Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEagle Partners Chevron and McDonald Sign Review 3-1999 • HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY Mayor ROBERT D. CORRIE A Good Place to Live LEGAL DEPARTMENT Council CITY OF MERIDIAN UBLIC WORK P S CHARLES ROUNTREE 33 EAST IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT GLENN BENTLEY MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (20x1 sal-~~ I I RON ANDERSON Phone (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 PLANNING AND ZONING KEITH BIRD DEPARTMENT (208) 884-5533 TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: March 2, 1999 _ TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 26, 1999 HEARING DATE: March 9. 1999 FILE NUMBER: REQUEST: SIGN REVIEW FOR CHEVRON ~ MCDONALD SIGNS BY: EAGLE PARTNERS LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: NW CORNER OF EAGLE RD & MAGIC VIEW TAMMY DE WEERD P/Z MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z MARK NELSON, P/Z BYRON SMITH, P/Z KEITH BORUP, P/Z ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR RON ANDERSON, C/C CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C _KEITH BIRD, C/C GLENN BENTLEY, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT _POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORN EY _CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL) IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ADA COUNTY (ANNEXATION) YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: ~,{ °" ~ CIT F MERIDIAN, BUIL 1 G D EPARTMENT 33 B. Idaho, Meridian, ID 83642 ~ (208) 887-2211 ~'`~- w~ COMMERCIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION 1. Legal Description: Lot Block Subdivision 2. Street Address (city will assign if new construction): 6-~ ~ 4' ~~ R ~~ ±4-- '~ ~~ i ~~~ 3. Owner (if other than contractor): ~ ~ ,y ~ v` ~= '%~! ,>~ '! ~~- ~--'~'~ 4. Contractor: ~'~°~'~'~ ~c:e,r~°~', ;~ ~~ o d S ~[~ s Phone:.."`., ~. c'~ c.~ !~ i Address: ~^ = ~ ~" ~ ~~ t=' ~3 ~ ~"' ~' ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~«} ~'`=` ,~ ~" ~ x~,, k' ~ ~ ~:~ Number ~~ Street City State Zip 5. I hereby Submit tHis Building Permit Application to Construct or Install: ^ New Commercial Building : Sq. Ft. , Required Plans and Specifications: Site Plan (including lot lines, private & public utilities, drainage, easements & North arrow) D Foundation Plan (including ventilation, re-inforcement and frost walls for stoops and overhangs) Floor Plan (including window & door sizes, ventilation) ~ - - - - - - - - - - - ~ Roof, Wall and Floor Framing Plan ~ • • ~ 0 Elevations (including roof slope, attic ventilation, chimney heights) I ~ - I D Mechanical Plan (H.V.A.C. ducting systems) I Value: 'L~ > I ~_~~ (~ Drainage Plan (including calculations) I -~ D Electrical Plan I Permit Fee: (~ Plumbing Plan (~ Landscape Plan I Plan Check : I Fire Sprinkler Plan I I D Other, Specify ' ~~ ` ~' ' '"•'' I Total: - - - - - - - - - ~ .~]~-Other, Specify -j` ~~ t-~ '" ~?,~ _ f~ ~ <.1 a I Specify use of building, if warehousing, specify what type of materials are to be stored. Declaration: I hereby certify that I have completed this application in a true and correct manner. All City of Merid- ian ordinances will be complied with whether specified herein or not. The granting of a permit does not presume to give authority to violate or cancel any state or local law regulating construction. Signature of Owner or Owners Authorized Agent FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY: THE FOLLOWING DEPARTMENTS MUST REVIEW AND APPROVE THIS APPLICATION: ^ BUILDING, ^ PLANNING, ^ ENGINEERING, ^ FIRE FEB-19-1999 1~~1" BPS APCHITECTS 2~8 336 838E P.~2%'D2 F~QI'1 JOHN AUSTIN ! Fa>' N0. 2D°~ ~ 76390 ~ Nov. ?S 1°98 0E~' 12YM P1 ~~ ~;~HTBIT ~~ . l1 'L7 ~~ S DESCRIP3~ION OF C~1rRON PARC1=.].. T_3 Iv'. R.1 Ir., B.M., City of Meridian, Ada A parcel of land in the SE'ia NE'~< of Section 17, , . County, Tdabo, being a portion of I,ot l of the Amended lvia.~c view S+~lv~'°~ ~'~ official p}at of which is recorded in Book 52 of Pfau at pagC 4445 and being more paRicutarty described aS follows; Cotssmcacing 8t tfie east l/4 corner of said Section 17, marked by s brass cap monument m Eagle Road (State Highway No. 5~) and located S_OU°22'18"E., 2652.85 feet from the brass cap tnanuruent in the intersection of said Eagle Road and Wzst Franl:lzti Road which marks the northeast corner of said Section 17; thence, N.00`22' 18"1iJ.,749.74 feet along the east line of said SCGLIOA T 7 to the point of inersection of same with the centerline of Nfa;iC View Dave; thence, S.S9°3$'?7"w., 96.45 feet along said centerline to the point of intersection of same with the westerly right of way line o;P said Eagle Road, as described in Decd Instrument no. 8843782; thence, Northerly, along said westerly right of wad' line along a curve to ~e right having $ radius of 5799.58 feet, as arc length of 48.28 fact, a central angle of 00°28'37", a chord bring of N.O 1 ~34'I8"fi., and a chord distance of 48.27 feet to the POi~'T Ulr BEGINIITING; thence, 5.45°43'31 "VJ_, ?7.74 feet along Lhc pmposcd new northerly rivht of way line of Magic View Drive to an angle point in same; thcricc, 5:89°38'27"W., 279.35 feet along said new northerly right of way Line (29.00 feet from center) to a paint in the west lu-e o#` said Lot 1 of the Amended Magic View Subdivision; thence N.00°fl625"W., 442.31 feet slung said west lot line to s point in tize south righs of way line of a proposed nev.~ street; thence, S.39°STOS'~., 45.00 feet along said south right of'way Eine to a pointl tl3ence, S_00°06'25"E., 158.00 feex along a tine parallel with and 45.00 feet east of the wit Eine of said Lot T of the Amended Magic view Subdivision; thene~, 5.89°ST95"E_, 268.09 feet along a line parallel with and 2G6.00 feet south of the north Iine of said Lot I, to a point in said westerly right of vac line of Iragle Road; thence, Southerly, along said westerly rinht of way Fine, along a curve to the right tisving a radius of 5659.58 feet, as arc lersgtl~ of T.01 feet, a central angle of 00°44'21 ", a chord bearing of 5.03° 19'13"W.. and a chord distance of 73.01 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thcnee, Southerly, along said right of way line, along a carve to tht left having a radius of 5799.38 feet, an arc tenEth of 190.27 feet, a central angle of d1 "5''47", a ci~ord beating of 5_{32°45'00"VJ,, and a chord distance of 190.36 fees to the POL~iI' OF BEG27~r~•I~FG, s8id CHEVRON PARCEL containing 93,335 square feet ~r 2.143 acres, more or less. Loveless Engineering 3330 Grace Street, Boise_ ID x3703 keith A, T oveless, PE & PLS TOTAL P. p2 ~> ~_ 7 5 ~- ~~ ~~ ~'IRZ ran.-~t-+ >,.-,~:-.-~..~ l! -~" v~"u<-~ I i W~~ ~ S ~" I~ ~C?vim I "_ ~~., I i I I .,_--~~~E Fly ~--~ ~, Z-i" =~"~ d+ I I __ I i 1 i E~C~lV~ fwr'~ ~ G"Z ~ vim. C '~~ Y Z~-'-~ i I - - - ~ - - -, I ~ L7.%O..J7 ~i ~ I. r ____ /~ (n r D~ m Q ~ _~ ~ O W ~ ~ ~ m m _~ _~ 0 ~ Z Z D m ~~~~BN ~~~ ~ >? o§o~~ ngpa~mo _~~~~~ ~~~gg~ __~~~~ n~ne£~ m m ~ ~ ? N 2 ~ V ~ ~ V ~ ~ _ m ~0 p L ~ ~ m Z _ ~ 2'-3'h° ^~ z _ ~ ~ ~ ~ D N ~- O m m I` m m ~ mOOF mmm0 D m ~ ?cn D m a r.~ N ~ Z m ~ D ~ ~ ~ m m u N ~ ~ ~ O 0 O N D = = N `m U, _ -+ ~ r ~ ~ mOD ~ Z r ~ - ~ m D ~ ~ ~ m ~ C ~rck: ~ti~ 1 7 ~ ~ n M M /~ 1` ~, ~ A M ~l OD m II O ~ C~IJ Ll U X ~n 2 m ~ _ O 0 _-~ ~ ~ O ` 3 1 m ~ m 9 v n O O _~ O ~. ~ ti • Q Q 0 20'-0 16'-10 1, . ----- 11'-11" Chevron NOTES: CABINETS- ORDER IN ITEMS, INSTALL ONLY. PIPE SUPPORTS- BY I,E.S. PRIMED AND PAINTED 0 o° q M 0 0 DO~UB E~ACE INTERNALLY IL UMINATED ON DISPLAY ALE 1 8" = 1'-0" SKETCH # 7317 FILE: RICK'S/JOBS/CHEV EXT/EAGLRD84 PATE: 2/1 S/99 CUSTOMER: CHEVRON JOB LOCATION: EAGLE ROAD & I-84 ~ ~ ~DAHC e~~~~ f ~Gfll cowe~w ~ I vcv THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED DRAWING/DESIGN SUBMITTED SALES: BOB TOR YOUR PERSONAL USE IN CONNECTION WITH q THE COLORS DEPICTED IN THIS DRAWING ME i0 PROJECT BEING PLANNED FOR YOU BY IDAHO ELECTRIC DESIGNER; BrcdC REVISION # REVISED FROM SKETCH # J249 ASSIST YOU IN VISUAlIZ1NG OUR PROPOSAL AND SIGNS, INC. AND IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED. COPIED OR WAS 9d O.A.H. CABINETS STACKED MAV NOT MATCH ACTUAL COLORS USED ON THE EXHIBITED IN ANV FASHION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION T USING TWO POLES. CHANGED i0 FINISHED DISPU4V OF IDAHO ELE CiRIC SIGNS, INC. SINGLE POLE SIDE BY SIDE CABINETS SKETCH # 731 7 • 12'-3 1 /2" 9'-9'/z' x d 0 0 a 7'-5 " SKETCH # 7317 FILE: RICK'S/JOBS/CHEV EXT/EAGLRD84 CUSTOMER: CHEVRON DATE: 2/18/99 JOB LOCATION: EAGLE ROAD & I-84 • IDAHO P~C~f'fG lIGOJ cowP~lrt ®I vcv THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED DRAWING/DESIGN SUBMITTED SALES; BOB FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE IN CONNECTION WITH A THE COLORS DEPICTED IN THIS DRAWING ARE i0 PROJECT BEING PLANNED FOR VOU BV IDAHO ELECTRIC DESIGNER: Brede REVISION # REVISED FROM SKETCH # 7249 ASSIST YOU IN ViSUALI-NG OUR PROPOSAL AND SIGNS, INC. AND IS NOi TO BE REPRODUCED, COPIED OR WAS 90' O.A.H. CABINETS STACKED MAV NOi MATCH ACTUAL COLORS USED ON THE EXHIBRED IN ANV FASHION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION 1 USING TWO POLES. CHANGED TO FINISHED DISPLAY. OF IDAHO ELECTRIC SIGNS, INC. SINGLE POLE SIDE BY SIDE CABINETS SKETCH # 7317 DOUBLE FACE INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED PYLON DISPLAY SCALE 1 4" = 1'-0" MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING: MARCH 9, 1999 APPLICANT: EAGLE PARTNERS ITEM NUMBER: 14 REQUEST: SIGN REVIEW FOR CHEVRON 8~ MCDONALD SIGNS BY EAGLE PARTNERS AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: SEE ATTACHED TRANSMITTAL INFORMATION CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ,1 ~~ l~ V ~1' 1~ V~ ' I, ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: ~ N CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: ~ ~c All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~. ~! ~1AR-09-99 TUE 1119 AM WESTERN TRAILERS FRX N0. 3441521 P. 02 March 9, 1999 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meridian City Hall 33 E Idaho St Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Eagle Partners LLC Site Plan Review Agenda item for March 9, 1999 Dear Sirs: R~c~Frv~~D J MAR 1 1 f999 ty of Meridi~ :y Clerk a.rr;, It has come to our attention, that of the Greenhills Estates Subdivision, that the above referenced development is now requesting that they be allowed to construct a 100 ft high sign on Magic View Dr. This is a HUGE sign. Does Meridian not have a sign ordinance? In all of the applicants testimony for the last 3 plus years they have always stated that they were only asking for signage that would be monument type or no taller that the buildings. We strongly object to this request as it is in direct opposition to the APPLICANT'S testimony and promises made before the P8Z Commission and the Meridian City Council. They must be made, if this project survives the courts, to live up to their prior promises. We strenuously request that this sign be denied and the applicant be made to live up to his original promises, especially as regards to signage. Please enter this letter into the records. e ly yours, Richard C. Williams 3133 Autumn Way Meridian, ID 83642 Cc: Phil Barber, Attorney at Law MAR 09 '99 10 15 3441521 PAGE.02 MRR-09-99 TUE 11 18 AM WESTERN TRAILERS FAX N0. 3441521 6700 Bt:smess Way STERN RAIIERS~ Boise ltlaho 63"5 PhonE <208) 341•i539 s ~, 6_ i-_ PicmeeritLq 't2asler tr~nevaCOn SincY I9L9 AR 1 P. 01 ~i-'~ i 1999 t.y of Ilieridia-~ TO: 1 Dr` v`l~i~~,gfv ~ ATTN: ~"~' TELEFAX #: ~S~ y~~c~ DATE: `3 ~ ~~ ~ FROM: _. ~"`4 l1/6~'Q'~1-f _ This ~ P~9e / of ~ documents, including this document. FAX NUMBER: (208) 3441521 MAR 09 '99 10 15 3441521 ~~~ PAGE. B1 '1~u~r~ia & ~lf.~iia'~ac~ ~In~ci yct~o~t Dia.~zict 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-463-0092 Will Berg, City Clerk City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Meridian, ID 83642 Re: CUP for Signage for Chevron C-Store Dear Commissioners: Phones: Area Code 208 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 U N - 7 199 The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on the above referenced application. Sincerely, ~~ Bill Henson, Asst. Water Superintendent NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT BH:dln Cc: File -Shop File -Office Water Superintendent APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS 40,000 03 June 1999 ** TX CONFIRMATION REPORT ** AS OF APR 22 '99 11 03 PAGE. 01 CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE TIME TD/FROM 02 0422 105? 208 338 9409 MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS EC--S 06'04" 015 a68 OK HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY Mayor ROBERT D. CORRIE A COOd Place to Live ~z~~~;l M~n~~-t~ CITY OF MERIDIAl`J CHARLES ROUNTRFF 33 EAST IDAHO GLENN BENTLEY MERiDLAN, IDAHO 83642 RON ANDERSON Phone (208) 888-4433 • Fax (203) 887.4813 KEITH BIRD LEGAL DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS 6UILDING DEPARTMENT r_oy) yy~ __) I PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT (20S) SS1-5573 24 nFACSIMILE COVER SHEET FAX NUMBER: ~"JC~~ `~~~~ DATE: TITLE/DEPARTMENT: CONFIDENTIAL: YES NO~~ TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET): 1~j FROM: CITY OF MERIDIAN - FAX NUMBER: (208) 888-4218 PLEASE CALL US IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL FAX TRANSACTIONS SUCCESSFULLY (208) 888-4433. TITLE'1DEPARTMENT: 0 ' -~~Y r•--~ l ~ COMMENTS: "li (~i4~`Q/~ I~'~ IYll.l1~-~' iVlayor ROBERT D. CORR[E Council Mem re CHARLESROUNTREE GLENN BENTLEY RON ANDERSON KEITH B[RD HL'B OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83632 Phone (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 LEGAL DEPARTMENT (20S) 33-1--1?G.1 PUBLIC ~~'ORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT I2osI ss~-3'I I PLANNING AND ZONWG DEP,4RT~IENT (208) 33-t-533 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET .--, ., FAX NUMBER: ~"~~~ ~~~~'` f DATE: d~. CC -,. TO: TITLE/DEPARTMENT: /1~ CONFIDENTIAL: YES N O__ ~ TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEE:T): 1 7 FROM: CITY OF MERIDIAN - FAX NUMBER: (208) 888-4218 NAME: TITLE/DEPARTMENT: t~ ~. r'. PLEASE CALL US IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL FAX TIRANSACTIONS SUCCESSFULLY (208) 888-4433. COMMENTS: "f Vl~~ ~~ ('t ~,Q~ ~1~% N' 11.1`i I l.L.~%-~.. ~ -~""YIYv~ MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 9, 1999 PAGE 41 (Inaudible) Rossman: It's a written document that constitutes an Order by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission that says it is approved here by approved basically and it recites what the Meridian City Ordinance is and what the relevant issues leading up to that decision were. Borup: So would you like to revise your - De Weerd: Do I need to request Findings then? Borup: Yes. De Weerd: Okay, I would move that we direct the attorney 'to prepare Findings of Facts on our accessory use permit. Borup: Second. MacCoy: Okay all in favor? Smith: Don't we ask you to approve them recommending approval or denial? Rossman: Not on accessory use. What you do is you make a motion somewhat like Commissioner De Weerd did and just move that the accessory use be approved and that we set this over for approval of written findings. Just like we used to before. Smith: So that's basically what the motion said. Rossman: Yes. Written findings indicating approval of the accessory use. You will review those next month and if acceptable approve thern and that will be final action. Smith: Aye. MacCoy: All right we have three ayes. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ITEM NO. 14: SIGN REVIEW: CHEVRON / MCDONALD'S SIGN BY EAGLE PARTNERS-NW CORNER OF EAGLE RD AND MAGIC VIEW: MacCoy: All right thank you very much everybody for your comments and moving on to item 14. We have a sign review which is not a public hearing. But MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 9, 1999 PAGE 42 you're welcome to stay. It has to do with aChevron / McDonalds sign by Eagle Partners. Northwest corner of Eagle Road and Magic View and staff. Stiles: Chairman MacCoy, Commissioners, when the Eagle Partners project was reviewed and approved, one of our comments was that detailed signage plans must be included as part of this application for review and approval. At no time were any plans presented. The approved site plan that they showed did clearly indicate two locations for signage, but just by the symbols that were used on the plan indicated more of a monument type sign than the 100 foot pylon sign they are proposing now. I put it on the agenda for you to review to discuss what might be the appropriate plan of action, whether we need to go to a public hearing. This is a good example of why conditional use permits should not be approved with no signage included as part of their application. I guess - MacCoy: Is that it? Bruce, do you have anything to say? Okay, is the applicant here? De Weerd: For the record, I didn't have anything to do with this one. MacCoy: The applicant is not here I guess. Okay do you want to come forward? Clinger: My name is Bob Clinger. I represent the applicant. I'm with Idaho Electric Signs, and - Rossman: Sir, could you spell your last name? Clinger: C-I-I-n-g-e-r. 6528 Supply Way, Boise. We submitted the application for the sign usage a couple of weeks ago. As of last Friday, we were informed that it would be going before the Planning and Zoning Commission without any formal information, notice or what have you so we're a little bit inadequately prepared so I apologize for that. Our main premise is and I've been involved in this project ever since it's infancy and I understand the sensitive nature of the project. We have issued sign information to the City Council on high signage from the beginning. We never initiated a monument type signage. It was always a freeway oriented type business and because of the sensitive project we realize there's also legal information action pending on it. With the Planning and Zoning Commission we understand that you're facing nothing but the city ordinances. There appears to be no portion of your zoning ordinance which would prohibit the signage that's been requested. As a city the sign ordinance is based on the Uniform Sign Code. We find also there's no section of this code that would prohibit the signage. This also been requested. It's been -~ there's numerous signage in the city that's been allowed. 100 foot signage, N1cDonalds on Meridian Road and just basically what our premise is at this point. The square footage is less than what's in existence with the existing Texaco Station. We're not asking for any electronics, flashing signs. The location of the signage at the MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 9, 1999 PAGE 43 height we feel would be more apropos for the neighborhood. Being higher, it's going to have less light. It's going to have more freeway exposure. Rather than being front right on Eagle Road as far as the high rise sign. The Eagle Road signage being proposed is a 34 foot free standing sign which we feel is adequate. It's not excessive, it's not under signage. Let mE~ I have a blueprint. Like I say we weren't expecting - we thought this was going to be a completely closed session and this was what the information we were given, but this is the signage on Eagle Road. 34 foot free standing sign modest, Chevron sign and modest McDonalds signage. The signage on behind the property at 100 foot tall gives the applicant modest exposure to the freeway for easir and west orientation. Naturally the City Council has given the use permit I'm not sure the gal is use permit to proceed with this property, but the signage with the P & Z Commissioners to look at the ordinance itself permitting the signage is complete modest as you can see compared to the other signage (inaudible) the freeway. Smith: Sir, where exactly does this 100 foot sign? It's not on my site plan. Clinger: Let me show you. Initially we were planning on thE~ high rise sign going on the Eagle frontage. We took our - we did a complete survey east and west of the location using the 100 foot boom truck to see where the best exposure would be with the absence of looking at the new addition of the hospital with the Texaco signage to be able to have adequate exposure. Here we have Eagle Road. Right on Eagle Road here we have the 34 foot monument sign being proposed. In the very back of the property gives us the best exposure for the 100 foot free standing sign. Smith: You just said 34 foot monument sign. Clinger: (Inaudible) Smith: So right behind the trash enclosure. The 100 foot sign is going right behind the trash enclosure at the southwest corner of the property. Clinger: Now if you look at it, initially we wanted it right here. If you put a 100 foot pylon right there that gives direct lighting and exposure to the residents. Putting back farther up 100 foot up back of the trash enclosure, gives not only the business the best advertising but it also obscures the lighting and signage from the neighborhood. MacCoy: Is the lighting for that internal to that sign? Clinger: Yes, it is. MacCoy: Okay so it just makes it glow instead of having spotlight, is that what you're saying? MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 9, 1999 PAGE 44 Clinger: Yes. Rossman: Sir do you have an extra copy of the site plan you're showing the Commission now or do you want to make that an exhibit? Clinger: I'd be more than happy to submit our blueprints. Let me see what have - like I say we're not really prepared basically because of the notice that's been given to us. We really didn't feel that we had adequate notice at all. Unless I made a phone call to the Planning and Zoning Department, we wouldn't have been here tonight. But let me ask you this. I'd be glad to give you all the information you requested by tomorrow morning. Rossman: That's fine. We'll make it part of the record tomorrow if necessary. Clinger: I believe it is submitted in our original application. MacCoy: It's the same one? Clinger: Pardon me? MacCoy: What you have here is the same thing you gave to our Planning and Zoning Department. Clinger: Yes. MacCoy: Okay. Rossman: The blueprints that you're referring to? Clinger: Well yes. Smith: The site plan that indicates all the signage not just Half of it like we got in our packet. Clinger: The complete sign package, canopy signage, building signage, was included in our application. Smith: Which shows the 100 foot pylon sign. De Weerd: Which application was that? Originally? Clinger: The application that we're meeting here this eveniing. De Weerd: Okay, but not when you - MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 9, 1999 PAGE 45 Clinger: The original application we submitted high rise signage in several designs that was proposed. Nothing was in discussion in what the applicant was suggesting or what it was requesting nothing was formally submitted at that time because what my understanding was the Council and you're probably involved in it originally which precedes my involvement with the architects and the principals. The signage has been discussed thoroughly. I can guarantee you that. Borup: Some of that might have been with City Council. De Weerd: Shari, this wasn't part of the conditional use permit that P & Z saw. Borup: I think part-the plat we have, I think just the top part of it got cut off in photocopying. I think that's why it didn't show the sign. Mr. Chairman, I did have one question for the applicant while he is up. (Inaudible) Borup: Do you know the height of the Jackson's sign next door, is that also 100 feet, or is that-do you know what that height is? Clinger: The Jackson sign I believe is 75 feet and probably 500 square foot, with electronics, the flashing lights. We are not suggesting or proposing animated electronics, just basically minimal identification for McDonallds and the Chevron business. Borup: Thank you. Clinger: Would you like the site... MacCoy: Yes we would, would you give it to our city clerk please? Clinger: Do you have the colored designs of the sign proposed? MacCoy: No, our are black and white. De Weerd: Do you Shari have the colors? Stiles: Angel has those in the file. MacCoy: Okay, we do have them. Clinger: Let me leave you with an extra set for your own records. Let me dig that out and I'll bring right back. MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 9, 1999 PAGE 46 MacCoy: This is not a public hearing, so we are not asking for anybody come forward and make pro or con on this. Commissioners what do you want to do? Borup: Did staff have any concern on this? MacCoy: Yes they do. Go ahead Shari, go back and reiterate. Stiles: I would just like to point out that there were some misstatements about what the conditions of the conditional use permit were. It didn't merely refer to the sign ordinance, it said there would be conditions in addition to those contained in the sign ordinance. Commissioners can put any condition they want, if you say there is no signage, you could require no signage. It is part of the conditional use permit. They didn't submit any information, nothing was approved. I think even the sign on Eagle Road is totally inappropriate. We've limited signs on Fairview Avenue to a total height times width of 72 square feet. This is over nine times that square footage requirement. I know it's not a monument, but even the little Chevron and the pay part are 142 square feet. It's huge. I don't think it's appropriate for someone to try to get freeway exposure for a property that does not have any frontage on the freeway. RC Willey will be coming in next, they would like to have a huge sign that you can see from the freeway. There has got to be an end to it somewhere and there are some people from the neighborhood here tonight and I indicated that it was not a public hearing and they wouldn't be able to testify, but I think it's appropriate if-the applicants representative is going to be able to testify, maybe we should have a public hearing on this so they can modify their conditional use permit as this was never included as part of it. De Weerd: Well, I would agree with that, if it's-usually signage is part of a conditional use permit, residents would have a chance to have their say during that public hearing. I would think it would be appropriate to have their input since they were not given the opportunity before. Unless they were at City Council. Did I understand that this was shown to City Council? Stiles: No. De Weerd: No. Smith: Nobody has seen the signage before. Shari has the architect talked to you about specifics on what you would like to see for signage on this project, or have they just... Stiles: No, they have submitted a sign permit application aind that was all we had. De Weerd: What is the normal procedure? MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 9, 1999 PAGE 47 Stiles: Normal procedure is if it's a condition of the conditional use permit, that they get it approved, they get it approved first. Rather than submit for an application. MacCoy: The other thing is our sign committee who we used to have no longer exists, so I've requested that it go through Planning and Zoning, it's got to have some type of surveillance that goes on. That's the reason you are seeing this at this point. Stiles: I would just like to read the two sections out of the development agreement that were included addressing signage. Section 5.1-.23 no signage details were submitted. Detailed signage plans must be included as part of this application for review and approval. That was never done, so we assumed there was no signage. As 5.1.31, all signage shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in section 11-2-415 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance. No temporary signage or flashing signs shall bE, permitted. Submission and approval of all signage plans including but not limited to pole signs, reader boards, banners, etc. and specifically any golden arches type signage associated with the McDonalds, and any outside signage associated with the Chevron Gas Stations. Now, it's a little vague the Nay that's worded there and that's where their attorney has taken liberties to think that meant there were no conditions beyond our ordinance. It says these conditions shall be in addition to the requirements of the Meridian Sign Ordinance. That doesn't mean that they can just submit anything they want and we approve it as they submit it, but that you can set any requirements you want as being consistent with the conditional use permit and being harmonious with the neighborhood and all the other items that you have to find in order to grant a conditional use permit. Smith: There is also a credit union on this site, I would assume maybe incorrectly so that they were going to have a sign too. So this isn't even a complete sign package submittal for that. If you assume alll facilities on the site are going to have a sign. MacCoy: You are correct. Smith: I understand that the gentleman from Young Electric Sign is probably only been contracted to do the McDonalds and Chevron. Clinger: Idaho Electric. Smith: Idaho Electric, I'm sorry. Clinger: Our understanding is that the credit union will only have building signage, no free standing signs will be applied for. MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 9, 1999 PAGE 48 MacCoy: Should've been stated then on the document then... Clinger: I understand that's two separate parcels too. Let me ask you this, since we are really not prepared for this meeting this evening, because of the time concessions and notification. I was wondering if we could possibly postpone it. Defer it to the next meeting where we could have adequate information prepared by the clients and architects and so on and so forth. Let me ask you, I've been here between the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council and City Council is well aware of signage that has been proposed. Naturally, signing permits can not be applied for and I've tried to submit signage a year ago myself, which was not accepted because use permit has not been approved. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? MacCoy: Sure. De Weerd: How was the City Council aware of this through public testimony? Clinger: Through public testimony. We had renderings, wee had ideas, concepts, nothing concrete, but what the applicants ideas were in signage, nothing flashing, nothing-I think what we are submitting right now is very... Borup: So you are saying all this testimony was prior to... Clinger: City Council has... Borup: So there should be minutes available for that? Clinger: Exactly. Borup: Do you know what month that was? Clinger: I couldn't give you the date, but more than happy t:o-the architects and applicant would certainly have that information. De Weerd: Would it be-Mr. Chairman... MacCoy: Yes. De Weerd: Since the applicant wants to come back and have a chance to present this, would that be appropriate to have a public hearing at that time? MacCoy: We could it's our choice. MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 9, 1999 PAGE 49 De Weerd: I certainly think it would be appropriate and perhaps we can have any prior testimony available too to see what has been said. MacCoy: Are you saying this-these go through a conditional use process? Stiles: It should have been part of the conditional use process. Smith: Are you saying that it is not anymore? Or that we acre... Stiles: Well, because it was adetail-it was a condition of their development agreement, it was a condition of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, nothing was ever submitted. I think if signage were submitted and reviewed by council, it would've been reflected in this development agreement, that yes there were signage plans submitted. That is not what the record reflects. I think if the applicants representative has the opportunity to come in and try and state his case, the neighbors need to have that same opportunity. Smith: Right, right, I want to make sure that the applicant knows exactly what he is supposed to be applying for and that the public hearing i:> based on that. Just that all the I's are doted and T's are crossed. Rossman: This would be an application really for a modification of the conditional use permit it's not and with that there is an entitlement to a public hearing and the residents are certain. This does sound likes it's a material change to the original conditional use permit. That process should be followed and I don't know if that calls for a separate application process and whether it's realistic to expect that this would come before the commission in April, I don't know. It would have to have proper notice and the proper applications filed out with the Planning and Zoning Staff. MacCoy: So you are saying that timing is our problem with this one, April 13tn~ Stiles: It would be May before they could get a public hearing. MacCoy: We are already booked for April. Clinger: Mr. Commissioner, members of the commission, let me address one issue. The freeway oriented sign-freeway frontage. Well, who has freeway frontage? Jackson's Texaco does not have freeway frontage. They are not right on the freeway. There is a Holiday Inn--there is a parcel right in front of it which is being built that's not freeway frontage. We are asking for probably a 25%, 75% less square footage in signage than what the Texaco Station has. It's minimal square footage, the height on it is basically to oversee the residents and also have the exposure and advertise two business that they are representing. We are not-to exaggerate that the furniture store on the other side of Franklin is MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 9, 1999 PAGE 50 going to have a freeway sign, is ridiculous. That's complete exaggeration. I'm not here to argue the point, I'm here to represent the client and basically we-I was here to take the information to see exactly what the outcome was. They have no representation here this evening and I'm asking for a formal... MacCoy: I understand, I think we understand what your position is and we are looking also from the standpoint of we want some more time too, because we have some things to consider. I don't think there is any problem with that and I think our attorney raises a very good point that we have that position anyway so that we can have a motion here which would then bring you back at the proper time and we would have a public hearing out of it. So... Smith: Before the motion is made, I would like to encourage the applicant to meet with staff and appropriate parties to review what is being proposed and exactly what it is that the-obviously the city has a lot of problems with this application as submitted and I think whoever the architect is or designers of this, that's responsible (Inaudible) signage, get together and find out what the issues are and address them. Clinger: I appreciate that recommendation. MacCoy: Can we have a motion then? Borup: I just had a couple questions that I would like to get some clarifications on. Maybe understanding which way the city desires to go on signs. MacCoy: You are going to be on that committee. Borup: That's later, this is now. So we need to address this now, specifically the sign on Eagle Road, are we looking at requiring, or encouraging the monument sign. Does that seem to be one of the main... MacCoy: I think you are a little bit premature because there is discussion going on presently with the mayor... Borup: No, I don't think I am. If the applicant is expected 'to design something, they need to know whether we are talking a pylon or a monument sign. How can they even present anything if there is no... MacCoy: Who's going to say that when you've got a committee that is now being formed that includes, will include all of you and you don't have that yet, the mayor is involved and the council is involved and some other people are involved and there is nobody with the same answer. MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 9, 1999 PAGE 51 Borup: Shari is back now, maybe I could ask her, my question was which direction are you looking at going? First of all on the Eagle Road sign, is your desire monument sign along that location, rather than a pylon? Or no sign at all? Let me clarify that in my mind. MacCoy: I don't think that's a fair question for her really. Borup: She said she was opposed to the sign. MacCoy: She is one of several in the group, you can get her to say yea and someone else says nay and then what are you going to say for your answer. Clinger: Mr. Commissioner, what is the definition of a monument sign. You can have a monument sign five foot tall, or you can have a monument sign 30 foot tall. What is the definition of a monument sign? MacCoy: Well, I think it's one of our discussions. What is a monument sign? A monument sign you can go along Fairview and see examples of various sizes of monument signs. Clinger: That's exactly right. MacCoy: A good example is from a different one, on that is; three feet tall, or four foot tall versus the one at Snake River Yamaha down by Eagle and Fairview. Clinger: That's classified as a monument sign. MacCoy: They did a real clever thing by putting the middle of that a time and temperature sign, which got them what they were after too. I think they skirted the issue at the time when they did that because they were granted a smaller monument (Inaudible). Yes there is all different types. Clinger: On a four lane state highway, which is definitely down the road become very much commercial, I think a 10 foot, 15 foot monument sign, quote, end quote is completely inadequate for exposure in advertising for the business. MacCoy: The thing hasn't been decided yet, so we were making a statement that we often make statements sitting here, because a couple of us architects and engineers. We understand your position very well, expect I think if we are going to take your offer and table this thing so you get a chance to come back and you will be fed some material before you come back anyway. So you won't be blindsided in other words. We've got to do some homework, so I think it's fair for both sides. Clinger: Any other questions? MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 9, 1999 PAGE 52 Borup: Just one other observation. I'm not sure (Inaudible;) but, the comment on the freeway sign-I have noticed on the other one there, one Meridian Road they referred to, when I'm driving down East 1St or East 1St, I never notice the sign, but from the freeway I sure do. When it's up there tall enough, I think it's a lot less intrusive in a near proximity than if it were shorter. MacCoy: That will be a discussion we will have in our meeting. De Weerd: Can I ask Shari a question please? Now, back to the question of how to go about this. Do they need to file an official application to modify the CUP or do we table this so they can give proper notification of a public hearing, or what procedure do we follow on this? Stiles: I was hoping that you would decide on that. De Weerd: Do you want me to? Stiles: Yes. De Weerd: I would suggest that we just have a public hearing and just get on with it. Rossman: I think we will probably need to go through a formal application and with proper... (END OF TAPE) Rossman: ...modification of a conditional use permit. Hopefully you understand sir that these people-this is the first time this has been prE~sented, they didn't have an opportunity to testify regarding the signage, because it really wasn't presented to City Council, so they should be afforded the opportunity. Smith: Modification, or completion? Borup: That's my question, how do you modify? Smith: They were told to submit complete sign package for review, before this board as part of the conditional use permit so... Rossman: And did they do it? Stiles: No. MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 9, 1999 PAGE 53 Borup: So is the conditional use permit being modified or are we just proceeding ahead with it? Rossman: That's the question, if you are just proceeding ahead then there is no entitlement to a public hearing because it was already provided for in the prior conditional use permit. This sounds like it rises to the level of material modification-material change to the conditional use permit in light of the issues involved with this particular signage. Borup: Can this commission solicit public input even though it's not a public hearing? Rossman: I don't see anything in the ordinance that would Either permit or (Inaudible) Borup: ...information gathering, isn't it, if we wanted to ask someone out of the audience (Inaudible). Smith: It wouldn't be properly noticed so. Rossman: If you want the city attorney's view point, I would prefer that we proceed in accordance with the ordinance. So if the ordinance provides for modification of a conditional use permit, fine, I can't really advise as to anything, any procedures that aren't identified within the ordinance. There is no ordinance that provides for solicitation of public input, outside of a public hearing. De Weerd: Well, if this is a review, can't we get opinions? Rossman: Your guess is as good as mine on that. De Weerd: I'm not an attorney. Rossman: I am and I'm confined by what the ordinance says. I can't (Inaudible) beyond that. Borup: I would have the same-I think we need more information and we need some input. I question whether it's modification of the conditional use, or just fulfillment of it. Rossman: I don't have the original conditional use permit in front of me. We can't really make that judgement from as we sit here today ar~d whether or not it was permitted under the original conditional use permit or whether we have to go with modification. MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 9, 1999 PAGE 54 De Weerd: Personally I think if the only way we can get a public hearing is to say it's a modification, then it's a modification. That's my personal thought. Rossman: The point I was making is I don't think you are violating the ordinance by determining that. What you are involving here is something that was not presented at the original public hearings with regard to the conditional use permit. The public has not had the opportunity to provide testimony regarding that issue and it is an important issue with regard to this application. I don't think you are stretching beyond your ordinance by requiring a modification. MacCoy: I agree with that-I think he is right. So you can make your statement, your motion. Smith: I'll make it. MacCoy: All right. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we table this item until our May 11th Planning and Zoning meeting to allow modification of the conditional use permit and to allow public testimony for the signage review for this project Chevron, McDonalds and the Credit Union and that we encourage the applicant's architect or designer or persons responsible for the signage ipackage to meet with the city and discuss an appropriate design direction. MacCoy: Is that it? De Weerd: Second, unless you want to finish it. MacCoy: You got a second on it. Any discussion? If not, all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Rossman: The procedure to be followed would be to sir, meE~t with the Planning and Zoning Staff after sometime in the near future about making sure the proper application documents are prepared and we need to ensure that the proper notice is provided for the public hearing. MacCoy: Okay, thank you very much. Okay, we are going to take a break at this point it's 9:30 when we come back, we will be going into a whole list of Ada County Development Service Agreements that we have to taN;e care of by state code. (BREAK) MacCoy: We are now on Item No. 15.