2009 08-06Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting August 6, 2009.
Special Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of August 6, 2009,
was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Moe.
Members Present: Chairman David Moe, Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay,
Commissioner Tom O'Brien, Commissioner Michael Rohm and Commissioner Joe
Marshall.
Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Pete Friedman, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Tom O'Brien
X Michael Rohm -Vice Chairman X Joe Marshall
X David Moe -Chairman
Moe: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the regularly scheduled
meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for August 6th, 2009. I'd like to open
the hearing and ask the clerk to call roll, please.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
Moe: Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. Commissioners, on --
Items 4, 5, will be continued to a later date and we will take care of that when I open
that hearing. Other than that everything will stay the same. So, can I get a motion to
accept the agenda as it was changed or will change?
O'Brien: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and second to approve. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of July 23, 2009 Special Meeting:
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
09-005 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Public Education
Institution in an R-4 zoning district for Willowcreek Elementary by
Joint School District No. 2 - 2500 W. Tango Creek Drive:
Meridian Planning and Zoning
August 6, 2009
Page 2 of 11
Moe: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. There are two items one is the
approval of the meeting minutes of the July 23rd special meeting of the Planning and
Zoning and the second item is the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for
approval of CUP 09-005. Are there any questions or comments?
O'Brien: One question, sir.
Moe: Yes, sir.
O'Brien: Did I see that on the -- on the minutes that read after the meeting -- the last
meeting it showed that Michael -- Mr. Rohm was absent or not here. I didn't see a
check mark on this name.
Moe: I did not note that.
Hill: It does show that he wasn't here. He was, though.
Moe: That will be changed.
Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner O'Brien.
Moe: Good catch. Anything else? Okay. So, can I get a motion to accept the Consent
Agenda?
Marshall: So moved.
O'Brien: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda with the one
change. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from June 4, 2009: RZ 08-005 Request for
Rezone of 26.58 acres from an R-4 to an R-8 zone for Cavanaugh Ridge
by Kastera Development, LLC -east of S. Meridian Road and south of E.
Victory Road:
Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from June 4, 2009: PP 08-010 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval for 255 residential building lots and 26 common
area lots on 91.08 acres in an R-4 and proposed R-8 zoning district for
Cavanaugh Ridge by Kastera Development, LLC -east of S. Meridian
Road and south of E. Victory Road:
Moe: Because we have such a large audience tonight, I don't think I really need to
instruct the audience tonight. So, therefore, I will, then -- I will now open the continued
Meridian Planning and Zoning
August 6, 2009
Page 3 of 11
public hearing RZ 08-005 and PP 08-010 for Cavanaugh Ridge for the sole purpose of
continuing both hearings to the regularly scheduled meeting of September the 3rd,
2009. Can I get a motion?
Rohm: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the continuance of RZ 08-005 and PP
08-010 for Cavanaugh Ridge to September 3rd, 2009. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Hill: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Yes.
Hill: Also, for the record, we are requiring the applicant to renotice that, too, because it's
been so long.
Moe: Okay. Thank you very much.
Item 6: Public Hearing: ZOA 09-002 Request to amend the standards for
temporary signs listed in UDC 11-3D-6A.6 to allow an increase in the
amount of time a temporary sign may be displayed from 90 days to a
maximum of 180 days for UDC Text Amendment -Temporary Signs by
City of Meridian Planning Department:
Moe: Next item on the agenda is the public hearing of ZOA 09-002 for the UDC Text
Amendment For Temporary Signage by the City of Meridian Planning Department.
And, please, go forward.
Friedman: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. As Mr. Chairman indicated, this is a
zoning text amendment by the Planning Department to amend the UDC to extend the
time that temporary signs maybe erected. As you know, we have a limitation right now
on 90 days per year. The proposal is to increase that to 180 days per year. But,
however, this is seen as an interim measure. By way of background, the whole
temporary sign timing thing has been creating a number of challenges for code
enforcement given the current economic atmosphere. Some of our -- more than one or
two of our business owners -- many business owners are feeling that they really are
feeling constrained by the 90 day time limit and we have had an increase in code
enforcement activity. Those concerns have been communicated to the city at all levels.
We met with the City Council to discuss a couple options. One being, you know,
Meridian Planning and Zoning
August 6, 2009
Page 4 of 11
eliminate the time period all together, although we indicated that would be -- kind of a
tough Genie to get back in the bottle once we eliminated it. Another one was to just
double the time that they could be allowed. Staff and the city attorney's office have
been working on an entire new sign code. They have completed or almost have
completed the draft. Right now the thought is that they are going to get that draft
completed, assemble an advisory committee. That draft code -- and hopefully have it to
you for your consideration -- I believe the time line would probably be around October or
November, with the goal of getting it to City Council in November -- December, with
adoption at the end of the year. All signs would be discussed and reviewed in that code
and I don't know -- I can't answer what thoughts have gone into temporary signs and so
forth, but they will be addressed in one manner or another. So, really, this is seen as an
interim measure that would probably stay in effect until the new sign code is adopted at
the end of the year. So, with that staff is recommending approval of this text
amendment and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Moe: Thank you. Are there any questions from staff? Mr. Marshall.
Marshall: Mr. Chair? Pete, I assume, though, then -- and I think I have this correct -- is
that the new sign amendment that would be seen in October, November would
supercede what we are talking about tonight?
Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Marshall, Commission Members, it would stay
in effect -- this amendment, if adopted by the City Council, would stay in effect until
some other code provision replaces it.
Marshall: Got you.
Friedman: So -- and our anticipation is that -- or at least our goal is to have Council
action on a new code by the end of this year. By the end of December.
Marshall: Comments.
Moe: You've still got the floor, sir.
Marshall: Having a degree in business management I fully understand the power of
advertising. When economic times are difficult, as they as now, the need to advertise is
even more important. All of us are impacted by this economic down turn and wanting to
see our local businesses succeed. I want to do everything in my power to help them.
That being said, I want to consider what the city can do to help local businesses attract
customers. Where the main goals of the Planning and Zoning Commission is to help
guide development in a manner that provides a safe and attractive environment that
people want to frequent, temporary signs are temporary for a reason. They do not
replace permanent signage. I have never met anyone that has called them attractive.
In fact, I have met many people who called them a blight or an eye sore. They are
intended to draw attention. If they did not, no one would use them. Rather than
banning them, I feel the city has correctly allowed their use on a temporary basis. This
Meridian Planning and Zoning
August 6, 2009
Page 5 of 11
allows special sales, advertisements, and one-time offerings to catch people's attention
as they drive past an establishment. They alert potential customers that some --
something special is coming or currently underway. These limits also keep the eye sore
or blight in check, creating a more attractive streetscape that consumers want to
frequent. Having taken numerous classes in advertising, I am aware that humans tend
to take notice of the new and unusual. Our brains are hard wired to evaluate everything
in front of us and anything that is common or common place or seen again and again, is
given a lower priority for our brain to evaluate. Therefore, things that are new and
changing go to the forefront and a higher priority in the brain. It is this fact that helps
make temporary signage useful. It is not always there. We take notice when it is.
Increasing the time limit for temporary signage decreases its effectiveness. If every
single business were to take advantage of the 180 day limit for temporary signs, we
would have a temporary sign in front of every other business on the street. Maybe I'm a
slow reader, but while driving I cannot read that many signs and still be able to drive. If
there is an occasional sign that catches my attention, I will read it. When there are a
whole bunch of signs close together, I get information overload and I do not read any of
them. If I even try, I know I'm going to run into something. I worry about the person
behind me trying to read them all. Personally, I believe increasing the time limit on
temporary signs on the surface seems like a good thing for business, which I want to
support any way I can. When looking at it holistically, I believe it decreases their
effectiveness, creates a less attractive streetscape, which, in turn, decreases --
decreases the propensity for consumers to visit the area and the decreases traffic
safety. It is for these reasons I'm against increasing the time limits on temporary signs.
On the whole I do not think it's a good idea for businesses or the city.
Moe: Any other comments, Commissioners?
O'Brien: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Mr. O'Brien.
O'Brien: My thought was, in looking at this situation, is that I -- I agree that 180 days is
too long. I -- if it would make any sense to have a business renew or have it previewed
as an extension past 90 days to 180, I think it would be -- it would serve best if -- if that
business would review it again with the Planning Department and whoever and get an
extension pass for 90 days, instead of just automatically putting it out a 180. I'm against
that overall number.
Marshall: If I -- if I understand this correct, a business can come in and apply for five
day, ten day, 15 day, 30 day permits, up for a maximum of 90 days for the entire year.
If I were a business owner I would only want to put temporary signage out five to ten
days at maximum, take it down for longer than that and, then, put it back up. Otherwise,
people see it on a daily basis and they stop reading it. Their brain just puts it at a lower
priority. But they can go up to a maximum of 90 days over the entire course of the year.
One hundred and eighty days is every other day or half the year and if every business
took advantage of it and in these times I think everybody should take advantage of
Meridian Planning and Zoning
August 6, 2009
Page 6 of 11
temporary signage when they can, need every opportunity to advertise that you can. If
they do that much, every other business would have something out all the time.
Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, just a point of clarification and I think you hit
on it already, Commissioner Marshall. Right now the code allows for -- even with a 90
day limitation -- annual limitation for allowing temporary signs to be up for intervals of
15, 30, 60 or 80 days. Now, those businesses that avail -- we have had some that
come in and just take out one permit for the 90 days. And, then, the 90 days elapses
and that's it. We have others that will come in and take them out for 15 days or 30 days
and, then, they will go fallow for awhile and, then, they will come back and get in it, but
it's a new permit every time. And, yeah, it's been interesting, because I have had calls
from people who have taken their 90 days permit, used it, yet a neighboring business
gets multiple permits throughout the next year and they call up and they are not happy.
Granted, it could be every other day, but businesses don't have to take them all out in
one lump sum, they can take them out in intervals, provided they obtain a new permit
for each interval.
O'Brien: Okay. Thank you for clarifying that.
Moe: Any other comments, Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I don't have any problem with the 180 days. I think your utilization
percentage is going to be something well below 100 percent of those eligible to use it,
much like any other utilization percentage for things. So, I have no problem with the
180 days. I would have liked -- I think it would have been nice in here maybe to have --
you can't take -- can take one out for 180 days at one interval now?
Friedman: Uh-huh.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. On the -- as a prequal to a sign ordinance I don't have any
concern.
Moe: Okay. Any other comments? No more comments?
Rohm: No more comments.
Moe: No more comments? So, are there any motions to be made?
Newton-Huckabay: Let's see. I will try one and see if we can get them -- yeah. Mr.
Chair, I recommend we close the public hearing on ZOA 09-002, Temporary Signs Text
Amendment.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
August 6, 2009
Page 7 of 11
Rohm: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on ZOA 09-002. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Newton-Huckabay: I just have one question of my fellow Commissioners.
Commissioner Marshall, Commissioner O'Brien, were you recommending some
alternative or compromise between 180 or just leave it at 90?
Marshall: That's one quarter of the year for me. If I were a business owner I would
want one out there every day of the year, but I think it -- once you open that to
everybody, I think it -- it diminishes the effectiveness and I think one quarter of the year
is very reasonable.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Rohm: I guess I do have one question of staff. If -- how encumbering would it be to
leave it at the 180 -- or, excuse me, at the 90, with one 90 day extension if -- if needed?
Would that make it difficult for staff to execute?
Friedman: Well, we -- Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, we would still -- I mean
one 90 day extension, again, we would still have the people who would have the option
under the existing code language of taking them out in intervals adding up to 90 days.
Now, the one thing I didn't clarify was for the people who have obtained the 90 day
permits now, they couldn't come in and get a 180 day permit. So, in essence, if the
recommendations were to go forward with 180 total, if you already have obtained your
90 day permit and you come in for another sign permit, temporary sign permit, it won't
be for 180 days, it will only be for 90 days. So, it's probably more -- I don't know that it
would be that much of a burden on staff, I mean we process the permits and we track
them. So, if you came in fora 90 day permit and, then, if I heard the question correctly,
wanted to come in for a one time extension of 90 days, it would be another sign permit.
Rohm: With an application fee associated with it?
Friedman: That's correct.
Rohm: Oh. Okay. All right.
Friedman: And, again, for those folks, as the code currently allows them to take them
out in intervals less than 90 days, each one of those intervals is a new sign permit with
a new fee, so they are tracked.
O'Brien: Mr. Chair. Mr. Friedman, what effect will this resolution tonight have on the
changes that are planned for the new signage amendments in the next couple of
Meridian Planning and Zoning
August 6, 2009
Page 8 of 11
months? Will it -- will this become part of that new UDC? Is it going to change or just
be obsoleted and, then, we start all over again?
Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, that's a good question, to which I don't have
an answer. However -- because I have not been a part of the drafting process of the
new code. However, this was -- when staff proposed it, did propose it as an interim
measure. So, I don't believe that this is going to find its way into the new code. I don't
know exactly how they are looking at temporary signs. There may be an entirely new
focus, but I don't know what that is.
Newton-Huckabay: But it would give you the data if there is a run on the Planning
Department to get a temporary sign permit.
Friedman: Yeah.
Marshall: Pete, can Task -- how much is the fee that they are paying?
Friedman: Twenty-three or twenty-seven dollars per permit.
Marshall: See, I'd almost recommend in the new -- it just -- having some background in
advertising, if I were a business owner, I'd only want it out there maximum, you know,
five, ten days at a time over and over again. I would almost want to be able to come in
and fill out one permit for the year and say I'm going to have it the first ten days of this
month and these days -- so, I can get my 90 days or, if it passes, 180 days in one fell
swoop and have that all in one single permit, but --
Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, that -- that, Commissioner Marshall, does
present a tracking problem for us. That's why we have had businesses avail
themselves of this -- sort of the intervals and -- because they know theirs highs and
lows better than anybody else and they are willing to spend that 27 dollars over again.
Because, otherwise, if you take out your permit for 90 days and, then, you take it down
and, then, it goes back up again, code has a tough time -- I mean we have stickers on
them, but it's a very difficult time for tracking that sort of thing. If you take it out, you
know, for Joe's place for 15 days and, then, you come back in and take out another one
for 30 days, we still, you know, have the ability at least to track the number of permits
that you have taken out for the number -- for the period of time that you have taken it
out for.
Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file number ZOA 09-002 as presented in the
staff report for the hearing date of August 6, 2009, with no modifications. End of motion.
Rohm: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve ZOA 09-002 with no modifications. All
those in favor say aye.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
August 6, 2009
Page 9 of 11
Newton-Huckabay: Aye.
Rohm: Aye.
Moe: Opposed?
O'Brien: Aye.
Marshall: Aye.
Moe: Aye. That would be two ayes, three no's. So, that motion did not carry.
MOTION FAILED: TWO AYES. THREE NAYS.
Newton-Huckabay: So -- you could have spoken up before I made the motion and
saved me the sentence.
Moe: But you did a great job.
Rohm: The reason why I voted in favor of the motion is because we are going to get a
new signage code by the end of the year anyway and so this going to be a one time
deal. It will only -- we have less than 180 days left in the year and so there will only be
a one time --
Moe: Okay. And I would tell you the reason why I would say no is just for that same
reason. Why do something now when Pete has made the statement that it probably
won't carry through, so why bother.
Rohm: Just for those people that have -- are desirous of having their temporary
signage throughout the balance of the summer months, I guess. I don't know. Anyway,
that's --
Marshall: And, Mr. Rohm, I would argue if I were a business owner I would want my
temporary sign out there all the time. I -- if I could put it out there permanently I would,
but the idea behind the temporary sign is it's there some of the time. I mean at what
point in time are we no longer temporary and semi-permanent?
Rohm: Well, I don't think that the temporary sign is -- by -- if you had it for 90 days you
can put it out five days this week and four days that next week and two days the
following week and stretch it over a period of a year, I think it's just 90 days from the
date that it's taken out period.
Marshall: Right. And, to be honest, I think most people will -- most businesses that
have .seen will roll it out there and it will stay there on the street for 90 or 180 days for as
Meridian Planning and Zoning
August 6, 2009
Page 10 of 11
long as they can get -- in fact, it appears it's staying longer and we are having code
enforcement problems beyond the permit.
Moe: So, then, stating all this, is there another motion someone wants to make?
Rohm: No.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move
to recommend denial to the City Council of file number ZOA 09-002 as presented on the
hearing date of August 6th, 2009, because I don't think it's appropriate for the city or for
the business owners.
O'Brien: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to deny so ZOA 09-002. All those in favor say
aye.
Marshall: Aye.
O'Brien: Yes.
Moe: Aye. Opposed?
Rohm: Aye.
Newton-Huckabay: Aye.
Moe: That motion carries three to two.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS .
Moe: Commissioners, there is only one other motion to make this evening.
Friedman: Mr. Chairman, before -- Commissioners, before you make that motion I have
one other item for you.
Moe: I'm sorry?
Friedman: I have one other item for you tonight not on the agenda, just an informational
item. You're scheduled to have a joint meeting with the City Council on the 18th to have
a presentation by the Urban Land Institute on Development 101. Originally that was
scheduled from 5:00 o'clock until 7:00 o'clock, I believe, if you haven't received notice.
It will be from 5:30 to 7:00 o'clock.
Hill: I e-mailed them that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
August 6, 2009
Page 11 of 11
Friedman: Okay.
Moe: Yeah. I got that notice as well. All done?
Friedman: I'm all done.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move we adjourn.
O'Brien: Second.
Newton-Huckabay: Second. Third.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded twice to adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: We are done at 7:27.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:27 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
AP OVED
~- 8 ~ i~
DAVID MOE -CHAT AN DROVED
O r ar8,/i' ..
~~ ~ q P 0 ~pq r~,~
ATTEST: tj ~~` -~ '~o ?~
~~
1 '~ ~~~~~o~~.
JA CEE HOLMAN, CI CLERK ~' cU ~ ~ o
o S T 7, y ti~ ~~ ,~~
"~ ~ ooccxoa ~ 4~~ ~°>'