Advanced Sign Design Review Comment Responses
4/30/21
Alan Tiefenbach
Meridian Planning & Zoning Dept
33 E Broadway Ave
Meridian, Idaho 83642
RE: DESIGN REVEW & CZC COMMENT RESPONSES FOR ADVANCED SIGNS NEW BUILDING
Alan,
Please find enclosed responses to your initial comments regarding our application.
1. The applicant should be aware there is a 20’ landscape setback shown along the south perimeter of Lots 1-5, Block 3 of
the Olson and Bush No 2 subdivision. In order for the applicant to build across this easement it must be vacated through
City Council. The property owner at 2675 E. Lanark St. recently had the same issue and did vacate the easement along
their lots. A copy of the staff report is included. Vacation of the easement and consolidation of the lots under a property
boundary adjustment (PBA) will be a condition of approval of the CZC which will be required prior to building permit.
Response: We are aware of this requirement and intend on submitting a lot line adjustment to combine the four lots utilized for
this project and vacate the easement. If possible, we would request that this requirement be allowed to happen concurrently
with the building permit review process and not be required as a condition to be completed prior to submission for building
permit.
2. 11-3A-3. (Access to streets) states for any property that takes direct access from an arterial and/or collector roadway,
where access to a local street is not available, the property owner shall be required to grant cross-access/ingress-egress
easements to adjoining properties. E. Lanark Street is classified as an Industrial Collector. The site plan and landscape
plans should be revised to grant access to 2761 and 2755 E. Lanark St (properties to the west).
Response: Per email dated 3-14-21, cross access is not required due to the adjacent lots being developed with access to
Lanark. Additional landscape planter identified in the same email as being required has been added to the revised site and
landscape plans.
3. UDC 11-3A-6 (Ditches, laterals, canals, or drainage courses) states that irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, sloughs and
drains may be left open when used as a water amenity or linear open space, as defined in section 11 -1A-1. All other
Advanced Signs New Building
Design Review and CZC Comment Responses
P a g e | 2
irrigation ditches, laterals, sloughs or canals, intersecting, crossing, or lying within the area being developed, shall be
piped, or otherwise covered. Has the Snider Lateral, which bisects the property at the south, been piped?
Response: The Snider Lateral is currently in engineering design to be piped across many of the lots and Advanced Sign is
participating in that process.
4. 11-3B-7 – C (Landscape buffers along streets) states all street buffers with attached sidewalks shall be measured from
the back of sidewalk. Where ACHD is anticipating future widening of the street, the width of the buffer shall be measured
from the ultimate sidewalk location as anticipated by ACHD. It appears the 20’ wide required buffer along E. Lanark St
was measured from back of curb, which is only allowed for detached sidewalks.
Response: The landscape buffer along Lanark has been increased and measured from the back of sidewalk and is reflected
on the revised site and landscape plans.
5. DC 11-3B-7-C3 (Landscape buffers along streets) states a minimum density of one (1) tree per thirty-five (35) linear feet
is required. If this calculation results in a fraction of five (5) or greater, round up to an additional tree. If the calcula tion
results in a fraction less than five (5), round the number down. The property frontage along E. Lanark St is 345’ +/-
requiring 10 trees whereas only 8 are shown (the trees in the islands cannot be counted). Based on the survey provided
by the applicant, the frontage along N. Olsen Ave is 777 feet, requiring 22 trees. Only 17 are reflected on the landscape
plan.
Response: The landscape Architect had subtracted the width of the drive approaches from the calculations. The landscape
plan has been revised to include the total distance of the property with the exception of the overall distance along Olson is
approximately 600’ not 777’. The additional 177’ is a separate lot that extends to Franklin that is not a part of this proje ct.
Refer to revised site and landscape plans.
6. 11-3A-19 (Structure and site design standards) states for properties greater than two (2) acres in size, no more than fifty
(50) percent of the total off street parking area for the site shall be located between building facades and abutting streets.
All of the proposed parking is located between the building facade and abutting streets. The applicant either needs to
revise the site plan, or request alternative compliance as described in 11-5B-5. If alternative compliance is the option
chosen, please note there are conditions to be met and findings to be made. The applicant should submit a letter
describing how the requirements are met. The fee for alternative compliance is $160.
