2000 10-25MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2000
The meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Keith Borup:
Members Present: Keith Borup, Sally Norton, Bill Nary, Richard Hatcher, Jerry
Centers
Others Present: Brad Hawkins-Clark, Shelby Ugarriza
Item. 1 Public Hearing: Draft Sign Ordinance
Borup: Tonight is our special meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission to – we are – this is an official public hearing for Meridian’s new
Sign Ordinance. We did have a workshop last month where we went through the
ordinance page by page. We came up with some recommended amendments at
that time. It looks like it’ll be incorporated in. We’d like to start with – well,
maybe I should mention we have all the Commissioners here this evening. Is
that a fast roll-call that way? Yes, the City Attorney did have a previous
engagement and he asked to be excused. I felt with a single item agenda, that
we would be fine. We would like to start with the staff report. I’ve mentioned,
Brad, we’ve – I guess you’re welcome to go over what part you thought would
be pertinent and you mentioned you wanted to hit some things that the
amendments applied to. The time is yours.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. Thanks. Yes, I think maybe the most helpful thing might
be to – I did have a couple of examples of some drawings that will be added to
the definitions section. Right now, the definition section is just text. I believe the
Commission recommended before that we had a couple of drawings in. Yes,
given the fact that you had your workshop, maybe we don’t need to go through
all of this, but generally the purpose and the scope – the 1993 Ordinance lists
only eight types of prohibited signs. Generally, this ordinance is going to help us
be more efficient in staff level. It does not address old town. We are trying to get
together a committee of folks to work on that. I think we had kind of gone over
the background of the ordinance so far. It started last September of 1999 – a
committee of 12 people. We did use Boise Sign Ordinance as a replicable base
an then Cupertino, California and Moscow, Nampa and other models. Here’s the
amended changes that you all received in the memo form. This is one of the
drawings that will add in. As awnings come in, probably, we will see more of
these in old town. We’re going to use, on these awnings, basically 18 percent of
a wall, so it won’t just be this face here on an awning that will calculate the text
on. Kind of the point being, that if you’re walking along the sidewalk here and
you’re looking at this building, even though this sign might be on an awning, in
terms of visual impact, you’re really – the sign is taken in terms of this whole wall
area. 18 percent of an awning like this would actually end up to be a much
smaller sign than what we intended with the 18 percent rule. Here’s an example
of an awning sign in real life color. We probably won’t have a full color
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 2
ordinance, though. That’s usually not what a canopy sign is supposed to look
like. Free standing sign, to just point out to you – this is the canopy area – the
copy area is this hash mark that we’ll be calculating on, but then in terms of the
sign background area, it will be this entire piece here - Basically, any part of the
sign on which copy can be placed. In the back of the ordinance where it lists all
the maximum sizes – the square footages, that is going to be calculated on this
part of the sign here. Just to clarify, I don’t think we addressed that last meeting.
We’ll be excluding these – any of these architectural appurtenances. They’ll be
allowed to have these be 15 percent of the background area. They can do any
number of – there’s signs. Like in Boise, there’s several like the Idaho Angler’s,
if you recognize that on Vista Avenue. They have a fish that kind of hangs down
in the middle of their sign and that would be something like an architectural
pertinence. This would be the sign structure, so all the height would obviously
be from top of the sign to grade. In terms of the background area, that’s how we
would calculate that. The canopy signs – I guess it finally decided to show up
here. This again, we’re going to be calculating 18 percent of a canopy face. The
way it reads now – so most of the time, you’re going to see these obviously at
gas stations and hotels that will have canopies coming out from their main
entrance. We’ll have this in the definition section next to Mansard. We will be
calculating – we don’t see a lot of these come through, but in these Mansard
Roofs, we will be calculating the size of the sign that are allowed on these based
on the 18 percent. They’ll be calculated as a wall sign. An example of a
projecting sign, which we’ll probably see these in old town – actually, the
ordinance currently prohibits these projecting signs except as part of a planned
sign program, so if you have some of these large planned unit developments that
come through – sort of office complexes or commercial retail centers, we’re
going to be asking them to submit all their signage up front with the application.
They could include one of these in there, but you will have a chance, as a
Commission to see those signs and comment on them. Right now, we’ve got, in
the ordinance, a maximum of 10 feet out from the face of wall and a minimum of
12 feet above grade. This is an example of our 20 percent animation, which is
allowed right now, only in the commercial general or light industrial zones. It
would be the only place that animated signs would be allowed – in those two
zones. Even in those two zones, only allowed is 20 percent, so the 20 percent
calculated only on the animated portion, so – and this is kind of done differently
in different cities, but basically, the point being that actually the box that holds the
animation is not going to move. The only part that’s going to move in this sign is
the lettering size. Likely, what we’ll do with staff is require them to submit to us
the height, these letters that will be in the animated and then we’ll calculate the
20 percent of the total background area, which would basically be from this point
all the way down. And the letters cannot be more than 20. I think this is actually
about 25 percent. Maybe it just gives you a sense for the 20 percent. This is on
Fairview. This is an example for you of an 80 square-foot multi-tenant sign,
which is, right now, the maximum center sign in a limited office zone – this Elm
Tree Plaza. That would be the largest size that could go there. Here’s an
example of nine foot single signs, so in the yellow zone, just if one building, they
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 3
would be allowed to have something about that size, which – here’s an example
of a 15-foot 80 square-foot sign which would be either a single sign in a
neighborhood commercial or a C-C zone. The C-C – probably the most well-
known place that we’re going to see these potentially come through is right on
East First. From Cherry down to Carlton is all pretty much zoned C-C. A center
sign in an L-O would be allowed to have this height and about that size of
background area. Here’s an example of what would be a prohibited sign.
Vehicles that are parked for a long period of time that are in a single spot that are
obviously intended just to attract commerce through the vehicle instead of putting
it on the building or on the side there, so I know many of you have gotten
accustomed to seeing our bikini clad woman at the corner of Meridian there.
Likely, that would be prohibited. Anything like that, there are other signs that
would fall into the vehicle sign category. Moxie Java is an example of a roof
sign, which is currently prohibited in the draft. Then the wall sign calculation, so
we’ll – just to give you a sense, it will be using the same idea and the same
concept for these wall signs 18 percent. On these multi-tenants, we’ll take their
store front width times by the height of the grade up to here and 18 percent.
That’s about what that Radio Shack sign is. This Teriyaki Time is a little less.
Borup: Eighteen percent from grade to the roof or just to the canopy?
Hawkins-Clark: I’m sorry. It would be the roof line. Just another example of a
wall sign, this one is Under The Onion there on East 1st
, which is only about eight
percent of the wall, so this is what would be allowed. So if somebody actually
wanted to have two wall signs, they wanted to have a wall sign that was facing a
main thoroughfare, and then they wanted to have another sign that was on the
side of the building or something, we’re saying that you can borrow the
percentage. What we may see quite a bit of, is someone might do like a ten
percent on Fairview, and then on the side of their building, they might do like an
eight percent. So that would be a total of 18 percent. This is not unlike what
Under the Union has done. Although, this is their main entry sign.
Borup: I had a question. What if that building was on a corner – Commercial
corner and they fronted on two streets. Do they get 18 percent of each frontage?
Hawkins-Clark: Not the way it’s written. They would actually be allowed to free
standing signs, though – one free-standing sign per frontage on a corner lot. As
it is now, the wall signs would all still be calculated about the same.
Borup: Was there any discussion of any trade off? I guess I’m thinking in my
mind, and it depends on how it’s done, but sometimes it may be preferable to
have a wall sign than a free-standing sign.
Hawkins-Clark: So you’re saying if they chose not to do a free-standing sign –
Borup: Could they do the wall sign?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 4
Hawkins-Clark: There’s really not an allowance right now that somebody could
do that, but if it’s part of a Conditional Use Permit and somebody submitted that
– that that’s what they wanted to do, then you guys, as the Commission, if you
wanted to override the –
Borup: Well, maybe that’s up to opinion. I guess that’s my feeling. I would
rather see a wall sign than a free-standing sign, normally.
Centers: That was a question. We will have the opportunity if someone wants to
go for a Conditional Use Permit.
Hatcher: I think it should be left open as it is right now. I personally think that a
low profile monument sign is better than a wall sign. I’m not talking about an
Office Value type sign, but more like the small profiles that McDonalds’ has over
at Fred Meyer Center.
Centers: I think it depends on what the retailer likes.
Borup: That’s why I was wondering if there was any trade off where they would
have a choice other than Conditional Use. At this point, that would be it – just to
apply for Conditional Use if they wanted this.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. I’m trying to think of any examples. Until we get to the
point where a lot of our buildings are kind of being brought up towards the road a
little closer, I can see where that would happen. Right now, predominantly, we’re
seeing parking lots before the buildings. The distance is just so far, that I would
think that some kind of free-standing sign would be likely. Like, with the
Landscape Ordinance, if you remember, there was something called Alternative
Compliance that we put in there so that if somebody couldn’t meet the conditions
of the ordinance, there was about six or seven other steps that they could meet
to sort of play with it. We could build in that flexibility here if we wanted. Part of
the thinking – I think, as the committee, we thought 18 percent can actually be a
big sign. You can imagine this sign here being 10 percent larger. They could do
that just outright. It’s certainly a case by case kind of issue. I guess that’s it on
the terms of the examples. I did want to point out three changes that we, as
staff, wanted to recommend. One of these was called in from the ordinance
since your workshop last month. I just would offer them for your consideration.
One of the first ones on page 8, and this is just kind of more of a process thing.
Under the procedures, Section B at the bottom, free-standing and planned sign
programs – we wanted to add one of the requirements for an application to be
that they list all signs that are within 25 feet of their proposed sign, because the
ordinance does not, as it’s written now – the draft does not allow any blanketing
of signs, so you could not have – if you had a sign – an existing sign that was
within 25 feet of yours, you could not have it be the same height – so to avoid
sort of this blanketing effect down the road. So anyway, we’re going to ask, as a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 5
requirement, that they provide us, if there is a sign on an adjacent property within
25 feet of where they’re proposing to put their sign, that they need to point that
out on the application. Is there any issues or discussion on that?
Norton: Would that be No. 10, then?
Hawkins-Clark: Right. Just the other two were sort of consistency things on
page 31 in the C-G zone table. Center signs as currently listed at 30 feet – this
would be a shopping center sign not unlike Crossroad Shopping Center has at
Eagle and Fairview. The suggestion being to raise that to 35 for a maximum
height for a center sign in a commercial zone. I actually think that was a mistake
on my part. I think our committee chose 35. That’s what this Crossroads
Shopping Center currently has. That was part of it, too, just to stay in
compliance or to help them be. So changing that to 35, and then the last one
was on page 34 on the I-84 overlay zone – to change the maximum height for a
free-standing sign in that chart to 40 feet. It’s already listed as 40 earlier at the
beginning of this section.
Borup: That’s what I thought.
Hatcher: No more 100-foot signs.
Norton: That Chevron sign is up, by the way.
Hatcher: I know. I saw.
Hawkins-Clark: So I think that’s, as far as the changes and just some examples,
what we’ve got. We are intending to have an architect or someone give us more
renderings that we show at the beginning of the presentation, but they’re still
working on those.
Borup: Anything else? Any questions from the Commission?
Hatcher: Just a quick question. Brad, did you get enough information from
those contacts I had given you? I can get you some more.
Hawkins-Clark: I did. I still have yet to hear back from Idaho Electric.
Hatcher: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: I appreciate that.
Hatcher: No problem.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 6
Borup: Any other questions? I had a couple that maybe I didn’t understand.
One, on the vehicle signs, have you ran that by the attorney’s office as far as
enforcement?
Hawkins-Clark: The City Attorney received the ordinance – the entire ordinance
as written and asked for any comments. I did not point out the vehicle sign one,
in particular.
Borup: That might be worth pointing out. Maybe not. That looks like that could
be a gray area there.
Hatcher: Enforcement of a vehicle sign?
Borup: Yes.
Hawkins-Clark: It’s not uncommon.
Nary: I don’t know if it’s any different than any other sign that’s non-conforming
to the ordinance.
Borup: But it’s on a driveable vehicle.
Nary: I understand that, but the issue is going to be is is it always there? It’s a
difference between, to me, of a vehicle that has got the business logo on the side
– that it’s a delivery truck. Chicago Connection’s trucks are parked in front of
there a lot, too. Somebody is going to make a determination that that’s a sign
and not just a work vehicle. They’re going to give them a notice to remove it, just
like they would any other sign. They could have a hearing. The Council would
eventually would make a decision that’s a sign and not a work vehicle. You have
to move it. You can’t park it there in that corner every day. You are going to
have to park in a different location. You can’t use that as a sign. Right. There’s
still some gray areas. There’s so much process built into the removal of a sign –
of any kind of sign, that I think they certainly have the opportunity to get heard.
Right. I think eventually the Council is going to have to make the decision. Is
that a sign or a car? I think if you ask anybody, that tan vehicle is a sign. They
may drive it home every night, but that’s a sign. That’s not a car. That’s not
there because it’s just a parking space. I think there’s so much process built in
that it may be something from a decision point later that might give people some
discomfort, but I think there’s enough process that they’ll get a chance to be
heard.
Borup: The other question I had was on the canopy signs. I wasn’t sure how
you were calculating that 18 percent. That was of the roof area and the side
area? You had a nice drawing on that one. One more, I think. No, I meant
awning, not canopy. I’m sorry. Yes, that, and then you had a drawing right there.
So the 18 percent includes the front – the sloped roof part and the sides, or –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 7
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, the arrow is a little misleading. The 18 percent would still
be calculated from roof line to grade – the width of the store front.
Borup: I understood that part.
Hatcher: What is the 18 percent? The lower part that has the text on it, or the
entire height of the awning?
Borup: I thought you were saying the entire height of the awning. That’s why I
was –
Hawkins-Clark: The 18 percent would be potentially text.
Borup: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. It would just be whatever sign, logo –
Borup: Essentially, it’s the same as a wall sign.
Hawkins-Clark: It is.
Hatcher: Go forward one.
Nary: As you described it earlier, you described it as the entire awning
(inaudible) portion. It led me to believe, like Keith did, that tae whole thing was
the 18 percent.
Hawkins-Clark: The entire surface area of the –
Nary: Of the awning. There’s probably a metal roof on that awning or it’s –
Borup: But you’re saying the intent would be it would be 18, just like a wall sign.
My concern was that the person putting up an awning would be penalized.
Hawkins-Clark: Right, which certainly we wouldn’t want. No. It would be an
interesting looking awning to get 18 percent. You’d have to have a – I mean,
you’re slope – you’d probably see more horizontal coverings that would come
straight out so that they could get a larger flat surface area in which to put their
sign to get it that large. We wouldn’t be – this isn’t an architectural control thing.
It[‘s a sign control. We wouldn’t be looking, really, at the awning itself at all.
Borup: So the copy would be 18 percent of the – so essentially, it’s the same as
the poll sign.
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 8
Borup: It sounded like Jerry had the same confusion I did.
Centers: I had a question, too, back at the vehicles. The vehicle signs – are
they legal now?
Hawkins-Clark: We have nothing in the ordinance right now that prohibits those.
Centers: Then read page 17. Existing signs – the grandfather clause is what I
call that area. Would that be correct?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, that’s one way to look at it. Which point are you referring
to?
Centers: Paragraph B, No. 2 – the sign required no permit, but was a legal sign
prior to the adoption of this code, they can stay. I’m not the attorney on this
Commission, but if you have a hang up on vehicle signs, then you need – I don’t
know.
Hawkins-Clark: I guess one perspective would be that it’s not – we wouldn’t
classify it as a sign under our current ordinance.
Hatcher: Look at B2. The sign is moved to a position that violates this
ordinance. The van moves once. It’s no longer valid.
Borup: I think that would probably be the point. Under our current ordinance, it’s
not classified as a sign.
Hawkins-Clark: That’s true.
Centers: Well, if you want to tighten that up, you may want to talk to your
attorney. I don’t know.
Hawkins-Clark: Sure. That’s a good point. I think one thing on the vehicle signs
that the definition is defined as being actively used. Like Commissioner Nary
pointed out, it would be for our code enforcement officers to really probably take
a look and do survey bypasses and check it one day – twice a day basis or
something. I don’t know how they would handle it, but that would be the idea. I’ll
certainly point that out to the City Attorney.
Borup: Anyone else? Okay.
Nary: I’m sorry. I did have one more question. On the Mansard sign, Brad, is
that also the text – not the roof itself, just the text again. Is that percentage even
on the Mansard just like the canopy.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 9
Hawkins-Clark: That’s correct. It would technically be the background area of
the text and not just the copy itself.
Nary: Well, like in that photo there, where the arrow shows Mansard Roof, that’s
just using the calculation of the 18 percent because that’s the roof line.
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Nary: But the text portion, the 18 percent is on the text – the sign there – the
thing that says “sign” or the background area behind the letters, that’s the portion
that would be –
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Hatcher: That illustration could be misleading because it’s a sign calculated as a
wall sign, and it’s 18 percent based off of area of wall. Yet, you have the note
there that the area of wall is below the Mansard and doesn’t include the
Mansard. We know that the 18 percent goes to the roof line, so that note there is
misleading.
Borup: So that is the intent – that it would go to the roof line?
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Borup: So you just need to change your ball area line up to the top, then. That’s
what I was wondering. That is a big help having those illustrations so people
have a better idea of what it’s talking about.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Borup: Okay. As mentioned, this is a public hearing. Do we have anyone that
would like to come forward and either testify, or any questions you may have on
this ordinance? Come on forward. Please do. Name and address.
Nahas: Members of the Commission, I’m Bob Nahas. I reside at 8229 Foothill
Road in Middleton, currently. Before I make any comments, I would like to
commend Brad on the job that he has done. It’s not often enough that when a
job is done as well as he has done this – he conjuncture with our committee. I
was on the Sign Committee. You don’t hear that very often, so I just want to say
thank you for keeping us together at rallies and so forth. I think we came up with
a very good ordinance. One area that I didn’t think about before, when we met
as a committee, was on page 14 at the top of the page there, paragraph four. It
talks about real estate signs on a lot or parcel. I think that we need to have
some additional language concerning off-premises real estate signs – directional
signs are very important to the real estate community, and of course, important to
homeowners as well that potential buyers are able to find the property. I think a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 10
couple of suggestions I would have is that maybe we could limit the size of the
signs and maybe the length of time that they were allowed to be up and that they
would be removed as it says here – within seven days after the sale. I know that
there’s a problem if the City owns the common areas in a development. My wife
is in the real estate business and she had to take her directional signs down. We
need to take a look at that. Of course, they’d be prohibited in the right-of-way.
That’s always been the case. I think it’s an area that we need to take a look at.
Borup: That was the only item? Why don’t you stay here. Anyone else have
any questions for Mr. Nahas on –
Norton: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Nahas. I had a question regarding that. So the
temporary directional signs for “For Sale” – I usually see them when they have
open house and they put them out – the folding type – they put them out in the
morning and then they pick them up that evening. Are we talking about that or
are you talking about permanent temporary signs that will be up the whole time
until the house was sold?
Nahas: They direct people to the house. I think those are very important. I think
they should be limited in size, as I’ve said before. They don’t have to be
gargantuan to be effective, but I think it’s very, very important in marketing a
property that people would be able to find the property.
Borup: Are you thinking to use the directional arrow ones? That’s the ones I see
that are up a long period. The larger ones, the size of a yard sign – usually the
folding ones, as I’ve said, they put up and down the same day, usually.
Nahas: The directional ones are usually the same size as the ones on the
property.
Borup: Well, no. The folding ones are, but they have some arrow ones that are
6 x 24 or something.
Nahas: I think that that might be a reasonable suggestion – is that they be
maybe no bigger than one foot by two feet or something like that, so at least they
could get the name of the real estate company and the arrow.
Borup: Any comment on that, Brad?
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioners, I would point out that six square feet is already
in the ordinance for the maximum size; 2 x 3 or something to that effect.
Borup: Does the ordinance address those that are off-premise, like the
directional ones?
Hawkins-Clark: I was just speaking to the size issue.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 11
Borup: Well, yes. I don’t think we’d want anything bigger than that.
Hawkins-Clark: I think it’s a great point because the sign currently says “off
premise signs prohibited,” which we could, as staff, take that and interpret all of
those as off-premise signs, technically. On the other hand, we have this
temporary sign section that says “one real estate sign on any lot or parcel.”
Does that mean just one sign per lot? For instance, at the entrance to a
subdivision, usually that's a common lot like the landscaping. That’s a common
lot owned by the Homeowners Association. Do we look at that as one lot and
say, “Well, you can have one real estate sign at the entrance to that subdivision
because that’s one sign on one lot,” or do you allow 15 at the entrance to the
subdivision which goes in and there’s 300 homes in the subdivision. Everybody
wants to have a sale sign out on the arterial.
Nahas: I have never seen that many.
Borup: Three or four is the maximum I’ve ever seen.
Hawkins-Clark: 12 is something that we’ve seen.
Borup: Is that right?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Borup: Okay. That’s probably overdoing it. Then how do you determine when
the guy got their first gets his spot and those that come later are out of luck?
Nahas: How do you keep track of it, too? I could imagine what a job it would be
to go around and make sure everybody was conforming to the time limitations
and you also need to have them when you get into the interior of the subdivision.
It’s not typical that you just have one out at the entrance and that’s all that you
need. You’d need to have some in the interior as well. I don’t have a perfect
solution for it, but I know it’s awfully important to the taxpayers and the real
estate community to come up with some kind of program.
Centers: Well, you can ask your wife, Bob. Most of the sales generated in real
estate, or a good portion of them are due to signs. Signs sell real estate. I’ll take
it a step further. Paragraph 4, one sign – what about the homeowner – in fact,
myself included. It’s on a corner lot in Sportsman Pointe. I would like to have a
sign on the end of Mastiff and on the front of Retriever.
Nahas: One for frontage.
Borup: That would cover that if it said one per –
Nahas: The way it is now, I can only put one sign.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 12
Borup: One per street frontage would handle that.
Nahas: Call it personal or whatever, but I see a lot of real estate for sale where
they do have two frontages and you see two signs and rightfully so, so I guess
one per street, or you could just specify corner lots.
Hatcher: I’m going to play Devil’s Advocate here for this discussion. As a buyer,
when I’m out looking for a house, I’m always with a realtor, and he’s taking me to
houses that he knows about, or I’m out driving around looking for that sign in the
lot. Quite frankly, as an individual, or as a planner and designer, I absolutely
despise looking at 12 For Sale signs in the common lot and arrows telling me
how to get somewhere. Back to that old 60’s song – “Signs, Signs, Everywhere
Signs.” It’s ridiculous. Sometimes I think the real estate industry goes overboard
and takes advantage of this whole situation of being able to show signs wherever
they want, so to speak, so that they can sell their product. You don’t see any
other profession doing that. I think it’s a valid point, but I think we need to make
sure we don’t take this lightly. We find a common ground, and maybe we
address a certain requirement for common lots – that a maximum of six, five, or
four signs – come up with some maximum. Quite frankly, the common lots going
into a subdivision are for aesthetics and for the improvement of our city. When
you can't see the improvements through all the real estate signs, what good is it?
That’s my Devil’s Advocate.
Centers: When does this come for final approval by Council?
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Centers, that date has not been set.
Centers: Then I think there would be time for the Ada County Association of
Realtors to submit their requests or proposals. They need to be heard. They
sell a lot of real estate and they should have submitted a proposal. Tell them
what we’ve talked about. You’re on the committee, Bob. Tell them what we
talked about and the concerns and what can they live with? Don’t you think?
Nahas: Sure. You bet. Absolutely. It’s kind of hard to look at this unless you’ve
been involved in the real estate business – to see that, even though it may be
even offensive to some people in that business. It’s kind of a necessary evil. A
lot of times, what happens, I have my former wife was in real estate. My current
wife is in Real Estate. A lot of times, what they will do is they will just have a
buyer go and look in five or six different properties. Maybe they don’t have the
time to take them there. That happens a lot. That particular case would be very
important that there be directional signs to help them find the property.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 13
Nary: Mr. Nahas, I guess I’m still a little curious. I understand what your point
was. But I also, I guess I’m not sure – if we were to suggest or recommend to
the staff that they maybe consider allowing at least the street frontage. I think
Commissioner Centers is right. If you have a corner lot, we allow it for other
types of uses to have signs on both frontages. Other than that, how restrictive is
it to your type of business? This doesn’t say that this prohibits an off-premise
sign. This just says “one sign per lot.” It doesn’t say that that has to be the sign
for that house for sale. You can have a directional sign on that piece of property
that directs people to another house on that subdivision on that lot. I think the
question is or what’s been put in here currently is you can’t have two. You can
only have one. You’re going to have to put one on this lot and you’re going to
have to put one on the one across the street. You’re going to have to put one a
little further down in the subdivision. It doesn’t have to be tied to that lot. It
doesn’t mean that it’s the only – the only sign allowed is the one for that house
it’s in front of. It can be on the front house in the subdivision. You just can’t have
two.
Nahas: But we don’t want to make the statement that nothing that is addressed
in here – if this ordinance says you can’t, then you can’t. We don’t want to be in
that type of position. Any type of sign needs to be addressed in the ordinance. I
just don’t think this is broad enough and I don’t pretend to have the magic
answer.
Nary: But if you were to make it clearer in this that it wasn’t intended – maybe
I’m wrong and Brad can correct me. I don’t know that it was intended to say that
the sign for the house for sale is the only sign that is allowed for that house, but it
could not have it on the house five blocks away directing people to that house. I
don’t think this is meant to restrict that. I’m not sure that this really –
Nahas: But it doesn’t address it, either.
Nary: It may be simply clarifying that it wasn’t intended to only limit it to the
house that it’s in front of, but it’s allowing that. It just means that you just can’t
have two. Unless it’s a corner lot, you can’t have two directional signs on the
same property, but you’re going to have to put them somewhere else.
Nahas: We’re talking about two different things. This is talking about an
information sign that’s on the property itself. It doesn’t need a directional arrow
because you’re there. We’re talking about off-premises sign.
Nary: But it doesn’t prohibit that. This says that if I own a lot – if I live in the front
lot of the subdivision, I can allow you to put a sign in my yard. It doesn’t mean
my house is for sale. It can be directing people to the house that’s 400 houses
away.
Hawkins-Clark: But then they couldn’t have another sign on there.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 14
Nary: But that was it. You get one in that lot. You can put one across the street.
You can put one in the house next door. You can put one in the house down the
block. You can do that. All it’s saying is that you can only have one. Is that
restriction of having just the one have that big of an impact. Rather than
rewriting the whole thing, do we just need to clarify that it wasn’t intended to just
be limited to the house that’s for sale. It could be directing it to somebody else’s
house. It just says one per lot. It sounds to me, from what Brad was saying, was
what we’re trying to limit, though is that the front house in the subdivision didn’t
have five or six or eight or ten or twelve directional signs sitting on that lot
directing people all over the subdivision. We still just wanted to have one – one
to avoid the glut of signs. We weren’t saying, though, it had to be just for that
house.
Nahas: That wouldn’t cover it, though. For instance, at the entrance to a
subdivision, you might have six signs all in one lot. That would be prohibited.
Nary: Absolutely. I think there’s a good reason for that.
Nahas: Only one. So the first guy that gets one there gets to keep it and the
rest of the guys are out. I don’t think that –
Nary: Or you could make a bigger sign, and then we could deal with, like you
said, size and allow a sign that had more than one directional sign or one thing
on it. But it’s still one sign on the property. I think there’s a good reason not to
have six signs on the front house in the subdivision. I think Commissioner
Hatcher is right – whether it’s the common area or the front house, I think it is
ugly and I think it is unsightly. It may be there for six, eight or ten months if this is
a developing new subdivision. I think there’s a good reason to not have such a
glut, or having to be something that’s a little more creative. I don’t have a
problem if they want to have a sign that might be a little bit bigger that allows for
more than one direction. It’s still not a huge billboard or something else. It’s still
one. It’s not ten. That visual clutter is something that the Sign Ordinance is
trying to address.
Hatcher: Commissioner Nary, are you suggesting something along the lines of if
it’s a developing subdivision – a new one that a lot of houses are being sold in,
that there’s a common For Sale sign that the different realtors can all put –
maybe it’s a 4 x 4. It’s a half sheet of plywood that’s semi-permanently
established and the different realtors can then add their signs to that.
Nary: Yes, and I don’t know if that’s practical, but just as an idea, it still avoids a
lot of clutter. I don’t necessarily want a big billboard on some of these in the front
lot, but at least it would allow some of what you’re addressing and something a
little bit more creative than just sticking six or eight signs on one lawn. It looks
pretty cluttered.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 15
Hatcher: What about, I think, your point of clarifying the directional signs? If I’ve
got a house in the middle of the subdivision, and I have to take five turns to get
there, then I can put four directional signs throughout the subdivision to get it
there, so long as I have the permission of the homeowners, and there house isn’t
for sale and they already have a sign or something like that. I understand that
and I think that needs to be clarified because I think that works hand in hand with
both the real estate community and the intent of the ordinance. I’m thinking
maybe with the common lots, which is more often than not, the way the
subdivisions are developed – the common lot, particularly the one that is joining
the road right-of-way – maybe we establish a lineal requirement that one sign per
30 feet is allowed. If that common lot has 150 lineal feet of frontage, then they
can have five signs. If it’s a 20-foot common lot, then they can only have one.
It’s a relative.
Nary: I agree with all of that. We’re trying to avoid clutter and not trying to
restrict the business community or the real estate community and trying to be
responsive to that, but again, we’re trying to avoid a massive amount of clutter
and trying to find something either – you know, something where it’s creative and
having a multi-use sign for a developing subdivision or something like
Commissioner Hatcher is suggesting of saying at least tying it to some size of the
lots for the common lots. Don’t you think that would address some of the
concerns you have? I understand what you’re saying. I don’t think this limits it. I
think maybe we just need to make it a little clearer so that it doesn’t appear to be
limiting. I don’t think we’re trying to limit you. I think we just don’t want to have
six or eight signs on one lot.
Nahas: I understand exactly what you’re saying. The problem, though, is
enforcement. Who is going to go out there and say, “Hey, you’ve got 100 feet of
frontage and you’re only allowed five signs and you’ve got seven.” Who gets to
go?
Nary: No different, I think, than any other sign. Realistically, everything in here
from an enforcement standpoint is going to take time, people, the ability to go out
and go and look and that is going to be generated by complaints – usually is how
it kind of gets started. So, I mean, any of them – but if you have – it depends on
how much attention it tends to draw. Just as an example, if you were having a
developing subdivision, and you had the front lot of the sign of what the name of
the subdivision is, and you have 12 real estate signs on that, the people that
drive by it might say, “Is that legal? I’m going to call up the City and find out
because I think it looks ugly. I don’t like looking at that.” That’s how all of these
things start.” From an enforcement standpoint, if you have six and you’re only
allowed five, are people going to call us up? Are we going to find out right away?
No different than if you had a sandwich board sign out in your –
*** End of Side 1 ***
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 16
Nary: All those things don’t get caught all the time. It depends on what it is, but I
think we’re still trying to get some guidelines that are reasonable and fair and all
of that, and when we do have the ability to enforce and take enforcement action,
that it’s reasonable to be able to do that. I guess I agree with what you’re saying,
but I think realistically, we still have to try to tailor it to be reasonable.
Nahas: We still have the issue where the City owns the common areas. There
are some subdivisions kind of like that. There needs to be – the City needs to
have a posture on that, as well. If they say no – that you can put them in other
subdivisions, is that damned discriminatory?
Borup: How many do we have? I can’t think of any where the City owns a
common area other than if you consider the Greenbelt along Fothergill.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. Probably more common is the Ada County Highway
District for their storm water retention areas. That’s probably more common.
Nahas: My wife put a sign up at a subdivision on Meridian Road. I can’t recall
the name of it right now, but Shari Stiles called her up and said you’ve got to take
that sign down because that’s City property. It wasn’t right-of-way, but she said it
was City property.
Borup: That may be Fothergill then. That’s the only property – that’s the only
one I can think of that the City owns.
Nahas: I think it should be universal, whatever program we come up with. I think
that the City should allow that on City property as a lot of private property.
Nary: I don’t think the front guy in the subdivision has to do it unless it’s in his
covenant. He doesn’t have to let us put a sign on that, either. I don’t think the
City has any different rights than any other property owner in that regard. It will
say, “We choose as a whole not to allow any of them.” Unless your front
property owner in your subdivision has that in his covenant, he doesn’t have to
allow it either. What difference does it – right? I mean, it wouldn’t make any
difference.
Borup: The difference there – normally, the common entrance property is owned
by all the homeowners in the subdivision as a whole, rather than by one party.
Nary: They bought the property with that condition present and they know it
when they buy it, but no different than any other property owner has the right to
say, “No, I don’t want a sign on my property.” I don’t think the City is in a different
position. I don’t think the City has to make a concession to that to have a sign
ordinance. I don’t think the City has to say we have to allow it on our City
property. I don’t think they have to do that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 17
Borup: I don’t think there’s enough that that would apply to anyone. Again, I
think that’s probably the only one the whole City –
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Yes, Commissioner.
Hatcher: In discussion of the common lots, if we were to put in our ordinance
that a certain amount of signs are allowed for whatever perimeters we put, those
lots are owned by associations. So if we’re going to put some sort of perimeters
on the signage for a common lot, then we also need to put some sort of verbiage
in there to address the ownership of those lots. If a subdivision association, as a
whole, says, “We don’t want signs littering the front of our subdivision,” -- excuse
the terminology. That’s their prerogative. That’s their right as the property
owner. We can’t take – being careful with our wording on this ordinance, we
don’t want to be taking that right away from them.
Borup: Well, I don’t think we could. It would be the same as a tenant coming in.
Hatcher: We say that some of these signs are allowed and then they say, “No,
we don’t want them.”
Borup: It would be the same as a tenant that’s leasing a building coming and get
permission from – get a permit from the City, and then the landlord says no. We
would be overriding what the landlord says. I don’t know if that would be that
much different. Maybe not the biggest, but the ones I see the most – the mobile
signs on the entrance is not a on a new – not so much in a lot of the new
developing subdivisions – a lot of times on the established ones. The new ones
already have the traffic.
Nary: And they have a large sign, Keith.
Borup: Yes, and they have the subdivision sign. The one that you were talking
about that had a whole bunch – was that an established subdivision, or a new
one?
Hawkins-Clark: It was established.
Borup: Okay. That’s normally what I see. The new developing ones – I just
came from a couple today, and I don’t remember any signs out there that might
have been. If there was a lot of them, I would have noticed it. I’ve driven in
three or four entrances today, and I don’t remember signs on any of them. If I go
back, there probably was. I meant the little ones – the little directional type
signs. There was one on one of them I was in?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 18
Centers: Yes.
Borup: Which one was that?
Centers: I think Mr. Nahas makes a good point as far as I was thinking of it at
the same time – the enforcement. You flip the page to the political signs. Down
at the bottom, campaign signs shall be erected not earlier than 60 days and then
will be voted on and shall be removed in 10 days after such election. Now, I’d
like to see who is going to enforce that, because that’s one of my biggest pet
peeves on the election signs and they sit on the corners and they stay there. No
one takes them down. I bring it as a comparison to the realtors’ signs. They
take theirs down and if the homeowner has sold his house and the sign is still up
and the neighbor knows it, then they’ll call the realtor and take the sign down. If
you start putting a limit, you’re going to have five signs for 100 lineal feet of
frontage. Who is going to enforce it? I don’t think that the – I don’t think that the
City wants to be bothered with those types of phone calls, because by the time
they got out there, there would be four signs because one of the houses would
have sold and the realtor took a sign down. Then there may be six. Well, who is
the sixth one? Who is the first four? I don’t know – one sold, two added; two
sold, one more added. The enforcement would be just ridiculous, just like the
campaign signs.
Borup: It sounds like the whole thing may be better off just leaving it as it is
worded now without complicating it and probably gives more leeway – more
flexibility to the real estate community than changing it.
Centers: It doesn’t talk about directional signs. I can see his point on wanting a
directional sign where the homeowner in the subdivision – they look for their
sign. That realtor has got my house listed. He’s trying to sell it. Signs sell real
estate. Any realtor will tell you that. I guess you’re the opposite and you’re
entitled to your opinion, but I think directional signs have a place. If you put a
limit on it, who’s going to enforce it? I’m sure not.
Nahas: What about the idea of you, as a body, coming up with some
suggestions? Getting them to Brad – Brad, I think it would be more appropriate
for you to go to the Real Estate Commission on this issue.
Borup: That’s why we have a public hearing is to get the input. If the Real
Estate Commission didn’t have any interest – if they really had a concern, they
should have been here.
Nahas: They have an interest. Believe me.
Borup: Then this is where they should be.
Hatcher: I agree with Keith. They should have been here.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 19
Borup: Yes. The information was put out. You guys had committee meetings for
nine months. How long or when did you start?
Nahas: A year and a half ago.
Borup: September.
Nahas: A year ago.
Borup: They had a nice article in the paper yesterday. Front page – the
information is out. I guess I would rather see us try to come up with a wording
tonight, rather than to continue it. And if you have suggestive wording, we’d be
happy to consider.
Nahas: I think Mr. Center’s suggestion of one per frontage is a very good one.
Borup: I think that makes sense.
Nahas: I would certainly think that –
Borup: And maybe something to the extent – well, maybe we need to think
about it. The directional sign things maybe need to be mentioned without getting
too restrictive.
Centers: Think about no directional signs at all, then. Just think about it. Do
you think they would live with no directional signs at all?
Nahas: Wait a minute. If no one had any –
Centers: Do you follow what I am saying? Example – the City of Whittier,
California does not allow any real estate signs whatsoever – none. Think about
it. What does a buyer do when they come to Whittier, California. They don’t go
look at signs. They have to go contact a realtor.
Borup: So, no For Sale By Owner, huh?
Centers: Right. That was a few years ago. I would assume it’s still –
Hatcher: I like that suggestion best of all.
Nahas: Even on private property, you would go to the homeowner on the corner
and you say, “Do you mind if I put a sign here?” It would prohibit that?
Centers: Realtors aren’t allowed signs on their listings.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 20
Borup: I wonder if the realtors might have lobbied that. That eliminates For Sale
By Owner.
Centers: Think about, if no one is allowed a directional sign, it’s fair for
everybody. Don’t get me wrong. I think signs sell, but if no one has them – but
then, there again, you have the enforcement problem because you’re going to
have people putting directional signs out and who’s going to go out –
Nahas: Collect them.
Centers: I don’t know.
Nahas: It’s not an easy problem to solve.
Centers: Enforcement is the real problem.
Nahas: One other idea might be that only one sign per real estate company be
allowed, because there’s no point in having three Holland signs, or three
Windmere signs. That is of no particular use. I don’t have an easy solution to it.
I agree with you, Mr. Borup, about the fact that where are they tonight.
Norton: Mr. Chairman and Brad, maybe this can be addressed in a different
section. This one, where it says real estate sign, I agree with Mr. Nahas, that the
intent, it looks like is one in front of the for sale house. It has nothing to do with
temporary directional signs. Maybe your temporary directional signs, this whole
section, under Section No. 6, there’s general terms. It could be stated under the
first, unless otherwise specified. I’m looking at page 13 – unless otherwise
specified by this ordinance, temporary signs may be displayed on a property for
a maximum of 30 days per year. It could be addressed under any of these other
sections and not just right where your No. 9 with the real estate sign is
addressed for the house that is being sold. Also, under No. 9, promotional signs.
Borup: Well, maybe you’ll want to go back down and see if you construct a
paragraph or sentence that you think would cover –
Norton: Or even tonight, while we go through –
Borup: That’s what I mean. Right now. We’ll call you back up in a little bit.
Nahas: I got to represent the entire real estate community?
Borup: Well, you’re the only one that is here. Something could be put in, that
maybe even if it was No. 4 that was mentioned – this is not intended to prohibit
to directional signs. Maybe something as simple as that and not get down in
numbers and locations.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 21
Norton: That makes a lot of sense.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Yes, Commissioner.
Hatcher: There is indication that someone else in the audience might have
something to say about this as well.
Borup: Yes, that’s what I was going to next, as soon as – If we can construct a
sentence, then we’ll ask your opinion that. We’ll see if we have anybody else.
Anybody else like that? Thank you. Anything else you want to say?
Nahas: Thank you. No, that’s fine.
Borup: Okay. You had a comment. Come on up and we’ll get you on record on
the microphone.
Bravo: My name is Steve Bravo. I was on the committee with Bob. I reside at
3715 West Pine. Basically, I just had a question for Bob on these directional
signs as to what they look like. I’m kind of in the dark.
Borup: Maybe I can answer and he can agree that essentially, there have been
two types that I’ve seen. One, the 18 X 24 – is that the normal real estate –
anyway, the normal size real estate yard sign – sometimes they have those in a
folding style that they can go up and set up. Then they have the others that are
a little more – sometimes they’ll do the yard signs with an arrow on. Other times,
they’ll do just an arrow directional sign on a post.
Bravo: That’s what I was curious about. If we can make the signage small
enough to work for them, the directional signs – it seems to me it would be very
simple to put a clause in there that – of course, you’ll need permission of either
the association or the City, depending on who owns the property. I don’t even
know if a lot of them get asked when they put these signs out in the common
areas.
Borup: Probably not.
Bravo: I think they should be required to have the permission of the associations
and possibly come up with maybe a limit of two multi-type tenant type temporary
signs where with cooperation amongst the different agencies, they can use
removable signage that would fit, if they can get together and come up with a
common type of temporary sign that they can all use for directional signs where
you can list the multiples on there and limit the amount of total signs.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 22
Borup: Then you’re putting up a major sign. These are just little signs you go in
there and step on and push in the ground or maybe even pound them in if the
ground’s a little harder. It’s something that goes in 30 seconds.
Bravo: It seems to me, for direction, you would be able to get two or three
different real estate companies on that one little sign and eliminate a whole
bunch of smaller signage. It’s just a thought. For cooperation amongst
themselves, they should be able to come up with something that they can agree
to that would limit the amount of actual physical signs that are out there where
when they’re done, they can, with a mac tack or something, they can remove
their sign. The next guy comes along. There’s an open space. He can place his
small directional sign amongst the others on that –
Borup: But you’re almost getting to one permanent sign there, then.
Bravo: Yes, it would probably be there all the time.
Borup: Semi-permanent.
Bravo: Yes, but same difference. You’re rotating one sign for another all the
time. Anyway, it was just a thought.
Borup: Thank you, Steve. Anyone else like to – any questions or testimony?
Okay. Do we have any thoughts from the Commission?
Hatcher: I’d just like to make one comment.
Borup: Yes.
Hatcher: I think it might be prudent for Brad to contact Whittier, California and
find out how they enforce their sign ordinance.
Hawkins-Clark: I can tell you, from an enforcement perspective, going back to
Commissioner Centers’ point that one extreme or the other is a lot easier to
enforce than this middle stuff when we start playing with numbers and distances.
To have no signs would be a lot easier to enforce than what we’ve got in there
right now. They’d just simply go down the street. If there’s one there, they rip it
out and it would take a fraction of the time. We do have one full-time equivalent
code enforcement officer that – well, there’s two people. They share. It’s a part-
time position. They currently work for the City. As we grow them, my guess is
that the Police Department may increase that, but they are available to our
department. Whenever we receive a complaint or if we drive and we see issues,
we call them up and they are authorized to enforce these codes.
Bravo: Well, what I was referring to is if you put a limit of five at the entrance, or
six. You know what I’m saying.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 23
Borup: I think it’s a nightmare. The only thing I can see, and it can get out of
hand, if you have a limit, and you have some that are obviously an eyesore,
you’ve some teeth to enforce it. Otherwise, if it’s not that bad, you ignore it.
Maybe that’s not a good way to go, but that’s probably how it is in the real world.
Hatcher: On Commissioner Centers’ point, if the lot allows for five, and there’s
six or seven there or what not, who cares? But if there are 12 signs there and
somebody complains, then you’ve got to go back and say, “Hey, this is only
supposed to have five.” You yank them all out.
Borup: I think I was leading to the same thing, that there is an ordinance to
enforce. Otherwise, there’s nothing at all.
Hatcher: There’s no violation until someone complains.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: Trying to make sure that it’s enforceable and clear, which is I think, what
the intent of this ordinance is, and avoid some clutter, which is I think is the other
intent – I guess I’m trying to think what’s wrong with two because you’re not
going to have two For Sale signs in front of the house that’s for sale. It wouldn’t
make any sense. No one would do that. You would have one because it’s
practical. If you had a limit so that it’s clear and so that you don’t have to worry
about four or five or those three or four, the issue is can you have more than one
on a lot? Do you want zero? Do you want one or do you want more than one on
a lot? The ones that are the more problematic issues are the ones in the front
lots in subdivisions. Is one too limiting? I guess the testimony we heard is that it
might be too limiting to have one lot – that you might end up with a more
proliferation of signs down the street. If you have only one allowed per lot, then
the incentive to the realtor, if you’ve got a big subdivision you’re trying to sell
houses in, that you need to go to all of those people down the street and say, “I
only can have one on each lot, so can I put one here and one here and one here
all the way down the row so that I comply with their ordinance.” That’s as much
clutter as it is putting it on one lot.
Borup: I think that’s worse.
Nary: Yes, I think that’s probably even worse. What’s the compromise here?
We want to make it clear. I recognize, as Commissioner Centers has said,
enforcement – if it says one and there’s two, we’re probably going to run right out
there tomorrow and do that. It is a technical violation. Someone may complain,
and we may have to deal with that. We may have to work with that. But I also
agree with what Commissioner Centers says is it’s not the incentive for realtors
to leave those signs out there indefinitely, so they do come down. There is some
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 24
time that they turn over and they move them and things like that. We’re trying to
look for something that gives and takes. Five or six, in my opinion, is to many. Is
one too limiting? Like I said, the testimony is that one might be a little too
restrictive and too difficult to really satisfy the needs of the real estate community.
If that’s the case, to move this forward, I do think it’s reasonable to say to look at
street frontage. If there is a corner lot, it seems practical and reasonable to me
to say, “You can at least have one on each frontage because of the way the lots
configure. You can have more than one if we decide if that’s the appropriate way
to do that. If you can have two on a corner lot, can you have two on a non-
corner lot? No. Does it matter? Is that going to be clutter. To me, if there’s two.
This just says “without a permit.” Can you get a permit if you want more than
that? If you want to have three or four for a reason that you can present to the
City and get a permit to have it, can you do that?
Hawkins-Clark: It’s not addressed currently.
Nary: If I’m the realtor, and I say that I don’t need a permit, and I have a right to
some degree, to put these signs up without any other authorization from the City,
that’s my right that we grant them this ordinance. Then I’m going to assume that
I can then ask to have more in some manner. In some fashion, I can go get a
sign permit that allows me to have three and I have to present to the City why
three is more appropriate for this lot – the configuration. You know if you build a
300-house subdivision with 50 different contractors and all these different houses
for sale, or like you said, you have an older subdivision and you have a lot of
houses for sale and there is some turnover and some things, it might make
sense. I don’t know. If there’s a method that they can come and ask for more, I
don’t think there’s a problem. I think all we’re saying is here’s the benchmark.
Without coming and telling us or asking us anymore, you can have this many.
Many that’s the resolution to deal with it and send this forward is to say that what
we’re going to suggest is we have a method that people can ask. In some form,
they can get a permit to have additional signs of these types. This just says that
you don’t need one. Is that something practical, Brad, that you think you can put
in here simply – that there’s some method to do that – to have something
different? You can get a variance to an ordinance. You just have to ask the
Council to do it. To me, that would solve both the real estate community – I don’t
have a problem with two, because we’re going to let two on a corner. I’m not
really that concerned that two on a lot that’s not on a corner is going to be that
problematic visually, and it won’t be two in front of the houses for sale, anyway.
Again, I don’t think it’s going to be that cluttered. Then we can keep this going
and they could – and at the Council level, they want to argue that two is still
unreasonable and they need more than that and they really think that’s an issue,
then they can address that to the Council. I think that would satisfy at least the
issues we hear today. Maybe I’m wrong.
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 25
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I think the way I am hearing you, Commissioner Nary, and I hope I am,
and I would be satisfied with this and I think Mr. Nahas would. Really, the way 4
is written there, I’ve been following you on that. It doesn’t matter if you have a
property for sale or not the way that’s really written. So something like this, two
real estate signs for promotional purposes shall be allowed on a property that’s
for sale. This includes directional signs. In other words, if you have a house for
sale, you will be allowed two signs – one in front and one as a directional sign,
or two, if you have a corner lot, but then you can’t have a directional sign. Is that
what we’re saying? I would be in favor of something like that?
Nary: I think the way it’s written, and I don’t have a problem with this, it still
allows you to have an off-premise sign. You can have it. If the front neighbor in
the subdivision says “You could put a sign in my yard, I don’t care,” what do we
care?
Hawkins-Clark: I could say just on page 13, off-premise signs are prohibited
outright everywhere. That doesn’t – that section doesn’t apply to just real estate
(inaudible) has been interpreted by our department to be real estate signs on
certain instances. We just don’t enforce it, but I would say that –
Borup: Well then it does need to be addressed, then.
Hawkins-Clark: We could just simply say on Paragraph I, in Section 5, “off-
premise signs prohibited except as permitted and defined in Section,” – and we
already have two sections there and we’ll just add “and section 4A4.” We’ll just
point so that off-premise are still prohibited except for these three different types.
Borup: Commissioner Hatcher.
Hatcher: I would make a suggestion that in your terminology, that instead of
using the word “on,” use “for.” That way, if it’s a corner lot, you can put two of
them on the lot, or if you put one on the lot, then you can put one somewhere
else.
Bravo: That was my intent. The directional signs – sometimes they get abused,
but then the houses sell in the subdivision. I know my subdivision. There’s quite
a few out there.
Borup: How many at the entrance? More than the three or four?
Bravo: Three or four, and then once in a while, you’ll see five or six, and then it
drops down again. I’d like to see the houses sell in my subdivision. I don’t like to
see the For Sale signs out there. I like to see them get sold. I think any
homeowner in a subdivision is agreeable to that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 26
Borup: I think I’m just too used to seeing them and don’t pay enough attention. I
don’t really remember more than three or four anywhere. I think I just look right
past it, so they don’t do me a lot of good.
Centers: Brad, it was staff’s intention that the off-premise signs did include real
estate signs. Was that the intention of this draft, or was that even really
addressed that much.
Hawkins-Clark: Maybe Steve or Bob could speak. Maybe the committee is
where this is coming from. As I recollect, the intent was clutter.
Borup: So the subdivision entrances was one of the intentions?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, I think so. I don’t see how the solution that Commissioner
Centers and Nary are talking about addresses the entrance. By saying two
signs, it’s still begs the question. Does that mean that you have – are common
lots still only allowed to it?
Borup: Do you think a limit on those common lots would be practical? Would
that address the problem?
Hawkins-Clark: I think it wouldn’t on paper, but it comes down to –
Borup: Enforcement – right. I think we’ve realized that. Would you like to see a
number?
Hawkins-Clark: I would, yes.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I still tend to favor just leaving – coming up with a
general number, like Commissioner Centers has mentioned – two per lot.
Borup: But that doesn’t address the common lot.
Hatcher: It does address the common lot. The common lot can only have two,
which is going to force –
Borup: Oh, no. He said, “two per house for sale.”
Hatcher: “Two per house for sale.” I still think that we need to have the common
lots minimized. I mean five or six, you start getting into the gray area. If we’re
going to do two for the actual house lot, whether it be on the house lot or
somewhere else, I think we should also go with two for the common lot.
Borup: That doesn’t seem consistent to me.
Hatcher: Why not? It’s a lot – two signs per lot.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 27
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: If we change No. 4 to simply say “two real estate signs on any lot or
parcel,” that covers the common lot. That covers the lot with the house for sale.
We don’t have to worry about street frontage because they can have two. If
we’re going to amend the off-premise sign to allow them to have a directional
sign in a different location than the house lot that’s for sale, where’s the problem?
If they want more, in reading when you need to get a permit, and reading
procedures, other than – and this is on page 8, 3B, “all sign types.” It’s probably
a little bit too formal when you’re talking about a directional sign. But all of this
stuff as to when you can get a sign permit to have more th-n that really covers
additional signage. That gives the real estate person the ability to come and ask
for more than the two and recognize, like we’ve talked about, they’ll probably be
people that will do it and we’ll have to deal with that from an enforcement
standpoint, but they have the ability to have more, but too, on the lot or parcel,
because I think that still makes the most sense – and if we’re going to deal with
off-premise to allow that, then – because we recognize they’re going to get
turned over. They’re not going to be out there a long time. We’re not talking
about a billboard. We’re talking about usually a smaller sign. If we want to limit
the size, we can limit the sizes. It still solves the question that we’ve been talking
about. It still avoids the clutter.
Hatcher: Can I add to that? I think also it helps encourage – I think it helps
encourage the real estate market to work together. If you have a hot-selling
subdivision, whether it be new, or existing, the ordinance says we only want two
signs out on our common areas. As an industry, they can work together to
provide a larger sign that they jointly share for that particular subdivision because
it’s a hot market.
Borup: I can see the problem is that if you have more than two houses for sale
in the subdivision, someone is going to be unhappy.
Hatcher: You’re going to have realtors yanking other realtors’ signs out so that
they can put theirs in.
Borup: Who wants to be in the middle of that? Brad does.
Hawkins-Clark: But, Mr. Chairman, if you have more than two now, we’ve
already said we don’t really want to see five or six or seven of them out there
anyway.
Borup: Someone had mentioned one per real estate company.
Hatcher: That was Mr. Nahas.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 28
Borup: That might not be a bad way to go. The odds are you’re not going to
have 12. You’re not going to have those kind of numbers from one real estate
company. I’m not sure, Jerry. On your subdivision, how many of those, when it
gets up to the four or five signs – how many of them are from the same
company? Have you noticed?
Centers: I really couldn’t tell you. I guess I missed something here.
Borup: We’re on the entrance sign.
Centers: Yes, but are we saying that – we’re not all in agreement then. That’s
for sure. Two signs would be allowed if you have a house for sale. One in front
and one out on the street.
Borup: So that means only two agents – two houses for sale can have a sign on
the street. There also saying two per lot – two per common lot.
Hatcher: We’re trying to address how – how do we address the common lot?
Borup: That was my concern is that fair – to limit that fair to the other –
Centers: I don’t think it is. A lot of times, you’ll have – Caldwell Banker has three
listings in this sub, so he only has one directional sign. They don’t want all their
signs out there, either, because they get stolen and kids take them and they
don’t need another directional sign when there’s already one there. What this
would prohibit in some subs would be like – my sub has really three entrances
and you’d only be entitled to one directional sign – one on my house for sale and
one out on Overland. You couldn’t put a directional sign on Locust Grove. You
couldn’t put one on the corner of – that is kind of offensive when you see all
these directional signs inside a subdivision. It becomes ridiculous. If you’re only
going to allow two directional signs, you’re going to have some realtors calling. If
you have five different realtors with five different listings –
Borup: Would it be (inaudible) limit one per real estate office or company – not
office – company and then maybe say a limit of four per –
Hatcher: You couldn’t do that. I think you’d have to back up and reevaluate what
Commissioner Centers was proposing. That was one for the lot itself, or if it’s a
corner lot, too.
Centers: I was dropping that – just two for every lot.
Hatcher: But if you have two per every lot that’s for sale, with a maximum of one
common lot sign per real estate agency –
Centers: One directional sign.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 29
Borup: And then no limitation be on that?
Hatcher: Why would you need anything beyond that?
Borup: Because if you had six offices in there, you could have six signs.
Hatcher: No. If there’s 12 different real estate agencies selling lots in that
subdivision, then you –
(Inaudible rambling amongst Commission members)
Hatcher: You have got to be fair.
Centers: That’s Keith’s idea, basically, is what you’re agreeing with – one per
realtor.
Hatcher: One per realtor, but he’s saying what if you have 12 realtors in there?
Then you’re going to have 12 signs.
Borup: Real Estate Companies. I don’t think you’re going to see that usually.
Hatcher: No. Usually subdivisions are sold to one or two realtors, flat out.
Borup: Brad, have you – some of those have been the problem areas. Have
you looked at it that close? Is it a lot of duplicate signs from the same company?
You’ve mentioned one that had 12. I’d still like to see that one. Maybe I’ll ask
you where it is.
Hawkins-Clark: I think that would be fair from what we’ve experienced, I think, in
the department. Honestly, it’s not a common complaint from the public.
Borup: That’s what I was going to ask. Have you had complaints?
Hawkins-Clark: We have had complaints, but it’s not –
Borup: If it’s one per real estate company, that would probably solve any
squabbling between agents. Then it would be an in-house thing. It wouldn’t be
one company to another.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. We could just provide boxing gloves at the common lot.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 30
Nary: Since we spent an hour and a half on basically this only issue that we’ve
really had, thank you for coming tonight (inaudible). We spent an hour and a half
on this issue. Did I hear you say this really isn’t that big of a problem? Is that
right? The reason I asked that isn’t to be facetious, but if it isn’t really that big of
a problem – the only concern I would have is that if you limit it to real estate
companies, every realtor that’s independent says, “Then I get one, too.” All of
the Planning staff would be doing is refereeing who gets this – how many people
get a sign. If it isn’t that big of a problem, then to me, we need to do like we
talked about an hour ago. We need to have something simple to deal with –
something simple. We want to give direction, clarity and avoid some clutter as
best we can. We want to give some direction, and we don’t necessarily want to
limit people’s business or anything like that. The committee, when they drafted
this – I don’t know if they took an hour and a half to talk about this particular
issue, but when they said “one,” as a committee, said, “one real estate sign on
any lot or parcel,” did they mean just to have it in front of the house that was for
sale, or did they mean just one sign on the lot?
