HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES JULY 19, 2007
Planning & Zoning Minutes
July 19, 2007
12 North Center Phone: 208.359.3020
Rexburg, ID 83440 Fax: 208.359.3022
www.rexburg.org
Commissioners Attending: City Staff and Others:
Winston Dyer – Chairman Gary Leikness – P&Z Administrator
Ted Hill Mary Ann Mounts Stephen Zollinger – City Attorney
Mike Ricks Thaine Robinson Emily Abe – Secretary
Josh Garner
Chairman Dyer opened the meeting at 7:02 pm.
Roll Call of Planning and Zoning Commissioners
Ted Hill, Mike Ricks, Winston Dyer, Thaine Robinson, Josh Garner
Charles Anderson, Mary Haley, and David Stein were excused.
Public Hearings: None
Unfinished/Old Business: None
Mary Ann Mounts arrived at 7:06 pm.
New Business:
Sign Ordinance Public Input
Chairman Dyer said the City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission always accept and encourage public
dialog and public involvement. He presented background on Planning & Zoning, the Sign Ordinance, and the
recent concerns. The Planning & Zoning Commissioners are appointed, and are charged with comprehensive
planning, assisting in developing and carrying out land use planning ordinances and policies. The Planning
Commission is strictly an advisory group who provides recommendations to City Council. The outcome of our
discussion tonight will go to City Council for final decision. The Commissioners are volunteers and are not paid.
We meet twice a month to consider new applications, look at the impacts of new proposed developments, look at
comprehensive planning, and develop recommendations for land use policies and ordinances. Input is always
welcome, either in the meetings, or in writing. Staff assists the Planning & Zoning Commission in their duties. The
overall concept of Planning & Zoning is to help balance the right of the individual property owner and the rights
and needs of the community as a whole.
We have nearly always had a sign ordinance. The new sign ordinance, Ordinance 908 was adopted about four (4)
years ago. Shortly after the announcement of the creation of a 4-year university, we recognized that there would be
an immediate demand for growth and development here in Rexburg. There was an obvious need to take what was
then a fairly general and laid back set of planning & zoning ordinances and rebuild them to make them more worthy
1
of facing this onslaught of development. There was a massive effort by the Planning & Zoning Commission
including many meetings and countless hours to update the Comprehensive Plan, update the Preferred Land Use
Map, and re-write the ordinances so they would become the tools we would need. This was done in an effort to
protect the community from an “anything goes” type of mentality for development. In order to establish what the
community vision, goals, and values were, we conducted an extensive public involvement effort. This included one-
on-one interviews, mail out surveys, neighborhood meetings, news articles, pamphlets, etc. Input received was
tremendous and well appreciated. The information was processed to decipher what the important things were to
the citizens of the community. Among the top issues that were mentioned was the issue of signage. The citizens
indicated a concern about uniformity, aesthetics, reasonable constraints, community appearance, etc. The
Commission saw a need to improve Rexburg’s sign ordinance. They spent a considerable amount of time debating
what kinds of changes would be appropriate to help the sign ordinance reflect the vision of the community. We
drafted ordinance 908, and the Council held public hearings and then implemented the ordinance.
One of the concerns identified during the public scoping process was the appearance of temporary and banner signs
and the potential negative impact on community attractiveness. The number of temporary and banner signs has
grown with the growth of the city. Over the last year or so, the Planning & Zoning Commissioners and the
Compliance office have approached individual businesses where there were concerns of a drifting away from the
intents of the sign ordinance. We acknowledge and appreciate the willingness of these businesses to come into
compliance with the ordinance. We began to get some input from the citizens, particularly those who had been
asked to do better. Their immediate concern was those in the Community who were also not in compliance.
Members of the Commission have received input and concerns from individual citizens of the community about
the proliferation of the temporary signs and the potential negative impact on the attractiveness of the community.
