Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 09-23 Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 The Regular Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:15 P.M., Tuesday, September 23, 2003, by Council President Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Tammy de Weerd, William Nary, Keith Bird, and Cherie McCandless. Members Absent: Mayor Robert Corrie. Others Present: Bill Nichols, Will Berg, Anna Powell, Brad Watson, Gary Smith, Kenny Bowers, Bill Musser, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Stacy Kilchenmann, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. __X Tammy de Weerd _ X__ Bill Nary __X Cherie McCandless __X Keith Bird __O__ Robert Corrie De Weerd: Okay. I'll go ahead and open the Regular City Council Meeting and would like to welcome Troop 130 from the Meridian Middle School and the Linder Ward and also, 138, we have one representative here from the Locust Grove Ward. Thank you for joining us, and I will ask the City Clerk to call roll. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Second item on the agenda is Adoption of the Agenda. There are several changes. Staff has requested that Item J be pulled off from the Consent Agenda and added onto five J, also we need to pull S and consider that on October 7th. So, that needs to be pulled, are there any other changes to the agenda? Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: According to our new revised deal, Items number 11 -- or 10, 11, and 12, the Public Hearing for Sageland Developments, have been renoticed for October 14th, 2003. So, those three items will be -- as when we come to them will have to be done, and also we need to add an item six, which will be an Executive Session, as per state code 67-2345 (b), I think. Nary: B and F, I think. Bird: B and F. Yeah. So, we will have it in that order like that and with your permission, I will move that we adopt the amended agenda. Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 2 of 44 Nary: Second. McCandless: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda as amended. Mr. Clerk. Roll Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. September 9, 2003 Approve minutes of Pre-Council Meeting: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03- 016 Request for annexation and zoning of 80.51 acres from R-1 to Silverstone Business Campus C-G zones for proposed by Sundance Investments – southeast corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03- 018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 49 building lots and 2 other lots on 80.51 acres in a proposed C-G zone for proposed Silverstone Campus Subdivision by Sundance Investments – southeast corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR 03-016 Variance Request for a to maximum block length Silverstone Business Center requirements for proposed by Sundance Investments – southeast corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road: E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03- 021 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 40 building lots and 6 Bear Creek No. 8 other lots on 13.85 acres in an R-4 zone for by Bear Creek, LLC – north of West Victory Road and east of South Stoddard Road: F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03- 016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 building lots on Southern Springs 10.97 acres in a C-G zone for proposed by The Land Group, Inc. – southeast corner of Meridian Road and Overland Road: Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 3 of 44 G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03- 014 Request for annexation and zoning of 33.25 acres from RUT Tuscany Village to R-8 zones for proposed by Tuscany Development, Inc. – south of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road: H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03- 015 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 136 building lots and 10 other lots on 33.25 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Tuscany Village by Tuscany Development, Inc. – south of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road: I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 03-029 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development with reduced lot widths and setbacks for the Tuscany Village proposedby Tuscany Development, Inc. – south of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road: K. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR 03-012 Request for a Varianceto block length requirements for a Clearbrook block on the south side of Clearbrook Street for Estates Subdivision by R.K. Development, LLC – west of North Meridian Road and south of West Ustick Road: L. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 03-024 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new Seegmiller Dental dental clinic in an L-O zone for by Dr. Dave Seegmiller – south of East Gala Street and east of South Millennium Way: M. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 03-037 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to move into older home used as office space, pave portion of adjacent lot, use as O.P.M. dealership for used automobiles in a C-G zone for Enterprises by O.P.M. Enterprises, Inc. – 1065 East Fairview Avenue: N. Development Agreement: AZ 03-004 Request for annexation Montvue and zoning of 1.37 acres from R-1 to L-O zones for Medical Clinic by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. – 360 East Montvue Drive: O. Sewer and Water Main Easement for Cherry Crossing: P. Sewer Easement for Tuscany Village: Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 4 of 44 Q. Streetlight Agreement for Burney Glen No. 1: R. Approve Contract for Stenographic Services – MD Willis, Inc.: S. Resolution No. : Approving the Memorandum of Understanding with Meridian Firefighters Local 2311 regarding Wages: T. Resolution No. : Approving Collective Labor Agreement with Local #2311 International Association of Firefighters: De Weerd: Okay. Consent Agenda. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we approve the Consent Agenda with Item J being moved to the regular agenda item as five J and for item S, the resolution approving -- understanding the Meridian Firefighters regarding wages, be tabled until October 7th, 2003, and that the Council President sign and the Clerk attest to all proper papers. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded with changes to items J and S. Mr. Clerk, roll call. Roll Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. De Weerd: Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: Department Reports A. Finance Department: 1. Finance Report: De Weerd: Okay. Item number four is Department Reports. We will start with item A with the Finance Department. Stacy. Kilchenmann: Madam President, members of the Council, I don't really have anything in particular to point out with the financial statement this month, except for a couple pleasant items that bond rates are going up and we have purchased some bond rates Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 5 of 44 with interest of six percent, so that's very good news. Hopefully, that direction will continue. A couple of our other revenue items look a little higher than we anticipated. Everything else is right on track as we discussed as we prepared the budget amendment, so unless you have some specific questions and we are almost about ten days out from the new year's, so we are almost done with this fiscal year. Does anyone with any specific questions? B. City Attorney: 1. Addendum No. 1 to Agreement for City Attorney / Civil Legal Services: De Weerd: No. Probably just clarification to the Boy Scouts that are new year's means st we are going into a new budget year on October 1, so -- okay. Any further discussion? Okay. Item four B, City Attorney Addendum No. 1 to Agreement for City Attorney / Civil Legal Services. Nichols: Madam President, members of the Council, we submitted a request for a two percent increase in the retainer and outlined the basis for that several months ago. Actually, I think it was back in April, in advance of the budget, and so this simply reflects that. We have added one item that's outside the retainer, which is regulatory taking analysis, but we have also added an item of included services, which is to provide training to staff with regard to the new regulatory takings law. So, that's the only change in the contract is to increase the monthly retainer by 350 dollars a month. The monthly - - or the hourly rates will remain the same for those factors that are outside the regular monthly retainer. De Weerd: Stacy, we have adequately budgeted for these changes? Kilchenmann: I have not seen the contract with the changes. Bill, how much are the additional changes? Nichols: Madam President, members of the Council, it's 350 dollars a month, so that's 4,200 dollars additional in the base retainer for the fiscal year. Kilchenmann: I think we should be okay. We left some excess in there for -- Nichols: And I believe, Madam President, members of the Council, that the budgeted number is still at or slightly less than the total amount that was in last year's budget and yet the retainer amounts and such are still considerably below that, if I recall correctly. Kilchenmann: Yeah. We did decrease it some, but that should be sufficient. That should be sufficient. De Weerd: Okay. Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 6 of 44 Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Bill, I was noticing in the Addendum, though, that the amount that's amended here is -- it says 850. So, was it 17,500 and now it's 17,850? Nichols: Yes. Nary: Okay. That's what I wasn't sure. The only other thing is I noticed the additional legal services, like you had said, the takings analysis, and I think that's very fair to include that as additional. I think there was a discussion last year on the additional services, that some of those services that your firm and yourself are currently doing were things we were eventually going to still try to move over to the Planning and Zoning Department. I realize this last year was very difficult to do that with some transitional things and I guess I was hoping this year we -- hopefully, we can get there. I think there have been some staffing needs to get that accomplished, but I think that was still the intent, isn't it? Nichols: Madam President, members of the Council, we still anticipate that at some point staff will be doing the findings. Staff did begin doing the recommendations and have been doing the recommendations since I think about December of last year. I think it was, so -- so, we have made that shift and that transition. So, the services still stay the same. We anticipate that there will be a change in the future, we recognize that. Nary: Good. Madam President, one more comment. One, I think we are getting a great value with you, Mr. Nichols, and I really appreciate the services that you provide and so I think it's really a good value for the city. A separate note, I mentioned this to the budget -- or to the Finance Director and as well with Mr. Nichols, that our prosecution contract also expires with the fiscal year and they had requested an increase and I was simply going to ask Mr. Nichols if he could contact them and get a resolution on it in a couple weeks, so that we can get that contract renewed and move forward or at least brought before us and, then, move forward on October 7th, if at all possible. De Weerd: Sounds fair. Anna, can you comment on where your department is in that transition? Powell: I have -- hopefully, that will be soon. I have just started developing into the whole process issues and trying to understand them. I just met with the City Clerk staff and my staff this week beginning that, so this came up on my list of priorities. I'm now at the process stage and the process thing, I think, involves re-looking at staff reports and talking with Mr. Nichols about how we structure those, so that we can accommodate those findings and those recommendations kind of within our staff reports and I did talk with him briefly last week about -- about getting with him to look at a Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 7 of 44 format, so that we can take those over. We have been superficially talking about it up to this point, but it is kind of on my radar right now as my key task in helping my staff get their work done more efficiently. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Any further questions? Okay. Just for the record, under the Consent Agenda, item T, the resolution number is 03-411. Item 5: (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) J. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03- 007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 36 building lots and Clearbrook 11 other lots on 11.45 acres in an R-4 zone for Estates Subdivision by R.K. Development, LLC – west of North Meridian Road and south of West Ustick Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item number five J, Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval of PP 03-007. Anna, did you ask that to be pulled? Powell: Yes, I did. De Weerd: Okay. Powell: We have been talking to you recently about some changes in plat notes that are coming down from the county surveyor before he signs off on final plats, so we asked that on page five of 12 that condition of approval number two would read: Record an easement in favor of the City of Meridian on the lot that contains the pathway prior to issuance of the building permits. Said lot is numbered Lot 24 on the preliminary plat, and then, all the parenthetical information would remain the same. De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you have any questions about that change? Okay. I would entertain a motion. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for PP 03-007, Preliminary Plat approval with 36 building lots and 11 other lots on 11.45 acres in an R-4 zone for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision by RK Development, LLC, with the change on page five of 12 pages as stated by Anna. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for PP 03-007, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 36 building Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 8 of 44 lots and 11 other lots on 11.45 acres in an R-4 zone for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision. Mr. Clerk, roll call. Roll Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. De Weerd: Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Public Hearing: Amendment to 2003 Fiscal Year Budget: Ordinance No. : Amending the Annual Appropriation for 2003 Fiscal Year Budget: De Weerd: Okay. Item number six is a Public Hearing on Amendment to the 2003 Fiscal Year Budget and that ordinance number would be 03-1043, if it is moved to approve. Stacy. Kilchenmann: I wasn't going to go through the line items that we discussed at the last meeting, I was just going to summarize that the net effect on the General Fund is, actually, a bottom line increase in the general -- transfer to the General Fund balance of 121,315 dollars. The Enterprise Fund transfer -- the original transfer to fund balance was $1,087,419. That's been reduced by $708,427 dollars, for a net increase of $378,992, and the Special Services Fund has no net change in transfer to fund balance. So, do you want me to go through each individual line item again? De Weerd: Council, what is your desire? Bird: Madam President, are we changing the amounts? Kilchenmann: We are changing the amounts. Bird: Well, then, we got to redo the ordinance. Kilchenmann: No, we are not changing the amount from the ordinance. I thought you meant from the -- the ordinance should be the same, I just -- Bird: We are going to be 803,225? Kilchenmann: Pardon? Bird: We are going to be at a total of 803,225? Kilchenmann: Yeah. Those are just -- the way I presented it to you last week -- or when we did the -- or the prior week, I summarized it differently than the general summary that you're looking at, but the numbers are exactly the same as the numbers you're looking at. Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 9 of 44 Bird: But are the parks staying the same, the Fire Department staying the same, and the Police staying the same? Kilchenmann: Yes. Bird: Everybody's staying the same? Kilchenmann: Correct. Bird: Okay. So, then, all we need to do is just have the ordinance read, the title of the ordinance read, and see if anybody in the public wants to have the whole thing read. Nichols: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Madam President, members of the Council, you have to have a Public Hearing when you amend your budget and so I think you do that ahead of reading the ordinance and not at the same time. I would just -- but I would just say that because it's a Public Hearing and the other was just a presentation to Council, you need to go item by item and list these things, so it's part of the record. Kilchenmann: Okay. So, for the General Fund, I grouped it in those things that we increased, expenditures that weren't budgeted for, for the Ten Mile Study, 40,000 dollars, work on the police dog kennel that was budgeted in FY '02, but not completed in FY '02, so it got moved to 2003, 2,400 dollars, and an increase in irrigation taxes for the police, since they were the only building that was built out there and the cost of the pressurized irrigation exceeded that that was originally budgeted at 2,800 dollars. Then, we had expenditures that we increased the expenditure, but we also increased the corresponding revenues. We had the DUI state highway safety grant for 10,000 dollars, money we received from Ada County Highway District for purchase of the Storey Park right of way, 126,620 dollars, and, then, we had some increase in the rural fire shared fire expenses of 101,578 dollars. Then, we reduced certain expenditures, we called it a hold back in anticipation of shortages in revenue and there also were programs that we actually did not implement in 2003. We had the 100-year celebration and we reduced that by 10,000. The municipal study we reduced by 75,000. We didn't hire the Police part-time Crime Prevention Specialist that was 25,000. We didn't open Fire Station Three, so we saved 147,500 dollars in operating expense, and we reduced the original budgeted General Fund contribution to fund balance of 99,015 dollars. Then, we reduced some of our revenue items because a shortfall in anticipated revenue. The court revenue we reduced by 15,000, gas franchise revenue we reduced by 35,000. The investment interest revenue we reduced by 120,000, and garbage franchise revenue we reduced by 20,000. That was a total of 190,000. Then, on the Enterprise Fund side we had some increases in expense. We increased for the Black Cat Trunk Line lift station of 269,000 and we increased the Boise River outfall for Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 10 of 44 125,107 dollars, and we increased the South Slough Sewer extension for 504,282 dollars and increased the waste Signa project by 150,000 and then, we had an account, a project line item just for generic sewer extensions and we moved some of that money for those other projects, which gave us 339,962 dollars, for a bottom total increase in projects of 708,427 dollars. Then, we did some transfers from project to project, which didn't have any net effect on our total bottom line, but we moved pre-designed to UV outfall of 23,500 dollars and some money in Well 27 and the water tower painting project to Well 23 and 24 for 159,000 dollars, and those won't show up, those are just -- just transfers between projects, but we did discuss them and get Council approval, so we included them on the amendment discussions. Then, we had an unexpected revenue increase of a settlement from Empire Computer that we put into computers for 7,500 dollars, and then, finally, in special services, which, again, these items have no -- no dollar impact, but we had increase in expenditures for -- increase in office rent of 14,360 dollars, increase in phone expense due to the move of 1,700 dollars, increase in computer expense due to the move for 1,000 dollars, increase in building inspection expense for 75,000, and an increase in plumbing inspection expense for 20,000. Then, the offset we had an increase in building permit revenue, because building permit sales exceeded the amount that was anticipated, which offset all the expenses. So, it, actually, is -- you won't have to do anything in the ordinance for that, but we just included it in our discussion of all the budget item changes. De Weerd: Thank you, Stacy. Any questions from Council? Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to testify? Okay. Hearing none, Council, the Public Hearing is still open and I would entertain a motion to close. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I'd move that we close the Public Hearing for the amendment on the 2003 Fiscal Year Budget amendment. De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a second? McCandless: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing for amendment to the 2003 Fiscal Year Budget. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: I guess at this point, Mr. Attorney, I would ask a procedural question. Then, do we go to Ordinance 03-043? Would that be the appropriate motion on this item? Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 11 of 44 Nichols: Madam President, I believe it would be a motion to adopt 03-1043 and have the clerk read by title only. De Weerd: Okay. So, we first need a motion to adopt or a motion to -- Nichols: Excuse me, Madam President, my mistake. The Clerk should read by title only and then, the Council can have their pleasure to decide whether to adopt. Nary: We do this every year. De Weerd: Once a year, fortunately. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Before we do this, I got a question for the -- for legal. Are these -- this ordinance, as we are going to pass right now, has all these figures down and they have been changed. I mean the bottom line is still the same, but the individual sections are different; is that right? Nichols: Madam President, I believe that the notice -- the hearing notice numbers that were published are the ones that match the ordinance and the detail that Mrs. Kilchenmann gave is the basis upon which the numbers were derived in the notice and so rather than just run through the numbers in the notice, she gave you the detail on each one of those items as to how those numbers were derived. Bird: Okay. De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Clerk, will you read Ordinance No. 03-1043 amending the annual appropriation of 2003 Fiscal Year Budget by title only. Berg: Thank you, Madam President, members of the Council. Ordinance No. 03-1043, an ordinance of the City of Meridian, Idaho, amending Ordinance No. 02-973, the appropriation ordinance for the fiscal year beginning October 1st, 2002, and ending September 30th, 2003, appropriating additional monies that are to be received by the City of Meridian, Idaho, in the sum of 803,225 dollars and providing an effective date. De Weerd: Okay. You have heard the reading of Ordinance 03-1043 by title only. Is there anyone in the audience who would like it read in its entirety? Thank you. Okay. Council, I would entertain a motion. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 12 of 44 Bird: I would move that we approve Ordinance No. 03-0143, the amendment of the 2003 Fiscal Year Budget and with suspension of rules and for the President to sign and the Clerk to attest. McCandless: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Ordinance 03-1043. Mr. Clerk, roll call. Roll Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Ordinance No. : Utility Billing Directive Ordinance: De Weerd: Okay. Item number seven, Ordinance 03-1044, Utility Billing Directive Ordinance. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, read this by title only. Berg: Thank you, Madam President. Ordinance No. 03-1044, an ordinance of the city of Meridian amending Section 9-1-5, Applications for Water Supply, Section 9-1-20, payment for user charges, late fees, Section 9-1-21, Delinquencies, City Procedure, and Section 9-1-24, Water Fund, and of Chapter 1, Title 9, Water Use and Service and Section 9-1-4-28, Delinquencies, City Procedure of Chapter 4, Title 9, Sewer Use and Service, providing for the addition and deletion of language pertaining to utility billings, providing for conflicts, validity, savings clause, and providing an effective date. De Weerd: Thank you. You have heard the reading of Ordinance No. 03-1044 by title only. Is there anyone who would like it read in its entirety? Okay. Council? Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we approve Ordinance No. 03-1044, Utility Billing Directive Ordinance, with suspension of rules and for the President to sign and the Clerk to attest. McCandless: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to pass Ordinance 03-1044. Mr. Clerk, roll call. Roll Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 13 of 44 Item 8: Ordinance No. : AZ 03-004 Request for Montvue annexation and zoning of 1.37 acres from R-1 to L-O zones for Medical Clinic by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. – 360 East Montvue Drive: De Weerd: Thank you. Item number eight. Ordinance No. 03-1045, AZ 03-004, request for Annexation and Zoning for 1.37 acres from R-1 to L-O zones for Montvue Medical Clinic. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, read this ordinance by title only. Berg: Thank you, Madam President, members of the Council. Ordinance No. 03-1045. An ordinance finding that SJJV, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company and the owner of certain real property generally located at 360 East Montvue Drive, Meridian, to be known as Montvue Medical Clinic and which lies contiguous or adjacent to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, have made a request for annexation in writing to the Council and that said land be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning designated Limited Office District (L-O), and declaring that said land, by proper legal description as described below, be a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof, in conflict herewith, and directing the city engineer to add said property to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the ordinance and map of the areas to be annexed with the Ada County Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer, and Assessor and the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho, pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215. De Weerd: Okay. You have heard the reading of Ordinance 03-1045 by title only. Is there anyone who would like it read in its entirety? Okay. Hearing none, Council? Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we pass Ordinance 03-1045, request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.37 acres from R-1 to L-O zones for Montvue Medical Clinic by Pinnacle Engineers, with suspension of rules and for the President to sign and the Clerk to attest. McCandless: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Ordinance 03-1045. City Clerk, roll call. Roll Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. De Weerd: Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 14 of 44 Item 9: Public Hearing: CUP 03-035 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a martial arts / self defense establishment for children in a C-N zone for Karate For Kids by Petra, Inc. – southeast corner of South Linder Road and West Franklin Road: De Weerd: Item nine. Now, that we have chased the Boy Scouts off. We still have one left. It gets more interesting now. Okay. We have Public Hearing for CUP 03-035, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Martial Arts self-defense establishment for children in a C-N zone for Karate for Kids by Petra, Inc. I'll open the Public hearing with staff comments. Powell: Madam President, members of the Council, this is located on the corner of Linder Road and Franklin Road, so it's right across from Hark's Corner. The site is currently undeveloped. The applicant is proposing a 6,000 square foot new building for a karate studio and then, there is also an expansion area of 1,650 square feet for future expansion. We did process this as a school. The zoning ordinance doesn't have a designation for these kinds of studios, whether they are art Studios or instruction Studios, so we are processing it as a school. Staff did recommend approval, as did the Planning and Zoning Commission. At the Planning and Zoning Commission the applicant's representative testified in favor of the application. There was no other testimony. The item of discussion was whether or not there was an existing easement associated with the ditch that would prevent the planting of trees and they resolved that there was not an issue and then, they just made a clarification for the record that the applicant was stating that there wasn't an issue. So, there are no outstanding issues for City Council. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is the applicant here tonight? Okay. No. I guess he agreed with everything Planning and Zoning did. They must have done a darn good job. So, any questions or -- Powell: Madam President, just to clarify, that this was tabled before, because we had to renotice, because the applicant didn't take the sign down, because he thought that he didn't need to attend a hearing at the City Council, so we seem to still have a learning curve going on here, so -- Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Yeah. I know we normally certainly like to have the applicant here, but I mean this seems -- in reading the minutes, it sounded like they waited an awfully long time for Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 15 of 44 about a one minute discussion of one little thing, so I guess there is just a learning issue here, but I don't see a reason to delay this particular -- De Weerd: So, if you would like to, we could just have the Public Hearing closed. Bird: So moved. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 03-035. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nary, do you have a motion? Nary: I guess I do. Madam President, I'd move the approval of CUP 03-035, request for Conditional Use Permit for a martial arts self-defense establishment from children in a C-N zone for Karate for Kids by Petra, Inc., southeast corner of South Linder Road and West Franklin Road, pursuant to all staff comments and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission and for counsel to prepared Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order and it looks better than the patch of weeds that's there now, so -- McCandless: Second. De Weerd: Was that part of the motion? Nary: Yes. That would be part of the motion. De Weerd: Those will be interesting findings. It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 03-035. City Clerk, please call roll. Roll Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: Public Hearing: AZ 03-015 Request for annexation and zoning of 9.8 Sageland Planned acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Development by Quasar Development, LLC – northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road: Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 03-020 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 39 building lots and 9 other lots on 10.64 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Sageland Planned Development proposed by Quasar Development, Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 16 of 44 LLC – northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road: Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 03-036 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development with a private neighborhood park in an R-8 zone for Sageland Planned Development proposed by Quasar Development – northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Items 10, 11, and 12 have been requested to be renoticed for October 14th at the regular City Council meeting due to plat changes. Mr. Attorney, do I need to open these public hearings or since they are renoticed, we just -- Nichols: Madam President, I think since they are renoticed I don't think you need to reopen -- you don't need to open anything, they have simply been noticed for a new hearing date. De Weerd: So, they are basically informational? Nichols: Exactly. De Weerd: Okay. So, we will be visiting 10, 11, and 12 on October 14th. Item 13: Public Hearing: ZOA 03-002 Request for Amendments to Sign Ordinance: De Weerd: So, we will move to Item 13, Public Hearing ZOA 03-002, request for amendments to the sign ordinance and I'll open the Public Hearing with staff comments from Brad. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Madam President, members of the Council. I was planning tonight just to go over a couple of highlights of this amendment and, then, maybe, after that just get your feedback as to how you'd like to proceed, since there is a number of them. We did draw this sketch on the screen as kind of what we'd like to see as the model for all future signs in the city, so we thought it was kind of a rustic dairy-like feel. De Weerd: That would be very sustainable I can tell. Hawkins-Clark: This whole process of the sign amendment, frankly, started when we adopted the current sign ordinance in February of 2001. At that point we went from a -- about a five paragraph code to a 40 page code and we thought that there probably, over the course of time, would be a number of issues that would arise that we wanted to keep track of and feedback from the sign community, feedback from business owners and tenants and things like that and so we did keep that list. This committee, as shown on the screen, was formed in the fall of 2002 and as you can see there, there were representatives from a sign company -- from the sign industry, Debbie Anderson, Idaho Electric Signs, Roger Llewellyn with Golden West Advertising. The representative from Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 17 of 44 the real estate company industry was Stacy Wyrick with John L. Scott. Malcolm MacCoy served as a citizen representative and then our P and Z Commissioner representative was David Zaremba. We had our first meeting in November and we had four meetings, with some back and forth phone calls, et cetera. The purpose of the committee, as I mentioned, was really to review this 18 month long tracking list of suggested changes to help sort of streamline, make it easier to understand some things that were confusing, new definitions. That was really the impetus and then, we had -- also the purpose of the committee was to recommend any new changes that they wanted to see. The Planning and Zoning Commission did have just one hearing on the zoning ordinance amendment. If you may recall, it was brought up at a joint Planning and Zoning, City Council meeting in April where we just kind of addressed the fact that we were in the process of setting it for a Public Hearing. There is probably about five or six key substantive changes that are going to really impact the way that the ordinance is, you know, going to have an effect on the sign industry and businesses and I was just going to highlight those. Probably, in terms of the definitions, if you read through it, we did add, I think, about six or seven knew definitions to bring clarity. What is a pole cover, for instance? That was something that came up. We had not had that before and so we did define that as a decorative structure or treatment that encloses the support structures, so it -- it is a requirement now that, basically, to avoid a metal pole, it helps to provide some esthetic value. Reader board was defined, strobe lights, subdivision identification signs and a few other clarifications. So, to the definition section that was really the -- the two main areas. The next section that got some discussion -- really, most of the discussion at the Planning and Zoning Commission dealt with the animated signs and how, if they are timed and how the timing works, what is scrolling, how does -- if there is going to be a difference between flashing and just images that change, how do you define that. The wording that the Commission came up with is what was included on the ordinance that you received and I, frankly, am not sure -- we did receive on our staff table tonight a page that had some recommended changes and I don't -- okay. Yeah. It didn't say who that was from, but I think it's from Debbie Anderson, so we will probably hear on that. Oh. Okay. No, it's not from Debbie, but we will find out, I guess, during the Public Hearing who that's from. But the way that the Planning and Zoning Commission worded is on the bottom of page 17 of the ordinance and it's number I, paragraph two, and it changed to read: All animation shall be programmed to a minimum five second display of image. This shall not preclude scrolling text, flashing and strobbing are prohibited. There was previously no -- no definition at all, really, of how the text on an electronic reader board would be presented on the display area and the question came up, well, how -- you know, how do you enforce such a thing and, really, there is no other way that the committee could come up with, other than just basically our code enforcement office standing there with a stop watch or something and clicking on it and seeing how long the image comes up and -- you know, otherwise, the ordinance would be too cumbersome and too difficult to understand. So, that was the language that was -- that was presented and as you can see there on the page that was submitted, there is another two paragraphs that kind of expound on that and I will just, I guess, leave that for how you want to handle the suggestions that are submitted there. Then, on page 18, there is also an addition of manual reader boards. The previous ordinance was silent on this issue. The new ordinance states that they are Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 18 of 44 prohibited in all residential zones, except through conditional use for nonresidential uses and that's basically to cover, since our R-15 and R-40 zone allow for professional offices with a Conditional Use Permit, we didn't want to exclude reader boards if somebody came in with an office in a residential district, like under a planned development application or something like that and then, the second item there under manual was that they are restricted to a maximum of 50 percent of the allowable background area. So, if you have a 50 square foot sign, you could have no more than 25 square feet of that sign in a reader board -- in a manual reader board area. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Brad, if I could ask you before you go on from this one. On -- obviously, there is the one that was on our -- the one that's the disk is what the committee and P&Z have come up with and this one, this is a separate proposal, is that -- Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Nary: -- what I understand? Now, the one that's on -- the one that's on the disk in regards to the reader board and the particular area, don't we allow churches in residential zones and many churches have reader boards? Because that's going to impact that, and if it does, is it going to be in conflict with the -- Hawkins-Clark: I believe they are only allowed with conditional use permits in the R-8. Churches are allowed without a Conditional Use Permit in Limited Office, but -- Nary: Okay. So, some of these you have -- I just am wondering if you have a church that has an allowed use in an L-O zone that has a reader board, then, it's prohibited to have a reader board, is that going to have a conflict with the Religious Freedom Act or whatever the name of that is? Hawkins-Clark: That's a good question. I'm not sure that I'm prepared to answer. I mean I think the way that we have worded it here is we are not -- we are not saying that churches who want reader boards, if they are in a residential area, can't have a reader board, it's just stating that except as approved through a Conditional Use Permit. Nichols: Madam President, members of the Council, I'm not -- I don't know if we are talking about the same thing. Councilman Nary, were you talking about the automatic reader boards or just the manual ones? Nary: Well, I guess I don't know which -- I mean most churches, I guess, my experience has been they have manual reader boards, but I -- you know, technology changes and I don't know whether that's going to change, so I was just concerned that if we had a church that was in an allowed use and it basically comes in and gets a building permit, I wanted to be sure that we weren't going to run into some other claim by the church that Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 19 of 44 would infringe upon them, because we won't allow them to have their reader board. If the conditional use process is adequate, that's fine. I just didn't know if that was an issue. I just didn't want it to become an issue from some minor little change. Nichols: Madam President, members of the Council, I think we expanded the conditional uses for churches to R-40s. I think that was -- I know the industrial and there were some additional zones within which churches were permitted as conditional uses and so to the extent that one of those is a residential area, it would appear that the sign would be part of the Conditional Use Permit process and as long as the staff advises the churches up front if you want to have the sign as part of your conditional use, you have to tell us what it's going to look like and it has to comply with the sign ordinance. Nary: And I was just concerned, because I thought Brad said some of the churches are allowed uses in certain zones, so they would only be coming in for a building permit and so was there any problem in the fact that they would have to have a conditional use just to have a sign? How would we make sure they knew that and we didn't have some other conflict with that? Nichols: And, Councilman Nary, I think the issue is that where they are in allowed use is the L-O zone, I believe, and so in the L-O zone they could have the manual reader board without a conditional use. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Nary: They just couldn't have an automatic reader board. Hawkins-Clark: They just could not have an automatic. Correct. Nary: Right. Hawkins-Clark. Right. As I recall -- I mean the act -- I think you're talking about the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, yeah, which -- it was a long document, but I thought it was primarily use oriented and didn't necessarily imply that signs and all the other accessory kinds of uses on a piece of land are also they are exempt from, which is kind of what Councilman Nary was -- Nary: Yeah. That's my only concern. I don't know that it's a conflict I was just concerned that we at least have addressed that or at least were able to address that. Again, I don't know many churches that have automatic reader boards, but, you know, that's not something that's far fetched, so -- Hawkins-Clark: Shall I just continue through the -- De Weerd: Yes, please. Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 20 of 44 Hawkins-Clark: -- main changes? Is that how you'd like to proceed? Okay. See, I think there was some notes on that same page, item K that dealt with the design of poles. I don't know that there is anything to highlight on that. Permanent signs can exceed the height by 15 percent of the allowable height with some kind of decorative item is what that last sentence on paragraph K is dealing with and that was, basically, just to help sign designers get some more creative elements in there. It wouldn't -- it wouldn't be a word or text or copy on that, it would mainly just be an element of the sign that is of architectural interest. So, that's the reason for that. On page 19, vehicle signs, there was a clarification added about what does actively mean when it states that vehicles signs prohibited. The last ordinance didn't clarify what exactly is a vehicle sign in terms of being actively used in the course of business and there -- this was raised by our Code Enforcement Officer, who was, actually, in the process of working with a couple of businesses around town that questioned what that meant. So, we are saying that if someone -- if a business has a vehicle that has a business emblem or logo or text on the side of their vehicle, that to park it in the same location for 72 hours or more, basically, almost treats that vehicle as a sign now for that business and -- versus if they are using it at least every 72 hours. So, if it's still somewhat of a judgment call, but somebody could get in their -- get in their vehicle, move it around the parking lot, and come back and park it in the same spot and that is what he was finding to be difficult to deal with and so this 72 hours matches what the Police Department has in their code in terms of abandoned vehicles and so we felt that was somewhat of a consistency there. There was not any discussion about that item at the Planning and Zoning Commission, so I just wanted to clarify what that meant. De Weerd: Brad, then, so what is the change on that in clarifying? Can they drive it around the parking lot and re-park it and go another 72 hours? Hawkins-Clark: Well, clearly, the intent is that that would not be actively used in the course of the business. We just struggled -- the Code Enforcement Officer and I worked some ideas from his perspective how is he going to enforce that, unless he hooked a video camera up to the roof of the business and had it going 24 hours a day. You know it's just -- it's difficult to say. I mean I -- the changes -- at least now he has something that he can point to that says this is -- you know, 72 hours you can't leave this vehicle on the same spot. You know, it needs move. Before that wasn't even in there, so, you know, he put chalk mark on the tire and, you know, they pull it up and back and that -- you know, it just gets into some pretty difficult interpretation issues when it comes to it. So, if Council or legal has other thoughts on how to get that, that's more than welcome from staff. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Yeah, I do have a -- I have a problem with that, because being in the business I was in, you know, we had some one ton, two ton trucks that we didn't use maybe for three or four days and you're just asking for three or four days. Of course, with our Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 21 of 44 union contracts we had to have signs on our trucks, which we wanted anyway, certain size signs, and we -- and there was a lot of times that our bigger trucks, our one tons and one and a half, two ton trunks, would sit for a week without being use, because we didn't have a bunch of frames or a bunch of glass to take out to the job and of course, you use the smaller half ton and three-quarter ton trucks. I don't think it's -- I don't think it's fair to the business. To be truthful with you, I don't think that if they got signs on -- now, if they got a large sign in the back that they are using for a sign, that's something else, but if they are just -- if it's just attached to the door or to the racks of a glass truck, you're looking at something altogether different and some of those don't move for a week or even two weeks and I don't think it's right to penalize them. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: You know, I guess the thing I see in here, Brad -- and sort of to follow up on Councilman Bird's comment, is maybe where the definition needs to be done is more on the section that says intended to attract or direct customers to the business, rather than the actively park, because, obviously, there is a difference in -- like Mr. Bird was talking about, on a lumber yard that has all of their trucks painted with the name of the company on it, versus, oh, say -- say I was running a tanning studio and had a van parked on the corner, for example -- hypothetically. You know, so maybe that's -- maybe that's where the real work is, is really in defining what's meant by that, because, clearly, that -- I mean I think we can all -- we all know what that difference is. Defining that is the hard part. But I think that's, really, where the key is, because I agree with Mr. Bird, many business -- you know, I mean this doesn't even incorporate a three day weekend if you just parked a vehicle there over a three day weekend, technically, you would be in violation. Realistically, we are probably not going to site somebody for that, but, you know, even one that was intended for that purpose, if it's just there and it's a company vehicle and they park it there for three days because it's a holiday, I'm not sure we would want to give a ticket for that. So, I'm not sure how to define that better. I guess I'm just saying that that's where I think, probably, where the definition needs to be better or at least more helpful to the code enforcement person. Hawkins-Clark: In the first sentence of that it talks about that it has to be visible from a public right of way and this code doesn't regulate any sign of any type if it's not visible from a public right of way. It's just not regulated. It's just not a sign. So, I -- is that not a clarification or am I -- would that take care of -- for example, on the -- an example that Councilman Bird gave of the glass trucks, if they are parked around the corner or in the screened area or -- we could -- Bird: They are usually -- true. Most of your service trucks and stuff are parked behind the building, but there is times that some of them don't and you can see them from a public -- you know, you can go down Fairview Avenue and in our old shop you could see -- you could see our trucks at times and we usually had them parked behind a fence, but you could still read the signs and stuff on it and I know there is Cloverdale Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 22 of 44 Plumbing right down the road that had the same thing and I think you're just penalizing -- I agree with Mr. Nary, I think it's just -- we need a clarification of how it's worded and I'm not to -- you know, I don't think we need to have people bringing a van in with a big sign on it and leaving it on the corner for advertising some business, but -- Nary: Forever. Bird: -- but when you got a lumber yard or a service company that -- I would think right now a good example is Meridian Plumbing out on Franklin Road, you can drive by that and see their trucks all the time and they are in a fence behind their office, but you can still see their signs there on their trucks and those are certainly not at the office -- parked at the office for a sign for the office, that's the sign when they are out traveling on the road. De Weerd: I think Mr. Nary's suggestion is -- kind of distinguishes between those different uses, so -- Mr. Nichols, do you have -- Nichols: Madam President. Brad, the areas where these become a problem, how close to the right of way are they? Hawkins-Clark: Oh, they are -- the three or four that our Code Enforcement Officer has been working on in the last seven months are all, you know, probably within 20 feet -- 20 to 30 feet. I mean they are close. Nichols: So, perhaps, within the definition could be included a vehicle which hasn't been moved and which is parked within so many feet of the right of way of a public street, would be a standard that -- if the vehicle is parked up against the building and not right out on the street or in the parking lot adjacent to the street, it's not likely to be intended as an in lieu of sign. If it's parked in the parking space on the corner of Cherry Lane and Main Street, then -- within ten feet of the right of way, five feet of the sidewalk, it's probably intended to be a sign. So, perhaps that can be added to the definition, some sort of distance from the right of way as a means of achieving enforceability. Bird: Good idea. De Weerd: Thank you. Nary: I like that. Hawkins-Clark: I guess -- yeah, Anna and I were just talking about -- our assumption is that we will probably come back with this at a later time, so we can work on some of that language, unless you were going to move on this tonight and then, we'd have to work that out, but I think we have got the idea. De Weerd: Yeah. We can put this back on October 7th and I'm sure you could come up with something by then. Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 23 of 44 Hawkins-Clark: Sure. Okay. Let's see. The last item, I guess, on prohibited signs that I would mention to you was the addition of portable reader boards. That's an addition that was not in the -- in the last code that got some discussion at the sign committee meeting, not a lot, but I think the thinking there was that we now allow reader boards outright on permanent signs under this ordinance. Temporary signs that are defined as temporary here in the ordinance are allowed. The reader boards that are placed typically, you know, right out on the front of a parcel or a piece of ground, sometimes illuminated, sometimes not, but most of the time become kind of permanent fixtures and difficult upkeep, maintenance becomes a problem, they get, frankly, just kind of an eye sore most of the time. So, that was added as a prohibited sign. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Now, Brad, I know churches and offices that use those temporary reader boards for maybe a week at the most, keeping up for special events they have. Now, are we taking away that? I mean I can see taking these temporary reader boards or signs or whatever you want to call them and putting a time limit on it, how many days they can have it in front of their business, but I know a lot of churches will get them and -- for their Vacation Bible School or for their Christmas program or something and I don't -- or businesses have a special sale for a weekend or something and I don't -- I just don't believe that they are that offensive -- but I'm like you, I don't want to see them sit there for 30 days or two weeks or something, but I would think if we give a time limit, a week, ten days, or something like that. I don't think it would be offensive to the citizens or to anybody, but at least they could still use that as a promotional item and sometimes, you know, that's the best way to promote something that you want people to do, better than newspaper ads or TV and a heck of a lot cheaper than TV or something like that. So, I think we ought to look at -- I think you ought to really think on putting a time limit on it. I don't know how the rest of the Council feels, but I just -- I feel that those are used sometime very beneficial and I'm like you, sometimes they leave them out there too long and they do get to look horrible. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Yeah. I would agree with Councilman Bird. I guess the only thing on the time, I'm the same, I hate to see these become permanent signs, because that's what I think a lot of them are like, and -- but I think you can deal with that through those time limits and I think one of things that we don't always address very clearly -- and I think it's something we can do here, is it seems like sometimes we end up with a time limit that's got a little loophole that, essentially, allows you to have them continuously temporarily and I think that's, again, something we can deal with through the time limits where you can have them for a certain period of time and they can't be -- you can't have them for a Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 24 of 44 lengthy period of time in between that. So, it isn't a one -- you know, one week and every week they come in and buy a new permit forever. But that way -- because I do think it's a valuable tool for some businesses for a short time and I think for a short time they generally don't offend people, it's the lengthy time when it becomes permanent half the light bulbs don't work and somebody ran into it, that's when it starts being a problem, so that's where I think we should go. Hawkins-Clark: Well -- and maybe we can clean that -- we have right now, if it's a religious institution or a philanthropic or a charity, they can do the portable signs for those events for 30 days. I think maybe we just need to clarify that we are also allowing the reader boards as a part of those events and other businesses. I guess I heard both Councilman Nary say business and Councilman Bird mention the religious institutions, but, you know, we can -- we do have time limits on the temporary signs and maybe we just shift that portable reader board down into that section. Nary: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Then, speaking of temporary signs, that's the next section, 11- 14-7. We added just a couple of clarifications on how they need to be erected, so they have to be securely fastened and that a temporary sign shall -- it says shall be illuminated. I guess that's, actually, a typo. The intent there was shall not be illuminated and the discussion that happened in the committee on that was the -- a temporary sign you're going to, essentially, have to run an extension power cord out in order to do that and often that's going to run across landscaping or parking areas that are unsafe. So, the reader boards and other temporary signs mostly are -- most of them, anyway, are not illuminated, you don't see them typically be illuminated, so -- and we might probably should clarify on that that it's a direct or internal illumination, because, obviously, somebody might have a street light or something else that's going to light that, so we will clarify I that. Item number three on the bottom of page 20 is a clarification on the grand opening. We added going out of business as another allowable temporary sign that does not require a permit and, then, we also added the -- for a maximum of 60 days on going out of business a new open -- grand opening signs. That's 30 days longer than what the other temporary signs are allowed. De Weerd: And how long can they go out of business? How many years? Hawkins-Clark: Sixty days. Nary: That's it. Bird: It's on the sign. Hawkins-Clark: Let's see. A couple other clarifications. On the temporary signs, number four on page 21, there was that added last sentence that no other off-premise real estate signs, including new subdivision marketing signs, are permitted. As you probably know, there has been a lot -- a lot of the new subdivisions in Meridian like to Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 25 of 44 put the larger sort of sheet of plywood on four-by-fours that are directing traffic to where the new subdivision is going to be, whether that's on I-84 or three miles or five miles away, to attract attention and sometimes those are in the county, which, obviously, this sign ordinance does not regulate, but if they are in the city, they are going to be deemed off premise real estate subdivision marketing signs, so -- there was a change to the -- Nary: Madam President? Hawkins-Clark: I'm sorry. De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Yeah. Brad, on that number four, I noticed -- this isn't a change, but I wondered - - is it a problem? Because on some of those ones there are no homeowners association yet. I mean it says it has to be owned -- it has to be on property owned by the homeowners association. Some of those that are in development are still owned by the development company and not homeowners. I don't know if there is a clarification that needs to be done, but sometimes there isn't one established yet. Heritage Commons is one, I guess, I thought of in that, where they don't have one yet, but they will. So, eventually, it will apply, but it may not apply at the outset, so I don't know if there is something that needs to be clarified there, just so we know -- we want to allow people to have it, someway to direct people there. We don't want to get tight up with some little technicality. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Thanks. We can clarify that. I think it's a good point about maybe just clarifying that it's within the subdivision and eliminate who it's owned by. Within the subdivision boundaries that it's advertising. Yeah. We shifted number nine on the promotional signs down to -- those are now allowed with a permit, instead of without a permit, and I think that was the only change -- skipping up to page 24, then. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Before you go on to something else, Brad, on the -- I know this wasn't a change, but on the political or campaign sign, there is a U.S. Supreme Court case that's on point that I think invalidates this ordinance and I think Mr. Nichols probably needs to look at that in relation to this. We did some recent issue about this over in -- east of here and there is some case law that's very specific as to what's allowed and what the Supreme Court says the city has to basically review with highest scrutiny, because of the First Amendment on allowing people in their own yard or on their own house to be able to advertise for a political cause or candidate and whether or not time limits are allowed and, generally, in the Supreme Court case they said there aren't going to be -- at least they didn't allow it in that case and it was -- I don't know if you're familiar with the case, Mr. Nichols. One of the parties in it was the city of Ledeau, Illinois, but they -- the Supreme Court had said that they were looking very closely at this type of ordinance -- Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 26 of 44 local ordinance. They didn't have as much concern on commercial districts, but they had a significant concern of residential districts and this ordinance is no different than most that I have seen, so that's why I recognize what hasn't changed, but we may want to look at that before we -- since we are going through this rewrite anyway, because there was a case from Maryland that a federal district court allowed the homeowner, who wasn't allowed to have a sign in their yard, sue the city under Section 1983 and recovery damages and attorney fees for it. I don't really want to pay attorney's fees for somebody's sign in their yard, so I think we may want to look at that section specifically before we -- since we are in this rewrite process anyway. Nichols: Madam President, members of the Council, we can look at it again. I remember in the first iteration of this ordinance I think only one sign was allowed in the yard, so we did make some changes. Nary: I can send you the cases, too, that we looked at. Nichols: That would be very helpful and certainly shortcut the research. The other thing that it appears that perhaps maybe it's just a time line issue, because, otherwise, they are allowed to put up signs within certain limitations, so it's still a time-place manner type restriction, because it involves political speech and you have to be careful about -- Nary: Right. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Thanks. We will certainly take a look at that. I think the only change to the temporary signs that's require a permit, which starts on page 24, it's all underscored, because we moved -- we moved the location of the paragraph, but in terms of the text, as you can see, there are five different types of signs that -- temporary signs that require a permit. Street banners that are stretched over a public street, search lights, balloons and other inflated devices that exceed the height of the building that's allowed on the site. Special off-site auto sale signs and, then, portable seasonal signs and the promotional signs is what was added. That's the one change to this section and promotional is defined by the ordinance as anything that's advertising new business, new hours of operation, new management. So, it's -- you're promoting something new or a change that has changed in your business and there was a lot of -- a lot of confusion for businesses and the property owners about, well, is this promotional or isn't it and so we just decided to say, okay, well, all these typical types of temporary signs that you see at convenience store and et cetera, they are all going to require a temporary sign permit, which means they can have 20 days consecutive and, then, they have to -- the sign has to be removed for 60 and, then, they can put it up for 20, remove for 60, so up to 80 days a year they can have these temporary if they get a 30 dollar permit. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 27 of 44 Nary: You know, I'm not sure if it falls in this section, Brad, and it may be in here and just didn't see it, but I seem to notice a lot of businesses lately, because they only have -- they only get to have one sign per building, have a sign and, then, a banner hanging next to their doorway and, then, like their windows painted into another sign. Does this address that? Because, essentially, they are just ignoring the fact that they are only allowed one sign by putting up a temporary sign, a window sign, and usually there is a temporary sign on the sidewalk in front of the business as well or somewhere else. I mean does it address those type of things in the temporary sign section or is that something else? Hawkins-Clark: Not really. Yeah. I mean this isn't saying that if you have a permanent sign you can't get a temporary sign. Nary: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: They can still apply for that. Nary: So, they could you have -- you know, the one wall sign they may be allowed for -- depending on the configuration of the business and, then, you go get a temporary sign for a banner that hangs up there forever, it seems like, on some of these businesses and, then, if they have their windows painted the same way, is that considered a sign, too? Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. No more than 25 percent of the window area can be covered with a sign and those are permanent signs that are allowed without a permit if it's below 25 percent of the total window area on the face of the building. But the time frame issue is what we are working on, frankly, on -- in terms of enforcement and that's -- I think this will address the, quote, unquote, permanent banner that's temporary. I think this will help that. Nary: Great. Thank you. Hawkins-Clark: Let's see. There are just a couple of small modifications in the next section. There are just about two or three main other changes I will point out. The permanent sign section is all underlined there, just because we shifted it into a different location of the ordinance. There are no substantive changes to the text. We changed all of the references to director in the ordinance to zoning administrator, which you probably caught up on that. We made a clarification on the number of planned signs on center signs. On page 30 we just wanted to clarify when someone comes in with like a Meridian Crossroads Shopping Center and they want to do a center sign versus just individual building signs, this was a clarification on how of those larger signs that they can have. Let's see. Section F on page 31 deals with the wall signs and the previous ordinance stated that you could only have one wall sign that is oriented to a street that was 18 percent of your wall area and, then, if -- you could borrow that percentage. So, if you wanted to do a wall sign on the street side and then, you wanted to do a wall sign on each of your sides of your building to catch traffic that's ongoing, you could do that, Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 28 of 44 but you had to borrow and we were -- we just -- we had difficulty sort of calculating that, frankly, and communicating what that meant. So, we got rid of the whole borrowing language thing and just said that the combined area of all signs cannot exceed nine percent on a wall that doesn't face a street or 18 percent on a wall that does and that also means that if you have two different types of signs that you want wall signs that you still -- that they are actually, physically, separated on the face of your building, that you can do that, you just combine the total square footage of those. The section -- the item eight on page 32 is just clarifying illuminated wall signs cannot be oriented to any residential use and we have not seen that. I mean most property owners and developers have been pretty conscientious about not putting illuminated wall signs there, but if they are -- and the intention there is if you're actually adjacent to a residential use. I think the clarification was one that was brought up by a sign company representative early on and, then, the final really main change -- and I think we got a slide that talks about this -- was in our I-84 overlay area and this was -- this was one area that we did, actually -- staff is proposing somewhat of a slight modification from what the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended to you. This is what was presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission. The concept here being that if you own property at an interchange that the sides of the sign and the height of the sign should be larger increase than if you're not at an interchange area. So, these three circles were calculated based on the geographic center point of the interchange. We took a 1,500 foot measurement from the center at the Eagle Road, Meridian Road, and future Ten Mile and kind of looked at, well, you know, what properties does that 1,500 feet impact. It became a little bit confusing as to, you know, how are we going to specifically draw the overlay. So, this map here -- I guess this is a little difficult for you to you see, but it shows that the Eagle Road and the Meridian Road interchange overlays are now basically following property boundaries for the most part. We talked about the Ten Mile interchange and how that overlay would relate to the properties, but since there is no interchange there today, we were struggling with where exactly to draw it, so that's the change from the Planning and Zoning Commission, was to propose eliminating that overlay until there actually is an interchange. So, there would just be two proposed freeway interchange signs overlays. I blew these up so you can see a little better idea. We, at staff, talked about stopping the overlay at Overland Road, so no properties south of Overland would be included in that overlay, either at Meridian Road or at Eagle Road and, then, we, I think, maintained the principle of the 1,500 foot radius and the visibility that you're going to get when you're either coming on an on- ramp or off-ramp. The signs in this overlay can go up to 40 feet in height versus -- regardless of what the zoning is. So, for example, this example on the screen, Meridian Road, the property in the Central Valley Corporate Center is zoned Commercial General, but, then, we have, you know, a couple other properties -- most of these on the west side of Meridian Road, I guess, are Ada County, so that's not a good example, but should they come in at a limited office zone or a C-N, each of those districts has a different allowable height and what the Commission said was just if you fall within the overlay, it doesn't matter what your underlying zoning is, you get to have the same sign -- height of sign and the same size background area and then, here is the I-84 Eagle Road. We, again, just kind of tweaked it. You have, basically, the same general distance as the circle radius, but it follows parcel lines and as you will hear tonight, Mr. Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 29 of 44 Jacobsen, who is the owner of the franchise, the Subway franchise, who has been pretty involved with us in this process and they have requested a rezone. As you may recall in the past, which the Council denied, and so this was kind of an effort to work with them and other property owners in the Magic View Subdivision as to how signage would be handled as that subdivision moves from residential to commercial. We basically took in this subdivision the properties that are zoned commercial, except for the three that are the furthest from the interchange and, let's see, the Commission also changed, instead of the background area for the signs in these areas being 80 to 100, they went with 120 square feet for a single building and 300 square feet for a center sign. Those were the -- those were in paragraph three on page 36 and other than, that I think the other changes were just kind of grammatical and/or just ease of reading through the ordinance. Unless you had any other specific questions, that's all at this point. Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Council? Okay. This is a Public Hearing, believe it or not, and it looks like we have a couple people who would like to testify. So, please -- I haven't seen the list, so you can just come up, as you would like to testify. Nary: And bring the list with you. De Weerd: Do you promise the testimony you give tonight is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Larson: I do. De Weerd: Please state your name and address. Larson: Madam President, my name is Cornell Larson. Address is 210 Murray Street in Garden City. De Weerd: Thank you. Larson: Madam President, members of the City Council, I am here a little bit in behalf of Mr. Jacobsen and probably over a year ago you had given us the directive to work with the sign committee on trying to come up with an overlay district, so that some of the freeway businesses could benefit from the traffic that is traveling down the freeway and could capture some of those freeway dollars. I had written a letter to Brad, which he has incorporated some of those suggestions into the ordinance and as I looked at what he had done, it looked like he had caught a good deal of the items that we had talked about. There was one item that was in the original ordinance on the spacing between the signs for freeway businesses and I had some concern there. A lot of the businesses that are around the freeway, a good deal of them are smaller businesses on smaller lots they are service stations, small restaurants, or drive-in facilities. Those typically exist on a smaller lot and to get a 500-foot spacing on signs is very difficult, so I don't know Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 30 of 44 whether that got modified or whether there was a discussion at Planning and Zoning. I was unable to attend Planning and Zoning, I was out of town delivering my son to college, so I did write the letter in an effort to try to give you some feeling for what we had in regards to reviewing the ordinance. We were -- in that same letter there was -- we made a comment about having a table that would speak to the requirements of the overlay district. There were several other tables in the ordinance. It would be very helpful if that could be put into one table just specifically for the overlay ordinance, so that the people in that area -- or the businesses in that area would have the opportunity to review that on a -- solely on their basis. The height, I believe Brad mentioned that they had recommended going up to 40 feet and we do support that. Initially, it was shown a little bit lower, but 40 feet -- probably the single most important thing a small business can do around a freeway to draw attention to their sign and so we support that. We were also looking for about 50 percent increase in the background sign on the size of the sign and I'm not sure how that replaced the 120 square feet, but I think it's pretty close to a 50 percent increase. With that, there was only one other little minor item and I think the ordinance made reference to the Uniform Building Code and I believe the City of Meridian has actually adopted the International Building Code, so you might want to consider that change and it may have already been picked up. I do not know that. With that, I would be happy to answer any questions you might have and we have met with the sign committee -- myself, anyway, have met with the sign committee once to discuss these overlay districts and to try to give some input into some of the initial concerns we had with the Subway facility and trying to get a sign there that would work for them. I believe Debbie from Idaho Electric Sign also has some information that might show how that sign would look based on the ordinance or she may not, I'm not sure, but we did have it at one time. I would be happy to answer any questions. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions? Bird: I have none. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Larson, I guess -- I understand what you're saying on the 500-foot separation that does seem fairly large. When you do have a bunch of smaller businesses in one area, that would be certainly ideal to have more of a center type of sign, versus -- because, otherwise, I think it's going to look like a mushroom patch of signs. I mean it's just going to -- I don't know how we avoid a proliferation of 40-foot signs if we don't have some distancing requirement. I know that it tends to benefit who comes and asks first versus who gets the business later. So, what's your remedy to that? Larson: Madam President, Councilman Nary, we suggested that one sign per lot and I realize that that's a -- that might be a lot to ask, but we also suggested that as the individuals come in and visit with staff about the sign, that staff work with them to try to coordinate it, so we could have a little bit better coordinated effort on sign placement on Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 31 of 44 those lots. I can understand your concern of having a large number of signs at the interchange, but the reality of trying to get a coordinated sign between four or five different businesses is very hard to do, especially when some of them are existing and I think that if the ordinance spoke to one sign per lot and, then, some coordination effort with staff or their neighbors, so that they didn't have a real hodgepodge look, then, that might work fairly well and it kind of puts the burden on staff to try to work through that and also the applicant. But it's probably a better solution than trying to come to an agreement for a center sign in -- like, for example, at Meridian -- Meridian Road and the freeway, as the property to the west develops or comes into the city, that might be better coordinated, but if somebody were there decided they wanted to have a larger sign as a result of this ordinance, then, it's going to be -- might be very tough for them to gain that additional height in the sign and the size of the sign with the 500 foot limitation on it the way it exists now. Nary: Madam President. Just to follow up. I mean I guess my concern, Mr. Larson, you know, is the -- you know, there are other alternatives. I know there may be some limitations, especially food vendors at least have -- have the ITD sign that at least gives them an alternative. I know maybe it's not always the best alternative, but, you know, I guess I have been through a number of cities where as you go through the -- you know, you go passed an off-ramp and if you look over -- and Coeur d'Alene is one that just happens to come to mind at the moment where in the main section of Coeur d'Alene -- I mean you look off to one area and all you see is a proliferation of signs of varying heights. So that you could see them all, but I can't read any of them anyway and, you know, all it looks like is a clutter of them and I guess, you know, that's the balance, I guess, I'm not -- I'm not sure and I think that's what the Committee probably struggled with, that's what I'm not sure. I don't want that. I mean I guess I see that as more of a problem and I don't think that's a good solution. But, you know, I guess I don't know any answer -- I agree one sign per lot is probably not the right answer, but maybe something else -- you know, maybe something else we need to sort of kick around a little bit more, but -- Larson: Yeah, and maybe it's the fact that it's a shared location on two lots or something like that and I'm not sure what the answer is, but I do know that you probably do not want a clutter of signs, but -- and you may not get it, depending on who the tenant is or what the specific use is at the interchange, but it is harder for a smaller business to gain exposure than it is a larger facility as well. So should you get like a ShopKo or a Fred Meyer or a Sam's Club and one of those intersections, then, it's going to become, you know, relatively easy for them to do a center sign or a larger sign and take some of the clutter away, but where you do have the smaller businesses, it's hard to gain the identity and I understand your concern, I'm not sure what the solution might totally be. De Weerd: Thank you. Any other questions? Bird: I have none. Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 32 of 44 Hawkins-Clark: Madam President, could I just ask for a clarification on this? De Weerd: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: Because we have -- there is -- if I could go back. There are two different overlays that we are working with now. One of them, which isn't shown on here graphically, but if you take the right of way of the I-84 and go 300 feet to the north and 300 feet to the south, that's one overlay, and that's where the 500 foot spacing requirement currently lies and then, this new overlay that's being proposed tonight is around the -- just the two interchanges. That overlay does not have a spacing of 500- foot requirement, so I was just asking Mr. Larson to -- if that's still a concern or if that takes care of the concern. Larson: No, that would take care of the concern and the way I kind of looked at it is the 500-foot spacing applied to both overlays and I might have misinterpreted it. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. It just applies to the one as written. Larson: Yeah. Then, it would probably be pretty comfortable. De Weerd: But I guess that clarification maybe underscores what Councilman Nary said and having something in between, so that you can assure that you're not just going to have a mass of signs. Hawkins-Clark: It does, yeah, and we would appreciate feedback on that, because, yeah, right now it's one per lot in the -- at the interchanges. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Larson: Thank you. De Weerd: Debbie Anderson. Anderson: Madam President, members of the Council -- De Weerd: Can I swear you in, please, first? Anderson: Oh. Sorry. De Weerd: Is the testimony you give tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Anderson: Absolutely. De Weerd: Please state your name and address. Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 33 of 44 Anderson: Debbie Anderson with Idaho Electric Signs, 6528 Supply Way in Boise. A couple of items that I would like to address initially as the item we were just discussing on the separation between those signs. It was my understanding when I spoke to Brad that the 500 foot between signs only applied to those businesses that have actual freeway frontage. Otherwise, they face I-84. For the other businesses -- and I -- please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there is a 40 foot separation requirement between signs from property to property, if I'm not mistaken. Hawkins-Clark: I think it's 25. Anderson: Is it 25? So, maybe that is an issue you'd like to address to get, you know, maybe a little bit more separation. In some situations I know signs have been allowed to be right on the property line or within a few feet of the property line. Now, that creates a problem for the other lot, but I think that given the configuration of most lots and there are usually several optimal locations for the sign that can be, I think, addressed pretty simply, just by establishing so many feet between signs from property to property within that zone. The other issue that I would like to address is on the message centers. I was just given this sheet tonight. I'm assuming that Mr. Zaremba was the creator of this sheet and I have some concerns regarding the restrictions on those message centers as it's written, in that I think it excessively complicates the understanding of the ordinance. I think that the whole idea of redoing this ordinance was to simplify, to -- as Brad said, to streamline, so that it was more user friendly and easier to understand and easier to enforce. Well, I'm a sign person, I know how to program these signs, and I'm having a hard time understanding exactly how I would program a sign with all these restrictions, with the -- we did address some of this in the Planning and Zoning Meeting, for instance, the five second scrolling and that kind of thing, but I think that we are getting so complicated that normal people will not ever be able to follow this. It's too complicated for anybody to understand and I think because of the price of the message centers -- electronic message centers are not inexpensive, they are typically around 20,000 just for the message center itself. So, if you have got let's say just a reasonable size sign for a normal business, you're looking at a 25 to 30 thousand dollar sign and you're putting restrictions on it, which really won't allow them to use their message center in the way that it was intended or in the way that would most benefit that business and still maintain a certain amount of esthetic pleasantries, I guess, if you will. For instance, we did the Idaho Independent Bank sign down on Main Street now and I think that that's very well done. It doesn't flash, it's not obnoxious, they use that to scroll up and down, left and right. It does have a constant scrolling. It does not flash or strobe and it's very well done and I think that trying to enforce that you would even limit them from using their sign in the way they have been using it. I mean this would inhibit the use of that sign tremendously. I think it needs to be simplified without quite so much control over the message centers. I do know that in some cases there have been some abuses of those privileges in the message centers. There are some that are quite obnoxious within the city and I think that you can simplify the verbiage in this a little bit better to eliminate that, but still not over control the use of the message centers, because this is a high tech society and we are moving along, we are getting out of the manual reader boards and that's considered something that's very Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 34 of 44 archaic now and I think we are moving along to more of the electronic message centers, because of the value of advertising in those. Also, I have something I would like to submit to you showing a 120 square foot sign in the overlay district at a 40 foot height and this will help you visualize -- this will help you visually to see how that would impact that area at 120 square feet and 40 feet in height. Nary: Do you want us to keep this? Anderson: Yes. It's submitted for your use. Nary: Okay. Okay. Anderson: I think staff has worked very, very hard on this new ordinance. I know that this is not an easy thing to do, there are always a lot of loopholes, no matter how careful you are and how hard you work on it, there is always going to be an exception to every rule. But I have to commend them. I think that they have worked very hard on it and they have done a fantastic job putting this together. There are just minor issues, I think, that need to be clarified and that's a simple thing to do and I'll stand for questions if you have any. De Weerd: You know, Debbie, I think that there has been a lot of clarity added to this and I don't think it will ever be simple. Anderson: Oh, no. De Weerd: I see business owners that get this ordinance and it's like, oh, my God, what does this mean, so -- but I do think there has been a lot of the guesswork taken out. Anderson: I agree. De Weerd: And it really has helped and maybe even in this proposal that's here in front of us tonight, you and Mr. Zaremba can work on making it more simple, but I would be interested to hear from him, but this -- in the first time was a point of great discussion and -- at the Committee, as well as during the public hearings and I think it will always have come contentious element -- Anderson: It will. De Weerd: -- so -- but you are right, I think it's probably the direction that people are going. With technology the way it is, it's something we need to identify and clearly define. Anderson: Right. I agree totally. Absolutely. So, thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 35 of 44 De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Mr. Jacobsen, did you have testimony? Raise your right hand. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Jacobsen: It is. De Weerd: Please state your name and address. Jacobsen: My name is Blaine Jacobsen at 3030 East Magic View Drive in Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Jacobsen: First of all, I'd like to thank the City Council for getting this -- giving this committee a good push last time Cornell and I were here for approval on the signage. I'd also like to thank Planning and Zoning, Brad and Anna. Dave Zaremba has been very helpful in pushing this forward. Based on the confidence that we were able to build from these series of meetings, we knew that something would be happening on signage and that gave us the assurance that we needed to go ahead and build the store. We opened it in July. I wanted to give you a quick update on how the store is doing. It's not bad, it's running at about 80 percent of what the average store in the market is running, so it's a little bit below average. We believe that once we are able to put up the pole sign that it will be an above average volume store, you know, we certainly hope that it will be, considering the expense that has gone into the store. It's a very nice looking store. Subway corporate is using this store now as their flagship for the state, because it not only has an attractive exterior, but it's got an all new decor package on the inside and that's the look that Subway is planning to adopt with all of their stores. We have learned some real interesting things, though, in the time that we have been open. We have discovered that most of the business is right from the neighborhood itself, because we are set back from Eagle Road and don't have the visibility there yet, almost all of our lunch business is coming from that office park just off to the west of us. It's coming from either St. Luke's or from the office park there to the west. There are very few freeway drivers. There is a lot of freeway business at McDonald's and at Taco Bell, but they just don't know that we back there yet, but with the sign I think that that will be remedied. We have also learned that the business starts earlier, so we are going to be adding breakfast and probably closing earlier in the evenings, which should be good for the neighborhood there. In response to your -- the comment that was brought up on the proliferation of signs, I don't know if I would be overly sensitive in that area, because it's such a landlocked area right now with the hospital and with the way that it is laid out, the way it's developed, I don't see a tremendous number of signs going in there. But think of it as a freeway driver when they exit, they want to be able to scan the horizon very quickly and that's basically their menu of where they -- you know, they get off looking for gas stations or looking for a place to eat and with the congestion on that road, they need to be able to see those signs very quickly and make their choice and I guess I would be a little bit concerned if there is two big of a separation, because the McDonald's sign was preexisting and it's within just a few feet, a yard or three or four feet of our property line and so, then, it would push us probably back to an unfavorable, Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 36 of 44 probably a more unsightly position with the pole sign on our building. I would encourage us to move ahead as quickly as we can. I know that you need to make a few of these changes on some of the other aspects of the signage ordinance, but certainly we are interested in seeing it move ahead quickly. Again, let me thank the City Council for the help that you have given us in getting this far with the sign ordinance. Thank you. De Weerd: Mr. Jacobsen, I appreciate your comments. I guess what I would like to see is something that would encourage the multi-use signs. With the McDonald's and the Chevron, you know, that's very attractive and you know that it's there. If there is ways -- and I know that would almost be off premise or if they come in as a development and it's all one business park type of thing that you could see those kind of joint signs, so each one them don't have different poles signs. Jacobsen: We would love to be on that sign. You know, maybe you can help us with John Jackson and get approval for signage up there. De Weerd: Yeah. We can replace it for maybe something else that's on there. Thank you. Jacobsen: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Appreciate your comments. Mr. Zaremba. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Zaremba: Yes, it is. De Weerd: Please state your name and address. Zaremba: My name is David Zaremba. I reside at 2540 North Crooked Creek in Meridian. Good Evening, Madam President, members of the City Council. De Weerd: Good Evening. Zaremba: First off, I would like to thank Brad for all of his work in this. He's minimized his role, he was a good moderator and pulling the committee together and a good presenter of compromises when we seemed to be fractious in our ideas and did an excellent job of keeping us moving and focused and keeping us pretty much all friends. As you have guessed, I was the author of this proposed alternative. I did not mean to provide it myself or at the last minute, however, I have been out of town most of the time since this came before the Planning and Zoning Commission and was just able to put this together and get it to the Clerk late today and I also see that in your version -- this would be on -- has slipped a page as 17 and 18, not on 16 as it was when we saw it. We are talking about the same part of it. First, let me say I'm very much in favor of signs for businesses. For ten years in another city I ran a small business myself, I know the importance of the on-site sign in making your business viable and it is important that Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 37 of 44 they be visible and useful and I also have been a proponent of the interchange overlay district, along with what was already existing, the I-84 corridor district and very much in favor of attracting business on. On the subject of the reader boards, we had quite a bit of discussion up and down, back and forth. As many of you can guess, it was really the Wendy's sign on Main and I believe it's corporate that irritated a lot of people and, secondarily, perhaps the pub sign on the north end of main that doesn't seem to meet the needs of Meridian. Along with being in favor of signage being effective, I'm also in favor of not having the esthetics of Meridian become -- I don't know how many of you are familiar with Van Nuys in California or certainly the old Las Vegas strip, which was very glitzy and had a lot of moving and flashing signage that really is disturbing to the safety of traffic in the nearby area. In the committee meetings we had quite a bit of discussion -- and, actually, I'm the one that came up with the five second idea by timing the sign at Pioneer Savings on Cherry Lane where the Albertson's is, which stays steady for about five seconds and then, moves on and it's a very comfortable sign to read as you're moving along. It isn't flashy or -- and, in fact, theirs doesn't change colors and do all sorts of stuff that perhaps more modern signs can go do. That's where I came up with the timing. In the discussions in the meeting, the discussion was had, well, if you have a sign that's only 20 percent of the background area and you limit the amount of text you can blow through it in the time available to a person driving 35 miles an hour, then, the sign needs to be bigger. Well, the suggestion that the background area be increased to 30 percent was a direct compromise to having the five second steady -- and, I agree, if you're going to hold -- if you're going to get less message through in the amount of time that a passing motorist would see it, I can support going to the slightly larger sign, but I feel a correlation between those two very strongly. When this portion of the discussion was before the Planning and Zoning Commission, we got to this well after midnight, we had been through a number of other issues and heavy issues and I didn't belabor the point of -- because the meeting was getting very late and we risk not all putting our best thought into it and I had hoped to make this particular proposal earlier, but, as I said, I was out of town and only got it done now. I am not stuck on any of this wording, I'm certainly happy to make it simpler if it can be made simpler. The part that I ask to preserve -- and, actually, the reason we started rewording it during the Commission meeting was that after we had agreed that there would be a five second steady display and, then, about a one second change and, therefore, a 30 percent sign, the idea was presented at the Commission meeting, well, what if there is a message that's a text message that's much longer, it needs to scroll continuously. Well, in trying to work that out, we also are trying not to lose the control on the ones that are just blowing your mind away as you drive. My personal opinion about a sign, it needs to identify a business that's there, it is not necessarily appropriate that today's special be what that sign presents and to give a lengthy message about today's special on it I don't feel is appropriate. Therefore, I do feel that it's okay to limit the splashy signs, so that they do have a steady period. A continuous text I don't have a problem with that. I call it a crawl. I see a scroll as a vertical movement. I call it a crawl going across. So, again, I'm not stuck to these exact words, but I would like to preserve the ability to not have flashy, glitzy signs all the way up and down the street. Again, I agree these are expensive signs, so they are probably not going to be on every Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 38 of 44 property on Main Street, but they could be quite frequent and visualize 20 Wendy's signs up and down the street and how do we make sure that doesn't happen. Nary: You're giving me a headache. Zaremba: So, thank you all very much. De Weerd: Council, any questions for David? Bird: I have none. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I want to commend you, Mr. Zaremba, because I know you're not a lawyer and this is really good lawyering kind of language, because it really is a little bit confusing. But I think -- I guess I look at the intent here and, you know, it looks like the compromise that we ended with, the 30 percent, the five second display, the no flashing and strobing, which I think is really where a lot of the safety, sort of that obnoxiousness of these signs is that flashing and strobing, so I heard you say -- and maybe I just missed what you were trying to say, but I heard you say that you weren't married to this language that you're proposing, so -- but I'm not sure exactly which part of what was compromised and proposed you think we need to enhance. The 30 percent I heard you say was sort of the trade off with the five seconds and so -- was it this mode one and mode two and sort of giving that alternative? Anyway, is that what you -- is that where you think maybe we need to have a little more of that definition and that's why you have this mode one and mode two, whether or not we use different language for it, but -- is that what you were meaning? Zaremba: Madam President, Councilman Nary, I think the piece of it I have is the way the statement after what you read said: This shall not preclude scrolling text. That, essentially, removes all the rules again. That's the piece that I think needs to be more clearly defined, so that it doesn't contradict the sentence before it and that's really why I came up with, on my own, the idea of calling it two different modes. If it's a lengthy text, it's programmed one-way, the other things are programmed the other way that we talked about. I'm trying to provide for both possibilities and however that is done, I think there is a better way to say it than I said it, I'm sure, but I also think that the compromise that we came up with after midnight leaves some confusion about whether or not scrolling, essentially, contradicts the sentence before it. Nary: Well – and it may leave a loophole is kind of your point, it may leave a little loophole and maybe we need to find a way to do that. I think this might be a little confusing, but I mean there might be a way to get there still. Zaremba: Yes. Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 39 of 44 De Weerd: And I don't think you're totally off from what I heard Debbie saying, so I think maybe if you can work together on this -- Zaremba: That would be a pleasure. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions? Zaremba: I did not want to be the cause of the ordinance being delayed, so -- since it's being re-thought and reworded on a couple other issues, I'm happy to proceed with that, too. De Weerd: Thank you. I know I just volunteered you, but -- Anderson: Sorry. Madam President. De Weerd: Well, Debbie, would you be willing to work with Mr. Zaremba and see if you can come up with something that can clarify the intent? Anderson: Oh, absolutely. I think it was a very late hour and we were trying to move this along and not become stagnant and I think that it's just a matter of working out the terminology, based on what we know the message centers can do and what we want to see within our city. De Weerd: Okay. Well, great. Anderson: Thank you. De Weerd: Well, thank you. Nary: Madam President, I had one more question I think for Brad. De Weerd: Okay. Nary: You had mentioned it in your earlier report and in looking at it, it says here now that it would no longer be allowed to have oriented to the freeway subdivision signs, you know, and that means the ones that's even on their property, not ones that are orienting to -- I mean an off-premise sign, but even the ones -- and I guess, you know, we have been fortunate that at least the few we have seen have been pretty positive, like Meadow Lake Village. Is that -- what was the concern with the committee with that, just clutter or was there something else to that? I mean -- you know, I guess I'm just curious as to what was the rationale to say we don't want to have that type of identification for those residents. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah, and I may need some help from the other two sign committee members that are here. You know, I think the only -- the issue that drove that was the Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 40 of 44 effectiveness of the advertising and you're never going to be able to access that subdivision off of I-84 and, for the most part, you're not looking for a house, an address, a residents when you're driving on I-84, you would be looking for auto oriented business, so that's clear, or possibly even other office complexes, but I think it was driven by a -- sort of a -- somewhat of a confusion for the driver, as well as unnecessary and maybe helps to -- with that 500 foot separation, you know, you're not going to have Marlin Subdivision there on I-84 and that take up one of the 500 -- you know one of the signs that, then, creates a new 500 foot separation, but it really did not get much discussion, frankly. But I think those were the two main reasons. It's adding to clutter and it is confusing to the driver to be looking for and it's somewhat unnecessary looking for a residential subdivision when driving along I-84. Nary: Madam President? You know, I guess, again, I don't know what everyone else thinks -- I mean, you know, whether or not there is a way to deal with that or not, I mean I guess if I'm the developer of one of those subdivisions, you know, and if I'm trying to direct people to find Meadow Lake Village, it's pretty easy to tell them where to find it, you know, by that sign, no different than Bodily RV or Western Equipment or any of those other ones. I mean it's -- and if someone has to tell -- if you had to ask anybody in the community where is Meadow Lake Village, they can probably tell you, more than the subdivision that's right next to it. So, I mean I guess I understand the discussion and, you know, maybe it isn't a big deal, you know, nobody's here, necessarily, proposing that, but, you know, it sure seems like that's fairly onerous to a residential developer and not to a commercial developer and the rationale that's being used is it's just as beneficial to the residential developer as it is to the business. I mean, you know, like I said, maybe it's not a big issue, it just seems to me that, you know, it can be done in a way that is very positive and I guess I'd hate -- I just always hate when there is rules that just say you can't do it, you just can't have it and it doesn't matter, you know, because it seems like there can be -- if somebody had said -- if we had this rule in place, then, Meadow Lake Village couldn't build that entry -- that signage on the freeway, I think that would have been a loss. I think that's been a very positive thing, both for them and for the city and I think it can be done positively for -- like I said, the exact same reasons that businesses like to have them. So, I guess maybe that's my only thought. I guess I'm not saying go ahead and change it -- at least I don't know that anybody else wants to change it, but it just seems to me -- I always hate those type of hard and fast rules when there are probably pretty valid reasons to do it differently. De Weerd: Well, actually, I wanted to add a Welcome to Meridian sign next to that. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I agree with Mr. Nary and I think if we -- we need to continue this Public Hearing probably until the 14th of October to give even -- maybe Brad can get the committee together and go over some of these. We have come up with some pretty -- between public testimony and the staff and everything, we have come up with some pretty good Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 41 of 44 ideas and, hopefully, we can come back and -- with a little more defined proposal on the ordinance, so we do need to keep the Public Hearing open, so we can have more public testimony and get these things worked out. Everybody has come in with some good ideas and I think it needs to be done and they don't -- if there is no more public testimony or talking, I would move that we move the Public Hearing on the sign ordinance to October 14th, 2003. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to move the public -- or to continue the Public Hearing until October 14th. Staff, does that give you adequate time and committee members present? Hawkins-Clark: I think it's adequate. Thanks. De Weerd: Okay. So, all those in favor say aye. Okay. That Public Hearing has been continued, then, to October 14th. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14: Resolution No. : Adopting Rate Structure Changes for Solid Waste Collection Services: De Weerd: Okay. We are on Item 14, Resolution No. 03-412 -- is that correct, Mr. Clerk? Okay. Adopting Rate Structure Changes for Solid Waste Collection Services. Mr. Clerk, would you, please, read this by title only. Berg: Thank you, Madam President, members of the Council. Resolution No. 03-412, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Meridian setting forth certain findings and purposes, authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to allow, on behalf of said municipality, an annual CPI rate adjustment for solid waste collection services with Sanitary Service Company to provide for the solid waste disposal rate changes within the City of Meridian, dated the 1st day of October 2003, by and between the City of Meridian and the Sanitary Services Company. De Weerd: Thank you. You have heard the reading of Resolution No. 03-412. Any discussion? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. I would entertain a motion. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 42 of 44 Nary: I'd move we approve Resolution No. 03-412, adopting the Rate Structure Changes for the Solid Waste Collection Services for the city. McCandless: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Resolution No. 03-412. Mr. Clerk, roll call. Roll Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 15: Resolution No. : Approving Addendum No. 1 to Agreement for City Attorney / Civil Legal Services: De Weerd: Okay. Item 15, Resolution No. 03-413, Approving Addendum No. 1 to Agreement for City Attorney/ Civil Legal Services. Mr. Clerk, will you read that by title only? Berg: Thank you, Madam President, members of the Council. Resolution No. 03-413, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Meridian setting forth certain findings and purposes, authorizing the Mayor to enter into, on behalf of said municipality, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement, titled Amendment No. 1 to Agreement for City Attorney / Civil Legal Services dated November 18, 2002, by and between the City of Meridian and White, Peterson, Morrow, Gigray, Rossman, Nye and Rossman, PA, for Amendment No. 1 to Agreement for City Attorney / Civil Legal Services. De Weerd: Okay. You have heard the reading of Resolution No. 03-413. Is there any discussion? Bird: Madam President, I do have a question. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: And I think Mr. Nichols can -- basically, what our agreement is, is with the firm of Peterson White, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, but the agreement, actually, is with the understanding that Mr. Nichols is our attorney. I do not see that in here, but is this -- does this just refer to the existing contract that states that? Nichols: Madam President, members of the Council, this simply reflects the parts of the contract that are changed. Bird: Okay. Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 43 of 44 Nichols: And those parts are the amount and the term and what's included within the retainer and what's not included, those two items I talked about earlier. So, that's it. Everything else is the same. Bird: Okay, and I have no problem with that. De Weerd: Thank you. Any further discussion? Okay. I'd entertain a motion. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we approve Resolution No. 03-413, approving Addendum No. 1 Agreement for City Attorney / Civil Legal Services. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Resolution No. 03-413. Mr. Clerk, roll call. Roll Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 16: Executive Session: De Weerd: Okay. We are on to the addition to our agenda, Item 16, Executive Session. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move we go into Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67-2345 B and F. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to move into -- or adjourn into Executive Session. Roll call. Roll Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Meridian City Council Meeting September 23, 2003 Pg. 44 of 44 Bird: I would move that we come out of executive session. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Moved and seconded to come out of executive session. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: No decisions were made in executive session. I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Bird: So moved. Nary: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:16 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: / / ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR DATE ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK