Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmail from Todd Mendel Page 1 of2 Tara Green From: Nancy Radford Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 7:54 AM To: tmendel@cableone.net Cc: Sonya Watters; Tara Green Subject: FW: Primerica Sign City Council Packet - Online Attachments: council.doc Mr. Mendel, We request documentation 7 days in advance to give Council time to review. However, if you have documentation to bring to the City Council Meeting, you can submit that at any time just please make sure the Clerks office gets a copy for the record. Thank you, Nancy Radford From: tmendel [mailto:tmendel@cableone.net] Sent: Monday, June 25,20076:16 PM To: Nancy Radford Subject: Re: Primerica Sign City Council Packet - Online Nancy, Thanks for your notice, but in reading the hearing notice stating additional information was to be received 7 days from hearing date, does little to allow me to provide the supporting documentation gathered to present to the council. I have attached the documentation synopsis, but have numerous attachments and photographs to present. My telephonic call to the planning Department on June 11th, rerquesting whether or not such a notice was necessary, I was informed by "Sonya" that none was required, and I had no idea of said notice and requirements until your email today. Please let me know ifthis documentation will be able to be presented to the council for review, or if a continuance of this matter is possible. Todd Mendel - Original Message - From: t-JJ!f.lj;)'...8.!lldford To: tmQJ]!:tEiI@gableone.net Sent: Monday, June 25,200710:06 AM Subject: Primarica Sign City Council Packet - Online Your City Council Packet is available on our website. For future reference, please save the below link in your "favorites" folder. Follow these steps to access your pending project: http://webJi.o.K.roeridiancity .org/weblin kI (Below Browse on the left side of the page) 6/26/2007 Page 2 of2 Go to City Council MeetlnQs Go to Meeting Date Go to your Project Name to view the items on the Agenda If you have any questions, please give us a call. Thank you, Nancy Radford Meridian City Clerks Office (208) 888-4433 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by A VG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476/ Virus Database: 269.9.7/868 - Release Date: 6/25/2007 12:20 PM 6/26/2007 June 23"\ 2007 Meridian City Council Meridian, Idaho, 83642 RE: Denial ofsign permit for leased property at 1640 W. Cherry Lane #100, Meridian, Idaho. Dear Mayor and Fellow Council Members; The following is a synopsis of the details surrounding the sign permit request, and subsequent denial by the Planning and Zoning Department of the City of Meridian. In March, 2006, the business "Primerica", a member of the Citigroup companies, reached a rental agreement for 2500 square feet of usable rental space located at 1640 W. Cherry Lane with Stormer LLC, the owner of that complex. This estimated $240,000 rental agreement with triple net and annual increases, was largely influenced by the signage rights to the middle brocade of that structure. The middle brocade of that property was adjacent to our main entrance, located just 14 feet from our entranceway, and 8 feet from our inside linear wall of our front entrance. The middle brocade was above entranceway #110. Space #110 was unfinished construction, and was cut to less than half its original size, since our construction build out ofrentable square footage was "L" shaped and took the entire back portion of this space for #110. The middle brocade also was above #120, which was part of "Evergreen Chiropractic" which was leased space who's entranceway was at #130, and signage above that entrance, and the whole Eastern wall of the building facing Linder. The remainder of space #110, was available for expansion in the future as needed. Our lease arrangements included signage in the front Center of the building, facing Fairview, and the western wall facing inwards to the mall area. We had no agreement to obtain any free standing display on the complex free standing signage. Our middle signage did not impede or obscure any business located directly beneath its display, and was agreed. to by the Landlord, who was provided a diligent visual pre approval display by "Premier Signs" prior to it being erected. The signage also was approved by our Home Office in Atlanta, Georgia, and was found to meet all regulatory requirements of a trademarked company for our business needs. The signage met all the requirements as set forth in the lease agreement, and subseqnently that of the "Planned Sign Program" then available for that site; "Cherry Crossing Shopping Center", which had been approved by the City. It was my understanding, that any additional approval needed. from the City would and had been obtained by my contracted sign company, "Premier Signs". About 10 months later, the landlord rented out the remaining space of #110 of that complex to "BffiS" a bicycle retail business, whose front entrance was partially below our middle building signage. "BffiS" obtained no signage approval from landlord per letter dated May 4th from landlord to tenants. They currently display on the freestanding complex signage, and the front of their business windows. Any signage must have landlord approval, for which he has only given to "Evergreen Chiropractic" and "Primerica" for their existing signage, including the sign in question, as noted on the Cherry Crossing Sign Program docwnent. On the 1.t of May, 2007, the City Planning and Zoning notified me that the center sign was in violation, due to not obtaining a City sign permit, so I immediately initiated the fee and paperwork for this to be accomplished. On May 11th, 2007, I was denied the City permit, base on three specific signage codes. 1. The assertion that the middle center sign was "off premise sign" by code definition. "A sign that is not related to the properly upon which it is located or to the activity being conducted thereon" This is ludicrous since we were 40% of the entire rentable square footage of the building thereon, and where the sign was located. Nothing in the City code reflects that signage needs to be directly above your entranceway. "Thereon" reflects the entire premises of that building. 2. Per UDC-11-3D-8D; Wall llI'ea shall mean the wall surface of a single tenant structure or the storefront of a mu/titenant structre. Again, I don't have any qualms with this definition as there is available wall front and wall area available below the middle center sign to accommodate another tenant located below the center brocade. Obviously this wall space has less visibility, but available nonetheless. 3. Furthermore, under UDC-11-3D-9D3; Wall signs llI'e permitted in any number, location or orientation, except towards an adjoining neighborhood residential properly, provided thtd the square footage does not exceed eighteen percent of the wall space upon which the sign is placed, or nine percent of the wall if combined with afreestanding sign on the same lot. The assertion here is our sign was larger than golo of the wall face on which it was placed, where the city was in false assumption that we had a freestanding display, of which we don't, therefore we are allowed 18% of the wall on which it is placed, which we do not exceed. Further, the:first sentence above only asserts that the orientation and location is within code, as we don't face a residential neighborhood. Upon full review of the lease agreement, the "Cherry Crossing Shopping Center" planned sign program, and the City Code, our sign does not violate any standards or regulations as set forth in any of these docwnents, therefore; we request that our sign pennit be granted and subsequently be left in place. Thank you, Todd O. Mendel Sr. Vice President, Primerica Financial Services a Citi company Attachments include: Opening photo of our signs and office in June 2006 as approved by Landlord Pre approval signage proposal submitted by "Premier Signs" to Landlord, and regulatory department. Basic Lease Provisions and sign program docwnent of our lease. Cherry Crossing Shopping Center Sign Program docwnent. City Code areas cited. Miscellaneous signs throughout Meridian, showing similar situations, and where "over the entranceway" is not a requirement, nor is being on the same wall of building. Current Photograph of our building sign, and that of the other center brocades within the mall area The sign permit denia11etter from Planning and Zoning The appea1letter and substantiation from Primerica to Planning and Zoning Letter from Landlord to tenants, dated May 4th specifically naming Primerica as approved by him. Current photograph of tenant signage for building, reflecting no freestanding sign for Primerica, and the plastered signs of BIBS in suite #110, on windows, in handicap zone, and with the makeshift skateboarding and bicycle ramp in the parking lot.