The Commission took a windshield survey of the business corridors of the town and made a list of areas where the
temporary and banner signs were in question. This information was submitted to the compliance office with the
request to determine whether or not the proper permits had been obtained. It was to be an information gathering
to determine the extent of the problem. Unfortunately it somehow devolved from simple information gathering to
a letter that went out notifying those that were on the list that there was a concern about compliance. It was not
intended to go to enforcement at that point. It was simply a fact-finding mission. At some point in time we would
have been looking toward enforcement if it were the appropriate course of action.
We have now been looking more closely at the sign ordinance, and City Council has determined that we ought to
re-examine the ordinance and solicit public input to see where it might be improved.
The Planning & Zoning Commissioners have been asked to review the ordinance and discuss any areas that may
need improvement. While we are accepting any input, we would like to emphasize temporary and banner signs
tonight.
Chairman Dyer asked for any questions about the sign ordinance from the public.
Questions from the public:
1.Was input gathered from businesses in regards to the changes to the sign ordinance during the input
gathering process? There would have been some responses earlier to this issue. People in the business
community didn’t have a clue about what had happened with the sign ordinance, and that they were not in
compliance. What can we do to remedy this in the future? Businesses need to be notified in some way that
a change is coming their way, so they are able to give input.
Chairman Dyer said it was the assumption that the citizens they gathered input from were also the business
owners. The point is well taken that businesses should be more carefully considered while taking input in
the future.
2.What is the proper channel to obtain a temporary sign permit? We need a more streamlined process.
Chairman Dyer said although the ordinance states that the Planning & Zoning Administrator has authority
over sign permits, the permits have been issued through the Compliance Officer.
3.Thank you for the opportunity to give my opinion. Who decides what is right and what is wrong? Who will
interpret if the signs are legal or not? There are issues that need to be addressed before the ordinance can
2
be addressed or enforced. Pulling people off the highway increases our tax revenue. We need to consider
the long range costs of our sign regulations.
The Commissioners discussed this issue.
4.Are there fees for a temporary sign permit? The permit application should state that the permit is free.
Chairman Dyer clarified that temporary signs permits are free.
5.Is the 60 day time limit for each sign or for the entire property for all signs every year?
Chairman Dyer said the 60 day time limit is for each sign individually. If another sign was put up, it would
have a separate permit.
Chairman Dyer asked for input from the Commissioners on the sign ordinance.
Thaine Robinson said the Commission is not opposed to temporary signs, we just want to make sure they are
permitted and temporary. If the signs are supposed to be there for 2 or 3 years, people should put up a nicer sign.
Mike Ricks said sometimes the temporary signs don’t look the best. Nothing makes a nice new building ugly like
hanging a temporary sign on it. He thinks the mobile billboards are not a good thing, when people paint
advertisements on their vehicles and leave them parked on the street.
Mary Ann Mounts said she is concerned with the temporary signs on the student housing complexes. People have
not wanted to move here because of all these signs. She is concerned that someone could put up a different sign
and have it up all the time. Student housing complexes are along residential streets. Maybe we should look at types
of signs in different zones, or different business types.
Chairman Dyer said the ordinance is written to give the Planning & Zoning Administrator the authority, and in
actuality, signs are approved through the compliance office. We need to develop method of appeal. We might look
at some type of package approval for legitimate multiple or repetitive uses. We need to simplify the permitting
process. Maybe we should address holiday displays, and specifically exempting them if they do not have specific
advertisements.
Thaine Robinson said maybe we should address the square footage requirement of the temporary signs.
Chairman Dyer said we might want to look at flags or banners that do not specifically contain advertisements.
Mike Ricks said he has a problem with signs on the intersections that distract drivers. He is concerned with the
air-filled sign that move about. These can create traffic hazards.
Chairman Dyer opened the meeting to public input.
Input from the public:
1.Signs pull people off the freeway. Rexburg is becoming a haven for low income jobs. As the City grows,
we will want to attract business that pay better than what we currently have. In order for them to do that,
they are going to have to have the revenue and customer base. A lot of that is determined by signage. The
problem may not be the number of signs, but the quality of the signs.
2.There is a need for an ordinance in the city, because there needs to be some control over signage. There
have been comments on how much we need to control it, and who is in control. Three suggested changes:
a.Definition of a temporary sign: either define it or make it general enough to leave it for
interpretation. It either doesn’t go far enough or it goes too far. Delete the second sentence under
the definition of temporary signs. Add sign “or device” to the first sentence.
b.With the responsibility given to the P&Z administrator, this is too much responsibility for one man.
No criteria are given to determine whether a particular temporary sign is permitted or not. It
becomes a subjective decision, and there is no appeal procedure for someone who feels they have
3
been wronged by that decision. Suggestion: delete all references to approval by the P&Z
administrator in the ordinance, specifically in regards to temporary signs. Create a checklist on the
permit that will tell the applicant what is appropriate for a temporary sign. (No vulgar language,
must be professionally done, no tattered signs, etc.)
c.There seems to be some contradiction in the language of the ordinance. In one section it says that
the intent of the temporary sign ordinance is to be reserved for limited activities important to the
citizens of Rexburg. Further down in the ordinance, it talks about big events such as the dance
festival, the Rush Triathlon, and then goes on to include things like closeout sales, going out of
business sales, etc. There is contradiction in terms there. Is a closeout sale important to the citizens
of Rexburg or not? It seems the City can exceed size limitations if it is for a particular event that the
city is promoting, but the businesses cannot. Suggestion: delete the first sentence of the third
paragraph under temporary signs. “In general temporary signs are reserved for limited activities
important to the citizens of the City of Rexburg.” Also, delete all the examples of temporary signs
in paragraph four. Delete references to the folk dance festival.
3.There is opportunity in place for multiple banners at businesses during different times of year, all
throughout the year. Requiring businesses to apply for new permits every 60 days is not efficient. If we
need to apply for permits once a year, great. But if it doesn’t cost anything, why even apply? Set the
standards, send the standards out to the businesses, and then if the compliance officer needs to come
around to those not adhering to the standards, then we need to deal with it. There is a whole lot of red tape
for not a whole lot of benefit. Hopefully the sign height issue will be addressed at some time. If we shut
this town down to advertising, we will lose to Idaho Falls. Businesses need to be able to promote their
businesses in a professional manner. We need to try to cut down on all the red tape that we can.
4.The sign ordinance is pretty good. If a temporary sign permit application has to go through each person in
the city, it is too hard. People should be able to take their application to City Hall or the Building
Department and get a permit. We need to decide who has the authority to issue permits. Temporary signs
should be temporary, and we as merchants should be our own police agency. If our sign gets blown in the
wind and starts tearing, we should take it down.
5.The City has instilled design standards for buildings. These do help with the aesthetics of the community.
We should put design standards onto signs. Banners should be attractive. Also, there is not a one-size fits
all for sign requirements. If every sign in Rexburg is the same size, it would be boring. Adding a few design
standards for signs would help signs not take away from the community.
6.This is all about the zones. When someone builds a nice home in a residential area, they don’t want to see
the signs. When someone builds a nice commercial building in a commercial zone, they want people to
know that they are there and they have products to offer. Zones have a great deal to do about the sign
ordinance. People in commercial zones should have the freedom to advertise permanently or temporarily.
Some small businesses cannot afford expensive signs, but are entitled to do business and advertise. The
Commission should look at the zones for criteria on what types of signs are allowed.
7.We have talked a lot about temporary signs for businesses. One thing that has not been addressed is signs
along roads like campaign signs, foreclosure signs, etc. These can create blight in our community. These
should be looked at as well.
8.Some businesses have signs that may be up for longer than 60 days, but are not necessarily permanent. It
would be beneficial to them to have a category of signs to be up for longer than 60 days that are not
necessarily permanent.
Written Input:
Letter from the Chamber of Commerce with the following statement:
Our chamber supports a business friendly environment. We want to invite people into the community and into our local businesses. We
want our businesses to thrive and be profitable. We don’t want to be a bedroom community to Idaho Falls. We want a good look and
feel to our community with a tasteful display of signs and banners while at the same time having all our businesses follow some regulation.
Business people do not have a lot of time to worry about regulations and red tape. They want to spend their time running their business.
Let’s help them, not hinder them.
4
We encourage a new Temporary Banner permitting process done on an annual basis (if at all). Defined allowable guidelines need to be
listed. We want better definitions for 1) temporary signs, 2) permanently affixed signs, etc.
But most importantly, we want our city to be “business friendly”. We want prospective business owners and developers to feel welcome.
They should be able to leave saying “Rexburg was and is a wonderful place to do business.”
Letter from Les Schwab Tires with the following suggestions about the Temporary Signs:
1.Businesses should only be allowed to promote on their property items that they sell.
2.Signs randomly placed around town and in empty lots along roads such as “We Buy Junk Cars”, “We Buy Houses”, etc.
should not be allowed under any ordinance.
3.Signs or promotional objects that are air or gas filled and secured to the ground. Such as giant air filled objects, and tube
shaped objects that fluctuate with air movement. These types of signs can obstruct the view of drivers. This is a safety issue and
should not be allowed under any ordinance.
4.Flags attached to light poles or other permanent fixtures should be allowed, no permit required.
5.Pennants on building, light poles, etc. should be allowed, no permit required.
6.Banners attached to a building or existing sign must be securely fastened. Being attached by string, bungee cords, etc. is not
acceptable. Signs should remain immobile so they do not distract drivers.
7.Banners that are free standing in front of a business must have a secure permanent frame, no permit required. Example: The
city banner/sign at the north end of Main Street by the Christmas tree. It looks good and is very versatile. Fence posts driven
into the ground or frames made of PVC pipe are not acceptable.
8.Sales that last for up to a week and involve balloons etc., attached to sale items should be allowed, no permit required. Large
balloons and blimps that are tethered to the ground must be high enough to not obscure the vision of drivers. These should be
allowed with no permit required.
Chairman Dyer asked for questions of clarification from the Commissioners on any of the input given.
Chairman Dyer asked what the time limit would be if it is not 60 days. The suggestion was made for quarterly
signs. Someone asked why there needs to be a time period. We should be able to put up our banners and rotate
them as we need to. We need to be in compliance with the size, the structure, the way they look, etc. But why have
a time period? Have a process where you have regulations for the banner, but time is not an issue. Quality is the
issue. Someone else said residential zones should have time periods. Maybe time frames should be regulated by
zones.
Stephen Zollinger said businesses can count their temporary signs against their allotted permanent signage on their
lot if they wish to do so.
Chairman Dyer said the Commissioners may need some time to consider the input and come back for discussion.
Mary Ann Mounts agreed.
Mike Ricks said he would like a few days to think about the ideas.
Mary Ann Mounts motioned to table the temporary sign ordinance issue until August 16. Josh Garner seconded
the motion.
None opposed. Motion carried.
Minutes:
A.Planning and Zoning meeting – July 5, 2007
5
Thaine Robinson motioned to approve the Planning & Zoning minutes for July 5, 2007. Mike Ricks seconded
the motion.
Mary Ann Mounts and Josh Garner abstained for having not been present.
None opposed. Motion carried.
Compliance: None
Non controversial Items Added to the Agenda: None
Report on Projects: None
Tabled requests: None
Building Permit Application Report: None
Heads Up:
rd
1.Conditional Use Permit – 366 W 3 S & 276 Steiner – Dormitory Housing (Thornburg)
thth
2.Conditional Use Permit – 12 W & 7 S – Madison High & Burton Elementary Schools
th
3.Conditional Use Permit – 575 W 7 S – Madison Middle School Modular Classrooms
4.Planned Unit Development – Founder’s Square
Chairman Dyer adjourned the meeting at 8:38 pm.
6