Response: We will be requesting an alternative compliance for safety considerations including adding an additional landscape
buffer in the center of the parking lot facing Lanark to help soften the impact of the multiple double loaded rows of parking.
Advanced Signs New Building
Design Review and CZC Comment Responses
P a g e | 3
7. The site plan indicates a parking structure, but no detail, elevations or materials have been submitted for this structure.
Response: The parking structure will be similar to the patio covering and is illustrated on the new sheet A4-51 indicating the
proposed structure. This item may or may not be a part of the final design depending on overall project costs.
8. Architectural Standard 2.1A states buildings with rooflines 50-feet in length or greater must incorporate roofline and
parapet variations. Variations may include step-downs, step-backs, other modulation, or architectural features such as
cornices, ledges, or columns, and must occur in total combination for at least 20% of the façade length. May be averaged
over entire façade but may not exceed 75-feet without a break. This maximum appears to be exceeded on the north and
east elevations. Staff is less concerned with the south and west elevations as these would be marginally visible.
Response: This project is in an older developed M1-D section and is four of the last lots to be developed on a dead-end cul-d-
sac with virtually no pedestrian traffic. Due to the location and lack of pedestrian traffic we are requesting consideration with
the following modifications to the design. We have modulated the parapet and changed colors where it is appropriate to
emphasize entries and the main corners of the buildings. The north wall does have one section that exceeds this standard but
to add additional elements, colors or offsets will ultimately detract from the overall design and make the portions we have
emphasized (the three tenant entries) less important. We have modified the east wall changing the rustication pattern, changing
the panel color and eliminating one upper window to add a visual break that does comply with the 50’ change requirement,
however we are not proposing to adjust the parapet height as again that does not add any value to the modifications and
attempts to add visual importance to a location on the building that does not need attention by a potential visitor. With these
modifications we are requesting that our application be approved as revised.
9. Architectural Standards 3.1A and 3.1B require building modulation of at least 50-foot intervals for buildings greater than
150 feet. Qualifying modulation must be at least 6-inches in depth, be at least 8-inches in width or height (whichever is
narrowest) and occur in total for 20% of overall façade elevation. Is this requirement met and how? It appears there a re
sections greater than 50’ without modulation of at least 6 inches deep and 8 inches wide.
Response: Similar to response #8, we have provided substantial modulation at the building entrances to emphasize their
importance. Adding additional materials of 6”x8” projection we believe will not provide any enhancement from the street for
the proposed design and considering the use, the location and the existing surrounding structures we ask that all of the
additional upper clear story windows we have included on all elevations be allowed as a substitution for the 6x8 projection ,
these provide a material change and break up the elevation more than a small bump of arbitrary material will and provide a
valuable daylighting function in an industrial building. Most industrial buildings generally are of solid wall design and we believe
the windows that are not required provide a better solution than an additional material bump.
Advanced Signs New Building
Design Review and CZC Comment Responses
P a g e | 4
10. Please indicate the type of material on the “bottom band” of the building. This is not called out in the elevations.
Response: The bottom band is a color change to P2 as indicated on east elevation ‘B’ on sheet A2-01.
11. Architectural Standard 5.3 required integration of roll up doors into the building design. This does not appear to be met
on the east.
Response: All overhead doors are intended to be painted or prefinished to match the wall colors and is illustrated on the revised
elevations.
12. Please provide a “cut sheet” that indicates all light fixtures are downcast and shielded.
Response: Refer to included lighting cut sheets.
13. Drive aisles need to be 26' Wide for ladder truck access.
Response: Refer to revised site plan, drive aisles adjacent to the building have been widened to be a minimum of 26’ wide as
required by the fire department.
14. Please place a hydrant on the property within 100' of the FDC.
Response: Refer to revised site plan now calling for a new fire hydrant along Olson and within 100’ of the proposed FDC
location on the East wall of the building.
End of responses. We hope this will meet with your approval and allow us to proceed with the next phase of the project. If
you have any further issues, please feel free to contact me.
Thank you
Respectfully,
Wesley Steele - Owner
steele architecture