Hawkins-Clark: Honestly, I couldn’t tell you.
Nary: If we allowed more than one sign on the lot, whether it’s a common lot,
whether it’s an individual lot, whether it’s the house that’s for sale, wouldn’t it be
the most practical to at least have a number that you can work with and deal with
and make it simple – whether it’s two or four or whatever. I don’t care. If it’s two,
wouldn’t it at least from an enforcement standpoint – that would be the easier
one to deal with? Is there a lot of problem on common lots of four, five or six or
something like that? Is that a real common thing here in town or is that not very
common?
Hawkins-Clark: I would say it’s not very common. It certainly comes up. The
real estate signs, in general, not to mislead you are – we do receive complaints
in our code enforcement officers, but they are also with these signs that are on
the sidewalks. We’ve already dealt with that. Those are just not allowed.
There’s a myriad of things that deal with the real estate sign issue. Some of, too,
is just what do we want aesthetically, period, as the City.
Nary: Commissioner Norton pointed out a little bit earlier, when she was looking
at it, and we looked at it. There’s a section that talks about directional signs, but
it really isn’t these types of signs we’re talking about – at least the way it sounds
in here. Would it be, to make the most sense, since we’re talking about two
different things – we’re talking about a sign that tells somebody that the house is
for sale, and we’re also selling up signs that tell people how to get there. Those
are two different things. Would it make the most sense to simply clarify the
directional sign section to deal with real estate signs, because again, we
recognize they are temporary. They get taken down. They aren't a significantly
big problem in the City. Again, we get some calls, but they’re not a big problem,
even with the bigger subdivisions, and I think Commissioner Borup hit it on the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 31
head earlier saying the newer subdivisions isn’t as big a problem. It’s some of
the older ones. If we clarify that the directional signs are some time limit and
limited number of how many they can have – something easy and readable and
practical to deal with and they again can still come and ask for more if they want
to. The real estate sign – we clarify that this is for houses for sale, whether it’s
on the lot in front of it, or at least one sign on a different lot, if you want to.
Again, it’s not that big. Couldn’t we move on from this?
Borup: Let me mention one thing. Come on up, and while you’re coming up –
thinking about what you said about enforcement and what’s going to be the
easiest, in my mind, I still think the two per house for sale has an exact number
and as far as enforcement, one real estate company per entrance is easy to
enforce.
Hatcher: Entrance or per sign? If you have –
Borup: If they’re a mile apart, then that’s a different matter. Maybe that needs to
be clarified. If you’ve got six real estate signs there and you only want four,
which company do you call? If you’ve got three from the same company, you
know who you call. You say, “Hey, you’ve three signs up there. You’re only
allowed one.” One call to the real estate company and they take care of it.
You’re not in there trying to – that’s easy as far as enforcement.
Hatcher: One company per common lot.
Borup: Yes. Is that much easier enforcement? You know who you’ve got to call,
whether it’s two companies or whatever.
Centers: It could be per entrance because you don’t – if I’ve got a house for sale
in my entrance, they’re not going to put a directional sign on the next entrance
too.
Borup: They want to get the people there the shortest way possible. I think they
realize that. Their signs are expensive. They don’t stick out more than what
they afford to do. Okay, Bob, you had a –
Nahas: I think that we intended to be addressing commercial as well as
residential property, right? I think that the one sign per frontage makes sense in
either case. Here’s what I wrote. “One real estate sign per frontage on any lot or
parcel provided it’s removed within seven days after the sale, rent or lease has
been consummated. For residential For Sale Property, one directional sign per
real estate company shall be permitted at the main entrance or entrances to a
subdivision unless prohibited by the CC and R’s of the subdivision.” I think we
should probably put that in there. Then, I think the other part of this is, I know
the County – the reason the County doesn’t like these signs is because they
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 32
block the vision of the drivers. I think that it would be a lot less offensive and
safer if we required a more – a sign that wasn’t very tall. I’m suggesting maybe –
Borup: Our line of sight, in the ordinance is three feet high. That’s what it is on a
fence.
Hawkins-Clark: Right – in site triangles. So in 40 X 40, put down one road?
Nahas: In residential, it’s not even that much. I think it’s 20 x 20 on a fence.
Hawkins-Clark: On a fence, yes. I’m talking about the clear vision triangle,
though. Well, that’s true. On a fence, it’s –
Nahas: Was it that it starts at three feet and then up to –
Hawkins-Clark: No. Three feet and lower.
Borup: Well, what are you talking about?
Hawkins-Clark: I was talking about a fence can’t be higher than three feet in that
site triangle.
Nahas: I think that are signs – even we talk about in a vision triangle that
between certain distance off the ground, and certain distance above, if they
couldn’t be in that area or something –
Hatcher: Three feet below or three feet above.
Hawkins-Clark: That’s right. It’s three feet and then ten feet is the height.
Nahas: Anyway, my suggestion would be that said signs shall not exceed one
foot in height and two feet in length. Even if ends up being in the vision triangle,
that’s not high enough to be an impedance to visibility the way a standard real
estate sign that’s what – maybe two and a half feet high.
Borup: I don’t think that’s a problem.
Nary: You would have to add no more than three feet from the ground to the top
of the sign.
Borup: That’s really the only concern.
(Inaudible rambling amongst Commission members)
Hatcher: Add the phrase, “no more than three feet off the ground.”
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 33
Borup: The size is already in the ordinance. I think just the height off the ground
and actually, I’ve never seen one that was taller than that, anyway.
Nahas: They’ve got these new ones, now. I don’t know if you’ve seen them. It’s
just a simple stake. It’s a single stake – a single poll and then just a direction
sign with the name of the real estate company.
Borup: Those are only three feet, also, aren’t they?
Nahas: I think about three feet off the ground.
Hatcher: I think that we should address it and say that the sign should be no
more than three feet above the ground. The realtor’s going to want to put it right
at the entrance, which means it’s going to be in the vision triangle.
Borup: I think that’s a good point. That’s already addressed in our Highway
District and our fence ordinance, so it might as well be added here.
Hatcher: Yes.
Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Chairman, the one thing, though, I would not put into that
section is that it has to be in compliance with the CC and R’s. That’s between
the property owners and the Homeowners Association and the realtor. The City
doesn’t enforce the CC and R’s. The City doesn’t want to have to use the CC
and R’s as the basis for the violation of the ordinance. Do you understand what
I’m saying?
Nahas: We don’t want to be giving them permission to do it if it’s prohibited by
the CC and R’s.
Hawkins-Clark: We can’t. We can’t say you can put it on the front house in the
subdivision –
(Inaudible rambling amongst Commission members)
Borup: Any comment on – in fact, I think you’re the one that brought it up on the
one per company. Do you think that was –
Nahas: Didn’t I put that there? I meant to.
Borup: No, you didn’t put it in your wording, but I thought you mentioned that --
Oh, did you? I missed it. I’m sorry.
Nahas: One directional sign per real estate company shall be permitted at the
main entrance and then (inaudible) entrances to the subdivision. Even if they did
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 34
end up being in the vision triangle, if it’s only a foot in height, it’s not going to be
an impedance division.
Borup: No. If it’s under three feet, it’s not.
Nahas: There a lot less expensive, too. I think that’s a possible solution.
Hatcher: Do we have that wording?
Borup: If it’s satisfactory, we could incorporate it right tonight, and put it in the
motion. Oh. Look at what we’ve got here.
Norton: Read it back and make sure it’s the same thing.
Ugarriza: Just briefly, I wrote it down. It’s not verbatim. It’s one real estate sign
per company per frontage; but was it an entrance?
*** End of Side 2 ***
Ugarriza: Okay. I’ll write it down this time.
Nahas: Let me just read it again. One real estate sign per frontage on any lot or
parcel and the rest is what’s written here, comma, provided it’s removed within
seven days after the sale, rent or lease has been consummated. For residential
for sale property, one directional sign per real estate company shall be permitted
at the main entrance(s).
Borup: Do we need to mention main entrance, or just say “shall be permitted”
and put it where they want?
Nahas: Well, they could just say “at the entrance.” We don’t have to put “main”
there.
Borup: What if they want to do it further down in? It may have –
Nahas: The subdivision entrance or entrances – some don’t have more than one
entrance.
Hatcher: I think it’s fine.
Borup: If there’s a bunch of real estate signs pointing down the street, and I am
only allowed one, I would let the other agent put his sign up there, and if I was on
kind of eluded directions, I would put my directional sign further down.
Norton: Just “shall be permitted,” period.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 35
Borup: That’s what I’m wondering. Let them put it where they want. Why
restrict them to an entrance?
Nary: Sure. Then it gives them the flexibility.
Hatcher: I think one company per entrance – one company sign per entrance,
period. If Bob want –
Borup: Two, perhaps per sale, and one per entrance.
Hatcher: If you have two different realtors for the same company, Bob can put
his over in this entrance, and Frank can put his over in his entrance.
Borup: So the way he had it worded would answer it.
Nahas: What you have is what you have now. I don’t think you’ll have any
realtors upset, do you, Bob?
Borup: We’re saying just the way you had it worded.
Nahas: How do you feel about the size?
Centers: I like your size and I think you have to add no more than three feet
above the ground, because they could have a four-foot pole and the ground is
frozen and they get it in six inches.
Hatcher: It’s right in your site line. You can’t see oncoming traffic.
Nahas: You can see above three feet, can’t you, if you’re in a car? If it’s four
feet, it might be a little bit more –
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Nahas: So said sign shall not exceed one foot in height and two feet in length
and shall not extend more than three feet above the surface?
Borup: So you’re disallowing most of the ones that are being used now then?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Nahas: But they’re less expensive.
Borup: Do we even need to address that?
Nary: I recognize that we talk about clutter a lot. If they’re no higher – if the top
of the sign is no higher than three feet above the ground, it’s going to be fairly
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 36
limited as to how big the sign could be anyway. Do we need to be that restrictive
and say it can’t be bigger than a foot and –
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: It just looks more (inaudible).
Nary: It’s still only this high off the ground.
Borup: I would be more in favor of just limiting that and then have a mixture of
signs.
Hawkins-Clark: The height has a safety concern, but the width of the sign is not
significant as long as it isn’t higher than three feet.
Hatcher: We still have a maximum size? They can’t put a three-foot by ten-foot
directional –
Borup: No. You’d still want 2 x 3, which is big.
Hatcher: They’re usually 18 x 24.
Nahas: Are the commercial signs also limited that way? I think the Commercial
signs can be bigger.
Nary: We allowed larger in the commercial zones.
Nahas: This would prohibit, then, having internal directional signs, because that
would still fall within the perimeters of one per frontage, wouldn’t it?
Borup: Yes. It can be whatever size they want up to the maximum? Do you
want to repeat what you got?
Norton: Okay. One real estate sign per frontage on any lot or parcel provided
that it is removed within seven days after the sale, rental or lease has been
consummated. For residential for sale property, one directional sign for real
estate company shall be permitted at the main entrance(s) no more than three
feet high from the ground.
Nahas: Okay. I think we’re going to take “main” out of that because there are
some subdivisions that have more than one. The “entrance(s).”
Norton: And then the height to be no more than three feet from the ground?
Hatcher: Yes. From adjacent ground.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 37
Hawkins-Clark: That is addressed already in there. You’re just talking about site
triangles, correct? Or are you saying even if not in the site triangles?
Hatcher: I was specifically addressing site triangles just to make sure –
Borup: That’s already in the ordinance?
Hawkins-Clark: It’s already there for all signs everywhere.
Norton: We don’t need to do the height.
Hatcher: Should we reference the section that –
Borup: That’s what I was going to say.
Hatcher: -- just make a cross reference and “shall conform to section blah blah
blah of the site triangle requirements.” Good enough.
Nahas: Thank you very much. Sorry it takes so much time.
Borup: Thank you, Bob. Are we comfortable for what needs to be? I assume
our motion would need to incorporate the proposed or the amendments that you
covered in the first part along with the real estate signs. Would that give you the
direction for the amended ordinance?
Norton: Just to make this really clear, not only his that he has written down in his
memo, he had three extra ones that we don’t have in our thing plus this thing. It
would be an extensive motion that it’s quite clear to City Council of what we
passed.
Borup: Would this be going to City Council as a rewritten draft ordinance or
would you be doing – you wouldn’t be doing the amendment separate? It would
just all be incorporated in?
Hawkins-Clark: We would intend to do a complete new draft. What is it, Shelby,
in terms of notice requirements for a new ordinance before Council? Is it the
standard 30 days?
Ugarriza: I believe that one, we notice twice within 15 days. We have to notice it
twice within 15 days prior to the meeting.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Even if it’s 15, we could get the amendments made in a
new draft before the Council meeting. That would be fine.
Ugarriza: November 21st
is when I was going to schedule it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 38
Hawkins-Clark: November 21.
Borup: Okay. Commissioners, the hearing is still open for one thing.
Nary: I move we close the public hearing.
Hatcher: I Second.
Borup: Motion is second to close the public hearing All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Do we have anybody who would like to work on a motion?
Norton: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that we adopt the Sign Ordinance
with the following additions to incorporate The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommendation amendments as stated on memo October 17 from Brad
Hawkins-Clark; will include graphic or sketches from the definition section; a
modification to Section 4 Paragraph A; a modification to Section 4 Paragraph C,
Section 6A Paragraph 10, Section 12 Paragraph D1 and Section 12 Paragraph
D2. Its all written in the memo including what Brad had mentioned tonight on
page 8, B on under No. 10 to list all signs within 25-feet of your proposed sign,
page 31 under Center Sign and Commercial Zone change from a maximum
height of 30 to 35-feet. Page 34 under Free-standing Signs change the
maximum height from 30 to 40-feet. Also to include the following language on
page 14 under No. 4 one real estate sign per frontage on any lot or parcel
provided it is removed within seven after the sale, rental or lease has been
consummated. For residential For Sale property one directional sign per real
estate company shall be permitted at the entrance(s).
Nary: Second.
Borup: Any discussion? Does that cover your stand point Brad? All in favor? Any
opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Thank you Commissioners this didn’t turn out to be the short meeting we
thought. One other housekeeping issue we don’t have a date – maybe you know
Brad any input on the Comprehensive Plan? I’m thinking we should get – is it
ready to come before us for public hearing yet?
Hawkins-Clark: Its not.
Borup: You’ve got a draft. What's going on beyond the draft that we’ve got now?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 39
Hawkins-Clark: There have been – we got about 20 comments in writing that we
have not gone over as a steering committee. And the steering committee just
hasn’t set a new date to meet. We last met on August 9th
and the
Comprehensive Plan has had nothing happen since then.
Borup: Who is the chairman of the steering committee? Is there a chairman?
Hawkins-Clark: No there is not a designated chair. Shari is trying to set a date
but I think she is waiting to hire two more planners.
Borup: Two more.
Hawkins-Clark: She got approved for two more.
Borup: You got the Sign Ordinance all done so you should be ready (inaudible)
project.
Hawkins-Clark: We get calls on it literally everyday on the Comprehensive Plan
it needs to happen. It just really a matter of setting a date for steering committee,
get together and go through it. Get a new map available for people. They’re very
contentious areas I think that’s part of the hesitation frankly.
Borup: Commissioners, Jerry I assume you don’t have the draft copy I’m not sure
did you get one Bill?
Nary: I did.
Borup: Jerry is probably the only one that doesn’t.
Hatcher: What's the date of the most current draft copy? Has it just been the
one?
Hawkins-Clark: June.
Borup: I think it was June.
Nary: Is the August one –
Borup: That’s the only one – one was bound the other one was stapled wasn’t it.
Nary: There was one before this I was just asking if there was one before this.
Borup: the bound one is the most current.
Hawkins-Clark: Actually the first one was bound too. The March – June is last
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 40
Nary: June 2000 Brad?
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Borup: I brought it up for one – I thought it might be coming sooner but
apparently not. Maybe we’ve got plenty of time for us to start reading it. I thought
the earlier we start that way we’re not cramming at the last minute.
Hatcher: Actually there is some very good information in there that I have never
seen in any of the older ones.
Centers: I see the partial agenda for November 14 refers to the Comprehensive
Plan quite often a number of the –
Borup: But its referring to the old plan isn’t it? it has to.
Nary: Yes because the other one is not really done.
Centers: Yes. There are a number of items – when you said the agenda was full
on the 14th
you must have had an inside scoop there. or Keith was –
Borup: They know what’s coming.
Hatcher: Are we up to six months – isn’t it every six months we can make
changes to the –
Borup: Yes.
Hatcher: It must be another six months has passed.
Borup: There hasn’t been anybody applying has there been?
Hawkins-Clark: No there has been several requests.
Borup: For comp plan amendments.
Hawkins-Clark: But we’ve been telling people that since the city initiated the
comp plan amendment –
Borup: But that’s what people were told a year ago. And we went ahead and put
them off for six months no longer than that. Put them off and finally did it and now
is that six months almost up?
Hatcher: I’m thinking it was – wasn’t it in March or April that we went through –
Borup: I think it was later than that but I don’t know.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 41
Hawkins-Clark: It saves them 1,100 dollars if they do it now. If the city initiates it
then they can what ever comments they want for free. If it’s a closed comp plan
process then they after to pay 1,100 per application. Just to submit for an
amendment.
Borup: maybe I’ll give Shari a call, would that be better?
Hawkins-Clark: That would be great.
Borup: Rather than passing it through you. Is that true would the Commission like
to move that process along so we could be working off our new one or does it
matter?
Hatcher: I would like to get it done and over with. We’ve got a new Landscape
Ordinance that is going through, we’ve got a new Sign Ordinance that is going
through. They’ve done a lot of work on this comp plan and a lot of people have
toiled over it and now sitting dead. I think as a body we need to push the issue
along.
Borup: I do too and I – lets close the meeting.
Nary: I would concur with Commissioner Hatcher I’m not staying up nights
worrying about the comp plan. I think since we do have these two bigger projects
off our plate now it makes sense –
Borup: That’s what I was thinking –
Nary: -- to say okay lets get ready lets get the other one moving along.
Hatcher: the City Council wants us to start looking at some of our other
Ordinance’s as a body.
Borup: That is our responsibility there are a lot of things per Ordinance is
supposed – can originate with us we really haven’t done that in the past.
Hatcher: Before I started involving myself on that I would like to be able to work
off the current comp plan.
Borup: I think this should be our priority.
Hawkins-Clark: the sooner you can start in because my sense is that there is
going to be three or four key hubs around the impact area that you are going to
need to be making final decisions on as a body. That wont get resolved at the
steering committee level. That’s my gut feeling.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
October 25, 2000
Page 42
Hatcher: I suspect we’re going to end up having more than one meeting – public
hearing on this.
Borup: I think so and also I assume we’re going to want to do a workshop on it
too aren’t we.
Hatcher: I would like to – are those open to the public the workshops?
Borup: Yes.
Hatcher: We don’t have to have public hearings they can sit and listen us to us
talk but we don’t have to listen to them.
Borup: Right but we can ask for their input if we would like to.
Norton: Are you ready to close the meeting?
Borup: Yes I’m ready.
Norton: Mr. Chairman I move that he meeting be closed.
Hatcher: I second the motion.
Borup: Motion second All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:59 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK