on the line item costs for this LID. Keith Davidson indicated that the Contract for LID 32 allow up to 20% of the project to be sub contracted or completed by the individual property owners. Some residents took advantage of the opportunity to do their own contracting. Paul Pugmire asked if there were properties without sidewalks in the City that were included in the LID. Richard mentioned that there is a minority of properties that do not have sidewalks. Richard Horner commented that the City may want to require properties that have not had a property exchange to be included in the next City LID to fill in sidewalks where they do not presently exist. Keith Davidson indicated that only those properties that have not sold their properties were excluded from the LID. Richard Horner explained that LID 33 was created for street, curb, gutter, and sidewalks. He indicated that 20 to 22 properties were voluntarily added for water and sewer hookups after a recent annexation. LID 33 was for $413,000 and $294,000 in LID 32. Discussion on the Street Light signal that was added to the LID. Mayor Larsen opened the Public Hearing for public comment: John Thomas – 508 Rolling Hills Drive – thanked the City Council for the current Public Hearing and the Public Hearing in June, 2002. He thanked Keith Davidson for working with the neighbors on the LID project. He was worried about the clerical errors in the LID assessment. He indicated that the costs were not estimated correctly. He was concerned with 8 the quality of the project in 2002, due to cold weather. John does not know what the specifications are for cold weather concrete work. He commented on the flaking and cracking of concrete installed last year. He was concerned with the inspection process for an LID project. He indicated that he was grateful for the process. rd Ronald Lindsay – 70 South 3 East – read a letter that protested the cost of the LID 32 for st Jerry Schlegelmilch, his son-in-law. The LID improvement was done on 1 South. Ron’s letter to the City Council stated the following: Wednesday January 14, 2003 City Council of City of Rexburg 12 North Center Rexburg, ID 83440 208-359-3020 Dear City Council: rd Concerning the curb, driveway, and sidewalk property improvement at 70 South 3 East, Rexburg, ID, 83440, and in reply to your letter dated December 19, 2003, which was opened on January 11, 2004, I wish to disagree and protest the assessment enclosed in your letter. I have just spoken to Mr. Davidson, you City Engineer, notified him of my concerns and will now measure my property and the work done thereon. I will appear with details at the City Council meeting tonight, and wish to be heard. A summary of my disagreement is as follows: 1)Neither I, nor the lien holder of this property, ever received a written notice of this work, from the City until now. However, I just today received a copy of your initial notice from Mr. Davidson and will study it before the Council meeting. 2)I was never told the price for this work, but was reassured that it would be reasonable, given the circumstances, and had I been informed as to the price, I would have done the work myself. 3)I will try to tell Mr. Davidson before the meeting if I disagree with his measurements, if I am able to see him in time. 4)Any further details I will present to the Council tonight. Sincerely, Ronald W. Lindsay Ron did not receive the letter in June. Discussion on how the City sent out notifications. 9 Ron thanked Keith Davidson for his courtesy today on this issue. He was surprised at the cost of the project. He discussed the events as they happened during the City’s planned nd replacement of the sidewalk. His driveway is lower than 2 East. He was concerned with water running into his garage from off the street. Ron indicated that the sidewalk was installed so that the drainage does not go into his yard. He was satisfied with the work. Although he asked the City to do the work, he did not ask the City for a bid. The bill came which included the curb and gutter with a 14 foot by 20 foot driveway apron in his driveway. Everything was agreeable except for the cost. Lyle Wakefield was the contractor that installed the concrete. The cost for the driveway apron was $833.00. There was 280 square feet at a cost of $2.975 per square foot. His cost for the sidewalk that is 5 feet by 20 feet is $297.50. The cities price for the sidewalk was much more than $298.00. The initial estimate for the sidewalk by the City was 11 yards of concrete for $330.00. His solution to the over price is to pay the following: 1)$773.50 for the driveway 2)$427.66 for curb and gutter 3)$300.29 (factor 25% for overheads on those two items) 4)$297.50 for the sidewalk Total $1,798.95 or round to $1,800 He asked for a $1,800 compromise billing to resolve the dispute instead of the City’s billing for $2,525.49 for the cement work that he asked the City to complete on the LID. The Public Hearing input was closed. The Council discussed the procedure for mailing out the notices to the residents. The same address for Jerry Schlegelmilch was used for the June 2002 mailing as was used in the last LID 32 mailing explaining the total cost of the work as requested by Ronald Lindsay for the Jerry Schlegelmilch property. Ronald received the last mailing; however, he indicated that he did not receive the first mailing in June, 2002. The City Council deliberated LID 32. Garth Oakey asked about the total amount of concrete that was used for the project. Keith Davidson indicated that the project was bid by square yard not cubic yard. John Millar indicated that a 12 inch base is required by City Ordinance on the hill. The cost of concrete to be removed and replaced is in the City’s request for bid proposal. Often a property owner will get a bid from a concrete contractor to replace the concrete without the cost of preparing the base with fill material. Discussion on the type of preparation for the concrete work on the Jerry Schlegelmilch property. Rex Erickson indicated that it would be difficult to waive the City’s bid cost if the project 10 was done to the City’s specifications on the bid proposal. Paul Pugmire asked for clarification from Ronald on his reason for the right down on the City’s cost to do the work. Ronald Lindsay indicated that he was busy during the summer and did not have time to fiddle with it, so he asked the City to do the work. He thought it would be about the same price as what Lyle Wakefield would have charged him. #1) He was never notified #2) He could have had the work done by himself/or a contractor for less money. If he had known of the cost difference, he would have done the work himself. Paul Pugmire asked John Millar about the accuracy of the billing. John indicated that the City is very careful to have an accurate billing for the property owner. Discussion on the reason for the mail not getting to Ronald Lindsey. Both mailings were rd addressed to the same address on 3 East. Mayor Larsen asked the Staff to comment on the clerical errors that were indicated in the public testimony. He requested the discussion to be focused around the complete LID of 187 property owners. The City has received testimony from two of those property owners. Keith Davidson indicated the he made a few clerical errors on the input. When the input errors were discovered, Keith notified the property owners of the errors. He gave one example of entering into the database a 50 foot sidewalk instead of a 40 foot sidewalk. Keith reviewed the timing for publishing the request for bidding. It is published for a 15 day period. Also, the City mails out notices to local concrete contractors concerning the request for bidding on the LID. The contractors submit bids to the City for the requested work to be accomplished. Keith indicated that the project cost is estimated and then an inflation factor is added to get a total estimated project cost to compare with the bids that are received from contractors. Keith related the different bid costs that were submitted. New Sidewalks The City Costs $25.00 Zollinger Construction $35.00 H&K Construction $28.00 T&Z Construction $33.60 Edstrom Construction $48.00 Discussion on the time of year to do the work. 11 Keith Davidson indicated that the contract would need to be adjusted to have more control on the time of year to do the work. Keith has required the contractor to use an insulated blanket to cover the concrete in cold weather if the temperature goes below 20 degrees to 15 degrees. Mayor Larsen asked Keith if the property owner could contact the City of Rexburg if there is faulty work done on the projects. Keith indicated that he does accept those notifications for evaluation and review. The contractor is required to warrantee the work for one year. Farrell Young thanked the residents for their testimony in a very organized way. He appreciated the testimony and indicated that the information will be addressed. Donna Benfield recommended putting more requirements into the contracts. Mayor Larsen asked the City Council to give input on Ronald Lindsay request. Rex Erickson was concerned with the problem of treating people differently on the LID. If reduce every billing by $800.00, that would add up to a lot of money. He indicated that if the numbers are correct, the City should maintain the billing at the full amount. Garth Oakey requested that a separate contractor review the costs. Rex Erickson indicated that if you analyze one bid, you should analyze them all. Garth Oakey mentioned that it is the property owners’ that has some responsibility to know what the costs are going to be before he requests the City to do the work. Paul Pugmire talked about reading the Ordinance three times. The third reading would be on th the 4 of February. Discussion on the passage of the Ordinance in three readings. The third reading would be th done on the 04 of February, 2004. Paul Pugmire moved to first read Ordinance 913 for LID 32; Nyle Fullmer seconded the The motion carried. motion; all voted aye, none opposed. Paul Pugmire recommended that the Staff (Keith Davidson) work on a resolution to the concerns of Greg Palmer’s letter that was submitted concerning charges on LID 32. There were two letters submitted to contest the costs for work done on LID 32. Both letters will be reviewed by Staff for the next meeting with the City Council. 8:30 p.m. Assessment Roll for Local Improvement District 33 (L.I.D. 33) 12 L.I.D. for 2003 Mayor Larsen opened the Public Hearing on LID 33: There was no testimony given on LID 33. Mayor Larsen closed the Public Hearing on LID 33. Paul Pugmire moved to consider Ordinance 914 as first read; Donna Benfield seconded the . The motion carried. motion; Discussion: all voted aye, none opposed Mayor Larsen asked that both letters on LID 32 be entered into the record. The second letter was from Greg and Tamra Palmer as follows: January 13, 2004 City Clerk Rexburg, Idaho 83440 Re: Objection to Local Improvement District No. 32 We must object to the assessment of $2,551.51 on 473 Rolling Hills Drive, Item #85. This is more than 300 percent of the Original stated amount. This constitutes a gross misrepresentation between what we were told would be the assessment and what we are in fact being assessed. Had the actual amount been presented to us we would have protested the improvements, as we simply can’t afford it. This assessment would constitute an unfair and unwieldy burden on us, as all the other residents of Rolling Hills Drive. We request that this be reexamined and be assessed more reasonably and equitably. Sincerely, Greg Palmer Tamra Palmer th Mayor Larsen requested that the Ordinances 913 and 914 be put on the agenda for the 28 of January for a second reading. Mayor Larsen commended the Staff for their efforts in handling LID 32 and LID 33. He noted that it was a long process. The meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission was reopened. Work Session with the Planning Commission: (Continued) Old Business: (Continued) 13 Work on the Commercial Design Standards (draft) Ordinance 907 (Planning and Zoning Commission) Mayor Larsen asked the City Council to review the draft Ordinance 907. Farrell Young did not think the City could enforce language that encouraged builders to use brick and stone instead of some other materials. Statements of preference for certain building materials in Ordinance 907 would be unenforceable. Second, he was concerned with creating another level of government in the Ordinance by having a Design Review Committee. He recommended that the City use people that are already in place to review building designs. If the document is easy to deal with, it will not require another level of government. Third, we are dealing with what is appealing to the eye, and what is appealing to one person may not be appealing to another person. Farrell indicated that if the Council passes something now that is appealing to the current Council, it may not be appealing to others in 35 years. Mayor Larsen asked for a summary of the concerns of the City Council. The Council recommended the following items to be considered in preparing a Design Standards Ordinance. 1)Prescriptive (rigid) language verses descriptive (explanatory) language concerning the aesthetics and size of a building. 2)Subjective language is not enforceable. 3)Another level of government in not needed (Use some Planning and Zoning Commission members as a Design Review Committee). 4)Separate the different Zones – Highway Business District (HBD), Central Business District (CBD), and the Professional Overlay (PO); thus creating clarity and zone differentials – no split between zones is a problem. 5)Shorter Ordinance. 6)Need tools to regulate the Ordinance; the size and design of building could be broken up for reuse if a large store vacates a building. Nyle Fullmer was concerned with setting up a separate Committee for Commercial Design Reviews. Discussion on the approach to getting a Design Review completed and does the Design Review concept meet with the vision of the Community. Steve Oakey commented on the standards that were discussed in a Planned Residential Development Ordinance (PRD) verses a Design Standard for a Commercial Development. He was not sure where the disconnect was between the two concepts. Mayor Larsen indicated that there is a difference between the two concepts. We are 14 switching from a Multifamily Building Design review (PRD) to a Commercial Building Design review discussion. The City is going to hold Multifamily housing to a certain standard. Mayor Larsen indicated that it does not make sense to hold Commercial Buildings to that same standard. Steve Oakey mentioned that both concepts are talking about businesses that impact the Community whether they are Commercial or Residential buildings. Donna Benfield indicated that the City can not require the same building design in separate Zones. (i.e. Professional, Downtown and Residential). Discussion on Ordinance 907 being first read at an earlier meeting. The Ordinance needs additional work before it is second read. Rex Erickson was opposed to setting up a second committee for Commercial Design Standards. Instead, Rex indicated that the Planning and Zoning Commission could set up a subcommittee at their discretion to review Commercial Design Standards. He asked for a less stringent Ordinance that was about 1 ½ pages long. Paul Pugmire introduced the size discussion of Commercial buildings in the Ordinance. He recommended having Sugar City, and Madison County included in the discussion for a common or similar Commercial Building Design Standards. Paul does not want to eliminate big box stores from the City; however, he recommended building design standards that would allow for a building to be used by multiply stores if the big box store vacated the building. Paul reviewed the sidewalk design standards that the City currently uses to build sidewalks. He indicated that the City has design standards in several areas of the City. Donna Benfield asked the Planning Commission if they have concluded that the Community does not want to be a regional hub for large scale shopping. Winston Dyer mentioned that the Planning Commission is working on a Comprehensive Plan that will address that concept. Rex Erickson indicated that Rexburg is already a Hub for Commercial growth. He recommended that the Design Standard encourage Commercial growth in Rexburg. He wants to encourage both small and large businesses to locate in Rexburg. Rex encouraged the group to work on Design Standards that would not discourage growth and big box stores. Big box stores may have several plans that would be workable for Rexburg. Nyle Fullmer agreed that Rexburg is already a Regional Hub. He recommended that the City capitalize on the Hub concept. Mayor Larsen discussed using Design Standards and a process like a Conditional Use Permit process to reach the goals of Rexburg. 15 Randall Porter commented on the need to avoid cookie cutter type structures that do not blend into the adjacent developments. The buildings need to transition well into the Community. Steve Oakey commented on the idea of having niche stores in the downtown area. He would like to establish some minimum Design Standards for the Community. Marsha Bjornn reviewed other Cities that have a theme for the downtown areas. David Stein indicated that the Design Standards helped make those downtown areas unique. Mayor Larsen commented on a video that is available for the Council to view that reviews the growth of Communities. Rex Erickson asked for simple Design Standards. Communities that are destination communities like Jackson, Wy. may be able to have a specific look or theme. Rexburg is not a destination community. Nyle Fullmer indicated that there are some indications that Rexburg is starting to be a destination community. Paul Pugmire asked about enforceability and dependability Stephen Zollinger indicated that the Design Standards Ordinance is subjective by nature. He indicated that a review committee could articulate a condition that could be defensible. Mayor Larsen reviewed the use of Conditional Use Permits in the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearings. Can the Planning Group come back to the City Council with these revisions? Winston Dyer indicated that the Ordinance was requested by the City Council. David Stein discussed the design of the Ordinance and the need to have some kind of Committee review. Prescriptive language is law in the Ordinance; however, this Ordinance 907 was written to include the power of suggestion. Paul Pugmire discussed the issue of having a generally written document with simple language which would require a Conditional Use Permit. The request could be measured against the City’s policy statement “to fit in with the Community”. Stephen Zollinger recommended having general condition, with general rules. He used the examples earth tones with broken facades for Ordinance language. Discussion on less 16 defendable language. He recommended using terms that are generally understood. Rex Erickson discussed his concerns with the language in the proposed Ordinance that use color of rocks and foundation as a requirement. Winston Dyer indicated that the City does not want language in the Design Standard Ordinance that implies that “anything goes in a development”. Mayor Larsen indicated that this meeting was a direct result of the effort of the Planning and Zoning Commission acting on the Councils request for Commercial Design Standards. Winston Dyer asked what size of building triggers a Conditional Use Permit in the proposed Commercial Design Standards Ordinance. Paul Pugmire talked about the aesthetics issue and the size issue. He was concerned with a business leaving the Community and leaving a hole in the Community. David Stein asked about the Design Standard that breaks up a building. He asked how close a Commercial building should be built. Also, what subjective things does the Council want to see in the Commercial Design Standards Ordinance? Randall Porter reviewed intension of the discussion tonight for retail Commercial buildings. Professional Overlay zoning may be discussed at a future meeting. Mayor Larsen asked if an additional work meeting would be required to bring this discussion to conclusion for a second reading on the proposed Ordinance 907. Rex Erickson asked if the input has been helpful to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Winston indicated that it had been good input. Rex was appreciative to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their efforts. Winston Dyer asked if smaller size buildings need Design Standards. Mayor Larsen mentioned that smaller buildings need Design Standard too. The Conditional Use Permit will be required with a certain size of building. Farrell Young asked Donna what input she has received from the Business Community. She indicated that they are not opposed to Commercial Design Standards. Stephen Zollinger indicated that Staff could provide examples of buildings that have different square footage for review in determining the proper size of building to require a Conditional Use Permit. He indicated that there are examples of buildings in the City that are between 20,000 to 50,000 square feet in size. Nyle Fullmer indicated that he was in support of Design Standards. 17 Rex Erickson is opposed to a Design Standard that would discourage Commercial development in Rexburg. He wants to be a growth manager not a growth inhibitor. Discussion on the type of Design Standards that would encourage growth without negative recourse. Mayor Larsen thanked that Planning and Zoning Commission for their work on City projects. Committee reports : None Mayors Business: Mayor Larsen is meeting with Tom Cole tomorrow on a parking issue on Main Street. The Redevelopment Agency Meeting was reviewed. The Mayor is encouraged about the revitalization of the Downtown area. The Mayor wants the Committee to provide a Plan for the Downtown Business District. Mayor Larsen passed out some tentative Committee assignments to the Council Members. He requested that all City Committees be active and functioning on City Business. Mayor Larsen discussed the Committees that are currently working in the City. He is requesting a structured and active Committee that provides feedback to the Mayor. Mayor Larsen expressed a desire to have a Rexburg Beautification Committee. Paul Pugmire discussed simplified rules for small bodies. He asked the Council if they would be interested in new rules for Committees to operate in a standardized manner. The rules will be available at a future meeting. Mayor Larsen does not want a person to leave a Committee meeting or a City meeting feeling that they did not get heard. Paul Pugmire moved to authorize the Mayor to create a Rexburg Beatification Committee with City Council consent; Rex Erickson seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Adjourned 18