Loading...
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~~ ~°>'