2000 09-12MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 2000
The meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
order at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 12, 2000, by Chairman Keith Borup.
Members Present: Keith Borup, Sally Norton, Bill Nary, Richard Hatcher
Others Present: Brad Hawkins-Clark, Bruce Freckleton, David Swartley, Shelby
Ugarriza
A. Approve minutes of July 11, 2000, Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting:
B. Approve minutes of July 19, 2000, Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting:
C. Approve minutes of August 8, 2000, Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting:
Borup: We do have a short agenda this evening as the crowd shows so that’s
going to be a little unusual. Before we get started we would like to go ahead and
handle the consent agenda which consists of the minutes from the last three
meetings we would like to also take a roll-call. Commissioner Norton is present,
Commissioner Nary, Commissioner Hatcher is present and Commissioner Borup
is present. And that consists of the members right now Commissioner Barberio
has moved out of the area and at this time we do not have a replacement yet.
Commissioners the consent agenda consists of the minutes from July 11, 19 and
August 8th
. Do we have any comments or questions? Hearing none do we have
a motion?
Norton: Mr. Chairman I move that we approve the minutes of July the 11th
July
the 19th
and of August 8th
.
Hatcher: I second the motion.
Borup: Motion is second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: The process on a public hearing is, for those who aren’t familiar first we
normally have a staff report followed by a brief summary from the applicant in
which time the Commissioners may have the opportunity to ask some questions
after that there is opportunity for public testimony. Then the applicant will have a
chance to give their final comments. Sometime after that public testimony is
usually closed there will be some discussion and then this Commission will make
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 2
a recommendation. That’s more or less the procedure we would like to proceed
with.
Item 1. Continued from August 8, 2000: CUP-00-041 Request for
Conditional Use Permit to construct a Fred Meyer Gas Station
facility with a canopy, five multi-product dispensers, cashiers kiosk,
and parking lot improvements in a C-G zone by Barghausen
Consulting Engineers – Fairview Avenue and Locust Grove.
The first item on the agenda is a continued public hearing from our August 8th
meeting. Conditional Use Permit to construct a Fred Meyer gas station facility C-
G zone at Fairview and Locust Grove. Brad do we have any additional comments
you would like to make? We have received some new information from the last
meeting that the Commissioners all have.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes Commissioners in addition to that if you have reviewed the
two sheets one was a revised site plan which, showed them moving the
proposed fuel facility down to the east. It shown here on the site plan more or
less the design of the fuel center itself is the same. They are changing the
direction if I recall right of the vehicular traffic to move north and south in the fuel
center as compared to east and west. That was the major issue at your last
meeting was the concern about the vehicular traffic at the entrance further west.
They have chosen to move that. They did submit a preliminary landscape plan
which shows the change in the planters they are proposing to add some trees to
the site and the general parking area for Fred Meyer that is in the general vicinity
of the fuel center. In terms of signs I have had discussions with both Fred Meyer
and their representative from Barghausen Engineers we’ve come to I think
somewhat of an agreement that as to compared to a free standing sign which,
we were discouraging as staff. They have proposed four signs on the canopy
each side of the canopy would have a sign which, they do have representations
of that type of sign for you tonight. We as staff are supportive of that idea of
putting these simply fuel price signs on the canopy that would be the main – in
terms of informational that would be what they would consist of. Of course those
are in addition to the other logos and the other signs that they have within the
center itself. I think they are the only changes from staff’s perspective thanks.
Borup: Is the applicant here and like to come forward?
Ferko: Good evening my name is Chris Ferko I’m with Barghausen Consulting
Engineers we’re based in Kent Washington. Yes indeed staff has basically
summarized the changes that have been made to the site-plan and then again to
summarize what we are proposing for signage. Would be the Fred Meyer
gasoline sign on the north and south façades. Then the price sign, if you look at
the bottom elevation of the canopy, there the price sign would be on all four sides
of the canopy. I have for you to take a look at a brochure from the sign
manufacturer which will show you basically what the signs look like. At this one in
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 3
particular, if you look at the bottom, you will see what the price signage looks like.
While you are taking a look at that, I will explain how the signs basically work.
There was some discussion about if this was a flip-o-matic type of sign it is not a
flip-o-matic sign. It is a scrolling type of sign with silk-screen type letters inside.
So, basically, inside of the sign, the number can roll, and they roll around rollers
and that is all changed by electronic remote control. It’s really not a flip-o-matic
sign per se where the numbers actually flip and you will actually have a moving
sign. Only the numbers would roll on the inside and those would just be changed
when the prices change. Illumination on the inside is just standard fluorescent
lighting the same as lighting for a standard cabinet-type of sign that you would
see basically anywhere else in the city. That basically summarizes the changes
that were made to the plan. If you have any questions I would be happy answer
them for you.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: Sir, when I was looking at the sheets that were provided with the new
changes as to the location of the station, is it just an oversight, the vicinity map
and the locator map that are in the corner don’t match up to the map of the new
site plan. Is that – (inaudible) site plan correct were it’s supposed to be?
Ferko: That’s correct. The site plan is correct the vicinity map -- that was an
oversight that should have been corrected.
Nary: The other question I have this sign – brochure you have given us. Is there
a sign on there that is similar to what your intention of sign is? Because those
look like that simply – portion of the one there that says Kroeger?
Ferko: Yes, but it would be just the price sign on the bottom in the red.
Borup: Any other questions from any other Commissioners?
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: I wanted to commend Fred Meyer for relocating where we asked you to
relocate. I appreciate that. That was a very busy intersection where you had
previously proposed it, and we appreciate you listening to us and relocating that
to the other entrance. Thank you.
Borup: Anything else? I guess that’s all at this time. Do we have anyone here
from the public who would like to testify or comment on this application? Seeing
none, Commissioners, any final questions? Staff, any final comments?
Nary: I move to close the public hearing.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 4
Hatcher: I second the motion.
Borup: We have a motion and a second to close the public hearing, all in favor?
Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Do we have any discussion or are we ready for a motion?
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: I would move for approval of CUP 00-041 request for Conditional Use
Permit to construct a Fred Meyer Gas station facility with a canopy, five multi-
product dispensers, cashiers kiosk and parking lot improvements in a C-G zone
by Barghausen Consulting Engineers on Fairview Avenue and Locust Grove with
the accompanying staff comments and recommendations, I guess partly from
this hearing as well as the previous hearing the staff report was submitted.
Hatcher: I second the motion.
Borup: We have a motion and a second any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 2. Public Hearing: CUP-00-045 Request for Conditional Use
Permit to allow a telephone call center in an I-L zone by Power
Engineers c/o Micron Technology dba Crucial Technology – off
of Eagle Road between Franklin Road and Fairview Avenue:
Borup: Item No. 2, public hearing, CUP 00-045, request for Conditional Use
Permit to allow a telephone call center in an I-L zone by Power Engineers c/o
Micron Technology d/b/a Crucial Technology off of Eagle Road between Franklin
Road and Fairview Avenue. Staff comments, Brad.
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioners this application -- from the south side of
Commercial Court here the cross-hatched area here on the screen, there is
actually two legal parcels involved that currently on which the building currently
sits. A couple of site photos this is the rear of their facility. They do have a
portion of it that is currently paved the larger of which is not would need to be
paved to facilitate the parking area that is shown on the site plan that you have.
This is Commercial Court looking east and the front of the Micron building here.
This is the rear of the building with their loading dock here. This is front of the
facility looking west. They’re currently – as the application states they’re looking
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 5
to move out all of their warehousing and packing uses and convert it to a 100-
percent call center. So internally that will be the main change. On terms of the
landscaping they are proposing to add all of these new landscape planters and
the perimeter landscaping here to the site. Currently there are some landscaping
existing along Commercial Court but otherwise the rest of the landscaping would
be new. They have submitted a variance application to reduce the size of the
trees. Our Ordinance requires three-inch caliper; they are requesting two so that
they can – the three-inch is simply not available in the nursery stock around the
area. That variance application is waiting so that if you approve this application it
would go together with the variance application to City Council. That’s being
held. We are -- the staff is recommending the approval of the variance to reduce
the tree size. In terms of the tree count, they would still be meeting the
Ordinance. That’s all I have.
Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners?
Norton: Mr. Chairman, I have one question. Let’s say the employees go to this
call center, does it go out to Eagle Road to get in and out of this call center?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Norton: The way to get in and out is at Eagle Road is that correct?
Hawkins-Clark: that’s correct.
Borup: Is the applicant here or a representative?
Kaiser: Good evening I’m Richard Kaiser. I’m with Power Engineers architect for
Micron Technology. When Crucial wanted to design this building as a 100-
percent call center that was one of the very issues I want to address that right off
the bat, the access here. We recognize there is quite a traffic issue going out
onto Eagle, and we’ve been discussing and working with ACHD for a connection
of Commercial Court out to Pine and making that a rear connection. In
discussing with ACHD, they decided at this time not to put this on the review
because they are still in negotiation working out that connection Commercial
Court to Pine Street. The building currently is about 50-percent warehousing and
50-percent office space. It is currently housing a call center on the east side of
the building. The desire is to make it a 100-percent call center. This isn’t
something that is supported in the current land use documents. It’s different from
your typical office center. It’s not sales. It’s not professional offices as far as
people coming here to provide a professional service with visitors coming to visit.
They come and man the call center to be able to take phone calls from persons
wanting to place an order for their product, and then it is currently mailed out
from currently the warehousing facility. That warehousing facility will be moving
to another location. The landscaping: We have tried to meet the current
Ordinance from count and to give it a very pleasant appearance the employees
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 6
want to have some place that is nice to go to. So we’ve met the Ordinance has
far as the count of trees. It’s just the caliper isn’t really available. We’ve tried to
do something that would really address the appearance especially (inaudible)
abuts up to the Union Pacific Railroad which is a future pedestrian path. One
thing that isn’t made clear on this drawing is right in the center of the building you
see a number of little circles. That is an outside break area, and our intent is to
landscape that with ground cover, with trees, with pavers and that sort of thing to
make a pleasant outdoor break space. As you can see by the way we’ve
landscaped it, we’ve made that connection out to the future Union Pacific
Railway. Commercial Court, we really wouldn’t be affecting anything along there.
The landscaping is existing. There is currently no sidewalks. There is a drainage
ditch along Commercial Court. One thing that is mentioned in the staff report is
they’re asking for a five-foot sidewalk along Commercial Court. Since we’re not
making any improvements to Commercial Court I would like to clarify that that
would not be a requirement for this improvement until such time as there are
improvements made elsewhere along Commercial Court. With that, are there
any questions?
Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners?
Norton: Could you please tell how many people would be working the call center;
how many shifts and what times those shifts go in and out?
Kaiser: Our master plan for this thing is approximately 500 employees, and I
don’t know if we are doing shifts.
Borup: Come up and get your name on for testimony.
Wald: I’m Jim Wald. I am the project manager for Micron Technology on this
project. The bulk of the people are eight to five. We are a twenty-four seven
operation, so there are 30 to maybe 50 people that are in there on off hours in
and out.
Borup: 30 to 50 per shift with 3 shifts?
Wald: On the off shift, the major shift is eight to five. I would say at peak, build-
out which is two years from now that eight to five shifts would probably be
looking at 400 people.
Norton: So 500 total over a two- to three-year period at this point?
Wald: Yes.
Norton: How many people are working now in the call center?
Wald: Just the call center or the total business?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 7
Norton: The total building so we can see the increase of traffic.
Wald: I think we have about 230 there right now.
Norton: Is that a mainly an eight to five shift also?
Wald: No we have about 200 on the 8 to 5 and 30 in the off hours.
Borup: Is that pretty close to what should be opening the call center? You said
about 500 at build out but starting with 300 or less than that.
Wald: We have a project design now that will take us to about 300.
Borup: When you open the doors?
Wald: The doors are open.
Borup: I mean when the improvements are made.
Wald: Total improvements – 2 years from now we expect 500.
Borup: How about two months from now?
Wald: Two months from now – we’re at 250 now – I think we – we have 60 in our
next phase. It’ll take us through April of next year.
Borup: It sounds like your next phase the new people coming to the call center
are going to be replacing people that are working in the office and warehouse
now so the total number isn’t going to change too much in the near future.
Wald: No, not in the near future.
Borup: That was the point I was trying to find out about. I would kind of like to
continue on from Commissioner Norton about the tie into Pine. If something
happens there and by the time you get to full capacity would you be anticipating
there would be a Pine Street connection?
Kaiser: Micron certainly supports that but we do know if it’s going to happen.
Borup: You haven’t gotten enough information from ACHD really to know. Any
other questions from the Commissioners?
Nary: You mentioned the sidewalk provisions general requirement No.9. Are you
saying currently there is not going to be enough improvement to enact the
statute of the Ordinance at this time to build the five-foot sidewalk?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 8
Kaiser: That was my understanding. That was only in there because they thought
there were some sidewalks along the road that there were improvements and in
fact there are not. There are no sidewalks along that road now. There wouldn’t
be anything that would create that requirement.
Hatcher: I have a question for staff. Is that road currently classified as a city road
or has it been turned over to ACHD?
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Hatcher that’s ACHD’s jurisdiction.
Borup: Anything else? Thank you gentlemen. Do we have anyone here from the
public that would like to comment or testify on this application? Seeing none.
Commissioner, do we have any final comments from staff are you okay with the
sidewalk situation?
Hawkins-Clark: Sidewalks are really ACHD’s in terms of requirements along the
public right-of-way. My understanding is our Ordinance only allows us to require
under a plat. Since they are not platting, we don’t have the instrument or
mechanism to require other than internal to a site.
Borup: On a developed street it doesn’t make a lot of since to have a sidewalk
going nowhere, probably, does it?
Hawkins-Clark: Although ACHD has done that numerous places.
Hatcher: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: Commissioner Hatcher.
Hatcher: Staff, do we have anything in our jurisdiction that would mandate or
requirement – back up for a second. I think that asking for the installation of the
street at this time is unfounded. Do we have anything that would for example I
don’t believe that ACHD was requiring that Crucial Technology Micron contribute
to an impact fee or to a road improvement trust fund for Commercial Court. My
question is do we as a city have anything that we can use as an engine to
basically request that the money for this improvement be put into a trust and be
used at such time that that road be improved?
Hawkins-Clark: I don’t believe so Commissioner Hatcher probably the best we
could do is maybe you as the Commission requested or put together a memo to
the City Council who meets – our City Council meets on a regular basis with the
ACHD Commissioners I believe monthly. At that meeting, they do discuss policy
type issues of which this would be one. It’s the best I can do as far as a
recommendation otherwise. They have their Ordinances. They operate under
and their Commission sets the parameters for their funding for their impact fees
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 9
just as our Council sets it for us. I’m not aware of any way, as a city, require them
to do something that their own codes don’t allow for.
Hatcher: Thank you.
Borup: Anything else from the Commissioners? Would we like some discussion
or are we ready to close the hearing?
Norton: Just for sake of discussion I think that would an excellent idea to either
direct the Clerk of the Court – or who would write the letter for the Planning and
Zoning Commission. Because I think this is a real issue 500 people going in and
out of an unsignaled area on and off of Eagle Road. I can see potential for
accidents and serious injury – it will be a mess. I think it’s very important to get
another access in and out of there that won’t be so serious.
Borup: You are saying a letter to encourage a tie into Pine?
Norton: Yes, for the City Council and ACHD when they get together. This be a
point to discuss.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman. The applicant one of them made a comment about an
access being worked on. In the Albertson’s sundries project on the end of
Commercial I do know that they are working on getting a right-of-way dedicated
to ACHD to the north for future extension. I don’t know where they’re at in that
process.
Borup: That’s probably what they were referring to.
Freckleton: That’s probably – talking to. So there is something in the works.
Borup: From your understanding, that is ACHD’s intention and they’re just
needing to get the right-of-way, design et cetera.
Freckleton: That’s the way I understand it. The last plans we had that came in
showed right-of-way dedication to the north to their north boundary off of
Commercial.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners what I would suggest that we do is table
this particular discussion to maybe towards the end of the meeting before we
close the meeting and discuss it as a group or as a board. There is to many
times I’ve seen projects come before us where our hands have been tied and we
have no – we are passing something based upon our codes and our Ordinances
when whole-heartedly we have a situation where we could improve it if we had
the tools or the Ordinances to do so. As a city being within the city limits I don’t
see that we should have to rely totally on ACHD. With that aside I think we
should table that and get back onto the topic at hand and that’s the project
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 10
before us. I don’t see anything wrong with this project and I intend to approve it
tonight but I’m somewhat lukewarm about doing so because I know it’s going to
create an additional problem out on Eagle Road. We don’t have the connection
to Pine I would like to see the improvements on Commercial Court in their
entirety besides just a sidewalk. But that’s not in our control that’s in ACHD’s
control. Too often just seeing these projects blow on through and never get
improved then we have gravel ditches. How are we going to make this city better
if we just keep doing this over and over?
Borup: I think that would be a good idea to move that to the end of the agenda.
The extra circular (sic) discussion. Lets move on with this application.
Norton: I’ll move to close the public hearing.
Hatcher: I think it already was.
Borup: No.
Hatcher: Okay, then I’ll second it.
Borup: Okay, motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Do we need any other discussion for our motion?
Hatcher: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: Commissioner Hatcher.
Hatcher: I move that we recommend approval to City Council for CUP-00-045
request for Conditional Use Permit to allow a telephone call center in an I-L zone
by Power Engineers in representation for Micron Technology Crucial Tech off of
Eagle Road between Franklin and Fairview to include all staff comments to
amend the requirement for sidewalk improvements along Commercial Court to
not require it.
Nary: Second.
Borup: Motion is second any discussion? Seeing none. All in favor? Any
opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Thank you we appreciate this type of business in our city. I think it makes
a nice asset.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 11
Item 3. Public Hearing: RZ-00-004 Request for Rezone of .55 acres
from I-L to L-O for a proposed Licensed Childcare Facility for 48
children by Wendell and Kasha Lawrence – Linder Road and
Pine
Avenue at 737 N. Linder Road:
Item 4. Public Hearing: CUP-00-045 Request for Conditional Use
Permit for a Licensed Childcare Facility for 48 children in a
proposed L-O zone by Wendell And Kasha Lawrence – Linder
Road and Pine Avenue at 737 N. Linder Road:
Borup: Okay. Item No. 3, public hearing, request for rezone of .55 acres from I-L
to L-O for a proposed licensed childcare facility for 48 children by Wendell and
Kasha Lawrence, Linder Road and Pine Avenue at 737 North Linder Road. We’ll
open the public hearing and have staff comments first.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: Would it make sense to call both Items 3 and 4?
Borup: I think that would be a good idea. We will be able then to have a report
and testimony on both items. Brad.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you Commissioner Borup. Just to familiarize you, the
subject lot is at the - more or less the corner here of Pine and Linder, one lot
down on the west side of Linder. There is an existing office warehouse building
there. There is a large multi-tenant industrial site here with a storage yard that
wraps around the west side of the site. This is north this direction, entrance off of
Linder Road. The existing building situated here. Future expansion located here.
They do have three existing parking spaces with some existing landscaping. At
this point my understanding they are not proposing to expand the facility
immediately they’re looking at using the existing facility as it currently is. Here is
an elevation of the existing building on the site. I guess the floor plan didn’t get
put in here but you should have in your packets a copy of the floor plan. I would
just like to point out three or four things in the staff report. On Page 2 under the
rezone general comments – Bruce Freckleton at our Public Works Department
did review the legal description we – according to the assessors map, it
appeared to us that the legal described a parcel that was larger than what the
assessors electronic data has. Kasha Lawrence did come to the office today and
pointed out with an assessor’s map that showed, in fact, the right-of-way has
already been dedicated previously. When this property built building he was
required – we have not gotten evidence of this Ada County Highway District yet
I’m simply passing on to you what Kasha passed on. They dedicated 45 feet
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 12
from the centerline of Linder Road which pushes back the property line along
Linder. The legal description calls out 180 feet from more or less the centerline of
Linder so if you take off 45 feet of right-of-way then that ends up a total depth lot
of 135 feet. I believe the 110 feet that we measuring – maybe Bruce can speak
to this – was actually looking at a map that did not show the dedication. It didn’t
reflect that. As this is currently built, it’s already got the right-of-way dedicated.
They would not need to dedicate any more. That would take off or eliminate their
front landscaping there on Linder. I guess there is still a little bit of questions
since we haven’t seen any final. We probably need to review that. It appears
that they have 135 feet from the property line on Linder to the west to the rear of
the lot. Which is 20 feet less than what it scales out on the site plan which is 155
feet? So we are talking about 20 feet less what they compared to what was on
the site plan. If 135 feet is accurate. I also want to point out to you on Page 4 No.
2 the parking issue, that with 48 children minimum of nine parking stalls would be
required. They do have room here currently without any additional asphalt to do
two more parking stalls here. I don’t think they exist they would just need to be
striped. That would make for a total of one, two, three, four, and five. Probably
about another four in order to accommodate 48 children which, is what they are
proposing at the first to have at the existing site. They request – Wendell and
Kasha to address that as far as how they would get four more stalls. And then
No. 4 on page 4 the floor plan it appears I was wrong instead of 1,386 square-
feet its actually 1,904. The actual floor area of the building which would bump up
the total amount as far as the Idaho State Code requiring them a minimum of 35
square-feet per child. That would bump it up to allow 46 children in that amount
of square-foot that would be one modification. On ACHD’s staff report on their
site specific like I said we haven’t received a revised, they are asking for 48 and
it appears they are only going to be asking for 45 so it is a change of 3 feet. They
would not a t this point be asking for more right-of-way Ada County Highway
District would not. Other than that I think the rest of the staff comments are
accurate and I just request that they be incorporated.
Borup: Thank you, any questions from of the Commissioners?
Norton: Mr. Chairman,
Borup: Commissioner Norton?
Norton: Brad would this business need to go for another Conditional Use Permit
when they do the addition to ask for 78 children? At this point we’re only
motioning on 48 maximum children for this facility; is that correct?
Hawkins-Clark: I haven’t really thought that through. Child-care centers are a
Conditional Use Permit always. I think that would be really the only way for us to
approach it. Unless they have some more details tonight as far as what the
future expansion looks like what the parking lot – how they’re going to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 13
accommodate that many children. Otherwise I think you would be approving
something that we really don’t know what it looks like.
Norton: Too many children and not enough room. Okay so 48 children is what
we’re discussing tonight?
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Nary: Mr. Chairman
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: I heard you say, Brad, in the one portion regarding the right-of-way or the
square-footage. No. 4, there appears to be adequate square footage for 46
children, but the parking can’t incorporate 46 children at this point. Is that
correct?
Hawkins-Clark: 48 that’s correct –
Nary: In the parking provisions of No. 2 you say it’s the staffs recommendation
that we only approve 30 children because the parking is not adequate at this
point.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Nary: No. 4 there is more square footage in the building than originally thought.
So the building could hold 46 children under the formula but the parking doesn’t
match that.
Hawkins-Clark: That’s correct.
Nary: Thank you.
Borup: Anything else before we go on? Would the applicant like to come
forward?
Kasha Lawrence: I’m Kasha Lawrence. The first issue I would like to address is
when I went and spoke with Shari when I put in this application she told me don’t
limit yourself as far as the number of children if we want to do the future
expansion. That’s why I have the 78 based on the square-feet. It doesn’t really
matter what – I mean you guys could approve me for 48 and then licensing and
the Fire Department go in there they will actually measure – they don’t actually
count the bathrooms and hallways or anything like that. They will actually reduce
it down from there. I’m actually applying for the 78 today. That’s what I’m
applying for. When the fire department will not approve more than 50 without
appropriate sprinkler system and fire protection. The 48 would possibly – we
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 14
haven’t went in there and measured we have but the fire department is actually
the one who goes in and measures and the licensing to tell you the exact
number – 47, 43 depending on where you have your bathroom and kitchen and
hallways. As far as the parking goes I think we have six there there’s a number
one down there in the far left by the round bushes. I went back over there today
after we spoke and that is an actual parking spot. I don’t how you would – if need
to stripe that. I don’t know if you guys can see the little number one right there in
the corner. Yes that one. That would move us up to six. I did not know that when
we put in the application that we had to have one parking spot for each staff I just
thought the requirement was one per every 10 children or I have would have
addressed it. What we are proposing at this time is to as pavement to
incorporate the necessary parking spots to the north of the parking spaces that
we already have there.
Borup: You are talking about adding three spaces there you say?
Kasha Lawrence: If we are going to pave it we can add as many as we need.
Borup: How much are you going to be paving?
Kasha Lawrence: If we pave to incorporate future expansion we might as well
pave the whole rest of the area. I think it will be less cost efficient if we paved
four parking spots and then in a year came back and paved the rest. As far as
I’m concerned we could put in the full (inaudible) of parking spaces there to the
north of the part that was already paved because to the right, right now is just
bare ground.
Borup: Nay questions from the Commission?
Hatcher: Chairman Borup.
Borup: Commissioner Hatcher.
Hatcher: I was just looking at the paper work submitted your application was for
48 children which is the maximum your currently applying for. If I understood you
right your in favor of enlarging the parking lot to the –
Kasha Lawrence: Right now at this time we have to enlarge the parking lot to
facilitate 48 –
Hatcher: -- (inaudible) the amount of children that are –
Kasha Lawrence: -- that we can take –
Hatcher: -- and then come back later for a second go around.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 15
Kasha Lawrence: Right now I would like to do the 48 and then for the future
expansion go back for the 78. I didn’t know how it worked as far as saying okay
in a year we would like to expand. Shari Stiles I asked her about it and she said
don’t limit yourself. That’s why it was put in there I didn’t know what the exact
process was.
Hatcher: Expanding the parking lot to its maximum potential for preparations of
future building expansion you are also in favor of providing the required
landscape buffers to adjacent properties and the (inaudible) right-of-way –
Kasha Lawrence: The CUP -- at least the staff comments required that we had
buffer on this side and I think buffer on that side in the back. There are currently
very mature pine trees along the back. We don’t have a problem providing
adequate landscaping.
Hatcher: I’m just trying to get a clear picture of what’s been submitted and what
we’re talking about. We are talking about stuff that isn’t on (inaudible) right now.
Kasha Lawrence: We had not submitted a landscape plan.
Hatcher: Right I’m just getting a feel for – if your going to expand the parking lot
which we don’t have documentation on right now your also going to be required
to –
Kasha Lawrence: Add more landscaping.
Hatcher: -- to add landscaping around that parking lot. So everything is in
compliance so you will be prepared for the future expansion of the building. I just
want to make you are clear with –
Kasha Lawrence: Yes I understand that.
Borup: Anyone else?
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: Mrs. Lawrence are you currently a daycare provider at this time?
Kasha Lawrence: Yes we own a facility that is down the road it is on 444 N.
Linder Road. License for 50 children.
Norton: So would this be an addition to what you already own or are planning on
moving your whole operation over here to this one?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 16
Kasha Lawrence: No we just opened the other one so this would be another
facility.
Norton: Another facility so you are familiar with the daycare licensing laws in the
State of Idaho?
Kasha Lawrence: Yes we are.
Norton: I have not I am not familiar with this law is their grass currently in the
backyard?
Kasha Lawrence: Currently in the backyard right now are pine needles. We
would want to grass it and sprinkler it just for the children’s play area that’s pretty
much expected.
Norton: And fenced?
Kasha Lawrence: We have to be fenced before they licensed us.
Norton: Thank you.
***End of Side One***
Hatcher: Real quick, how many parking stalls would be required for 78 children?
Borup: Sixteen.
Hatcher: For 78 children? If we required 9 for 48 we would have –
Hawkins-Clark: Part of that, Commissioner, depends on the number – the age of
the kids. As I understand there is a ratio of one staff to six infants and then one
staff to 12 is that right Kasha?
Kasha Lawrence: And then one staff to 18 –
Hawkins-Clark: For six and over?
Kasha Lawrence: For five and up.
Hawkins-Clark: Depending on the age category of the kids, then one employee if
they have all infants they’re going to need more parking spaces because there
are more employees. At this point we would need to get that information from
them. Seventy-eight children depending on the ratios of the ages.
Hatcher: Your future expansion or even current facility could be limited solely by
available parking?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 17
Kasha Lawrence: Right if we are going to pave the rest of the area we would
definitely want to put as many parking spaces that we could fit in there with
landscaping and space available. Right now at our current facility we have 16
spaces for 50 children that would be five that are required for the number of
children. I’ve never heard it specified by age. Then we would have approximately
five more for staff so we have 6 extra over there. We obviously have plenty you
can always find an empty spot. I would rather do a couple of more than not here.
We have a lot more room at the other place I don’t how many we can actually fit
in here as far as spaces go.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: Currently there is only one handicap space and you count the handicap
space towards the ratio also?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes correct.
Kasha Lawrence: How many handicap spaces do you have to have per number
of parking spots?
Hawkins-Clark: Twenty-five are the cut off. You have to have at least one van
accessible per 25.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: Mrs. Lawrence, I have just one other question regarding where is the
front door of the building compared to where the parking lot is? I’m concerned
about safety as moms and dads drive in drop their children off and where do they
have to walk in order to get to the front door.
Kasha Lawrence: Right there where he has the arrow is the front door. It has a
ramp there currently to your right where the two long spaces are not paved its
concrete. But how we have it our current facility when we had them do the
parking lot we had them go ahead and put a sidewalk all the way out. Quite away
out at leas to the end of the building – at least here we would want it to go to the
end of the building. There going to be the parking lot issue safety even if – I’ve
seen parents let their kid get out of the car and let their kid run the other
direction. I would be willing to put in the necessary sidewalk it at least helps keep
them out of the parking lot if you put a sidewalk the rest of the way down. There
may possibly be another entrance in the future expansion. Another thing I want
to address that was in the staff comments was the number of jobs verses the
number of staff. Typically the daycare is going to be open from seven to six
which is an 11-hour day. Usually we will have someone there in the morning and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 18
someone there in the evening even though there is two employees they’re not
there at the same time. I can’t work people the whole time 11-hour days 5 days a
week. Even though there would be more than five jobs that is promoting that we
would be having new jobs there not all there at the same time.
Borup: Any other questions? Thank you we may have some more later. Do we
have anyone here from the public who would like to testify on this? Come on up.
Karmack: My name is Becky Karmack I live at 1705 West Pine. Chairman and
Commissioners I would just like to ask a few questions. I don’t have a lot of
information yet about what it is and what’s going on we live just around the
corner. The play yard is going to be where, Kasha; is that behind?
Borup: Yes.
Karmack: And that will all be fenced? And will there fence around the whole
thing? Will it be fenced around the parking lot too? Can I ask her these
questions?
Borup: Well no you need to address the Commission.
Karmack: Okay. I’m sorry, I would like to know where the fence is going to be.
Borup: The fence will be around the entire play area back of the building.
Karmack: But not surrounding the parking lot or front areas at all?
Borup: No that’s landscaped around those areas.
Karmack: Another thing I would like to address that is only one lot away from a
four-way stop and I assume there will children who will attending school so there
will be a bus stop there.
Borup: We can find out on that.
Karmack: That would be an interesting issue to address where that bus is going
to stop and how those kids are going to get off. I was just wondering about the
landscaping and where that will be. There is an irrigation canal it’s a ditch part of
its underground part of it is above that goes along the south side of this property
and connects all of those homes that face Pine.
Borup: You are saying part of that ditch is open at this time?
Karmack: Part of the ditch is open but it is only behind their property everything
on their property is covered. The opening for that is right on the corner of their
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 19
property that’s the only access that any of us have is on the corner of their
property.
Borup: On Linder?
Karmack: For that irrigation on Linder. That’s correct.
Borup: Up front on Linder?
Karmack: So any changes to be made in that property this was an issue when
the property was done. Providing access to that irrigation because that was our
only way of getting there.
Borup: At this point what they presented to us is not showing any changes in that
area.
Karmack: Maybe you could educate me I’m not sure. Once a Conditional Use
Permit is done is that then forever?
Borup: No.
Karmack: So once it’s approved.
Borup: Its approved if they comply with what they’ve agreed to if they become
out of compliance then the –
Karmack: Who is the policing body for that?
Borup: Normally the city is but normally it’s done by complaints from –
Karmack: The reason I address that is because we have two other businesses
that are in that area that are Conditional Use and one is a very small business on
the corner a wood business you maybe familiar with.
Borup: Are you sure that’s a Conditional Use?
Karmack: That was my understanding that it was approved with Conditional Use
and it was very unobtrusive and small at the onset it is no longer in that – I guess
my fear is once the neighborhood agreed and supported that and then things
changed. I am just wondering what kind of controls there are for Conditional Use
Permits and if they are unlimited?
Borup: No they are not unlimited and they can be -- I think the wording is a
violation of any of the conditions will be cause to revoke Certificate of
Occupancy. Conditional Use is subject to review 10 days notice to the applicant
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 20
that’s one of the conditions. I’m still thinking about this wood thing here see you
are sure that was a Conditional Use though?
Karmack: As far as I know that’s how it was brought to us in fact we were
required to sign something as I remember.
Borup: Okay that was before any of our time.
Hatcher: Chairman Borup.
Karmack: I’m sure it was but before mine.
Borup: That’s not applicable to this application.
Karmack: No it’s just a point of comparison.
Hatcher: I would recommend that you talk with the planning department.
Karmack: With Planning and Zoning okay
Hatcher: With Bruce, Brad and Shari.
Karmack: I just wondered about the length of the permit. One of my concerns
about this issue what come up tonight which is new to me and that is if there are
48 kids and eventually we’re looking at 78. Would that have to go (inaudible)
drawing board. How huge is this going to get?
Borup: No we would only be approving a set number tonight for them to do
anymore they would need to come back before this Commission.
Karmack: I’m very interested in what kind of feedback ACHD has given. This is
right around the corner from the high school and I’m sure you’re aware of the
traffic there if not you’re more than welcome to come to my home for a couple of
days I be glad to have you to see what that’s like. There is a real issue there as
far as traffic I would like to know the specific numbers of increased traffic on that
intersection that ACHD has projected I know they generally project an increase in
traffic. I would like to know how many more vehicle trips they are projecting.
Borup: We have not – do you have n ACHD report?
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner we do. It’s a draft at this point 200 additional.
Karmack: Two hundred additional ones per day?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 21
Karmack: On that intersection. I would certainly ask the Commission to think
about that. To think about the (inaudible) traffic trips. And if we’re looking at 78
eventually then 200 is going to grow. Would that be your guess?
Hawkins-Clark: Their draft report does show up to 48 being the 200. One thing to
clarify that a vehicle trip is one trip is to the site, one trip is away from the site –
Karmack: 100 people back and forth or 100 cars back and forth one there –
Borup: No, 48 making – 48 cars dropping the kid off so that’s assuming one child
per family too.
Hatcher: Four vehicle trips per child.
Borup: to there and back, there and back is four vehicle trips.
Karmack: I guess again I’m just concerned about the traffic impact those lanes
there are two lane roads there is a bicycle lane coming on Linder up to going
south and there are no bicycle lanes on the others but we have bicycles all the
time. My concerns I guess high school students aren’t known for necessarily
known for following the lanes. We often have a two-lane road that turns in to a
four-lane road on that intersection that’s very common practice. I am concerned
about the traffic impact on that area. It would be substantial its difficult now.
Borup: (inaudible) one way ACHD has no way of projecting is how many of these
trips are people that are already driving that intersection. Maybe –
Karmack: Correct.
Borup: -- maybe making a shorter trip than they would otherwise.
Karmack: And we certainly hope if that goes through that is the case. Other than
that I have nothing against the type of business at all. Childcare to me there is
such a need for it I see that. I certainly would just as soon have it zoned that
rather than industrial in that area I think that’s an improvement. I just do have
concerns –
Borup: It is a down zone –
Karmack: It is. I am not necessarily opposed to that I do have some concerns.
My main concern is the traffic concern and then I am concerned about the limits
and what will happen because of that. It is a small area that’s a very small area
and it is boxed in there between the industrial area that is there and that
intersection, that corner. As you discuss those things I would certainly hope you
would address those kinds of issues. Thank you I appreciate your time.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 22
Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Do we have anyone else who
would like to testify?
Martinson: Good evening my name is Merle Martinson I live at 1572 West Idaho
Court which is directly across the street from said building. I am, too, concerned
about the traffic situation. If you are familiar with that area during the peak hours
of traffic at school time you will note that traffic does back up at that four-way
stop sign clear back to the railroad tracks. There is a lot of truck traffic on Linder
Road during the daytime. I would also like to draw to your attention that there is
no curb or gutter on the west side of Linder Road. There is no sidewalk on the
west side of Linder Road. Any traffic to this childcare center would not be able to
be allowed to get off the sidewalk and go into the area or anything like this all of
the traffic would have to be off of Linder Road into the parking area. That peak
hours of school traffic I think this would create a very severe traffic problem. I
would like to call that to your attention. We were under the impression that there
would be only the 48 – the number of 48 in regards to the daycare center. Now
we find out it’s going to be probably nearly double that in their final plan. Which is
going to cause real problems with traffic and with safety. Anybody trying to get
into the west side of the premises would have to cross traffic going south with the
traffic condition that close to –
Borup: Someone coming north you mean?
Martinson: Yes trying to go across traffic to get into the parking area would be a
real problem. School buses are noted for there using the east side of Linder
Road along which side I live on for the parking area to accumulate there before
school is out. It is an area where vision is obstructed quite frequently. I, too, am
concerned as the previous speaker was about this problem and would like it
brought to your attention.
Borup: Mr. Martinson, a couple of questions. I would have what time of day you
said the school buses are parked at the end of school. Is that like three o’clock or
do you know what time that usually is.
Martinson: They start accumulating there anywhere between two-thirty and three
probably 15, 20 minutes before high school is out.
Borup: High school is out at what time?
Martinson: Usually we try to stay off Linder Road and Pine from about three
o’clock until it dies down.
Borup: Sounds like from three to three-thirty or four something like that. Then
how about the schools traffic in the morning what time is that?
Martinson: The school traffic starts probably about seven.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 23
Borup: Are there classes that start that early.
Martinson: Well seven-fifteen somewhere along there. It peaks along about
seven-thirty it really gets congested there. We don’t even try to get out on Linder
Road or Pine either one for approximately 45 minutes to an hour in the morning
and the afternoon.
Borup: Thank you, any other questions from the Commissioners?
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: Mr. Martinson I guess I’m not positive if its open isn’t there a new daycare
facility on Linder south of the railroad tracks?
Martinson: Yes there is.
Nary: I’m not sure if that’s open or that’s had any increase in traffic that you’ve
noticed or anything.
Martinson: That’s far enough away from where I live that I haven’t noticed
anything. It’s far enough away from the four-way stop that it probably isn’t
affecting it. It might have because there is a stop sign at the railroad tracks.
Nary: Thank you
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else who would like to testify? Kasha
maybe a question for you I think we had one question we weren’t able to answer
for – that was school children. Are you participating in any school age children?
Kasha Lawrence: I have called the Meridian Bus Barn and they will not pick up
there because they are currently picking up at our facility down the road. The
Bus Barn has already required two other stops on Linder Road to come to our
facility on 444 N. Linder Road. Now there is only one stop Linder Road and the
Bus Barn said if we wanted the stop across the street those kids would have to
come to our current facility because –
Borup: South of the tracks?
Kasha Lawrence: Yes because of the traffic situation on Linder Road.
Borup: So if you do have any you would need to drive them down to the other
facility then.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 24
Kasha Lawrence: Yes we would have to bus them. We are definitely going to try
to keep the school age children at the larger facility with the more parking
spaces. That facility actually has a turn around buses can actually go in and turn
around if they need to. Currently right now we do not plan to have any children
above age – once they’re in kindergarten they have to go up the road.
Borup: And even if you did they’re would not be bus traffic to this facility.
Kasha Lawrence: No there won’t be bus traffic because the Bus Barn said no.
There was a question that I wanted to answer for you as far as the playground
area. We have over an acre of playground area at our current facility and even at
the current facility we have it broken up where the infant and toddlers play area
is separate from the older children’s play area. We do have the children go out in
the morning and in the afternoon but all classes do not go out at once. We’ll have
one teacher take their class out and then we might have two classes out there.
We won’t have the entire facility all the children out on the playground at once. I
don’t know if I covered everything.
Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners, was there anything we missed?
Norton: Sidewalks and gutters.
Kasha Lawrence: Ada County Highway District is requiring we put the money in
trust for the sidewalks before they will – that’s one of the stipulations. They’ve
already required that. Part of the reason there is no gutter and sidewalks on
there at our current facility they did require us to put sidewalks and gutter. But
when Ada County Highway District was up there they really weren’t picky about
where we put the sidewalk because they said when they do the road
improvements they are going to have to rip it all back up. I think its smart that
they put in it trust instead of having to do double work so when they do get the
road as wide as they need it they put it in appropriate place.
Borup: Do you have any comment on the traffic on school traffic has that been a
problem with your present facility?
Kasha Lawrence: I have not had a problem in the afternoon in the mornings I
have had parents say they go around the other way – they don’t do the Pine or
the Linder. They go around either to Franklin some of them will come up Pine
rather than going all the way down Linder to our current facility because of the
high school traffic in the morning. Currently at our 444 N. Linder facility we have
quite a large waiting list of people that go by the day care every single day. We
will not be bringing a lot of people that normally do not go down Linder Road. We
anticipate most of the traffic that we will have is already there. There are a ton of
new subdivisions around there that have young families that have been utilize us
currently.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 25
Borup: That’s what I would anticipate that’s why I mentioned it earlier. Do you
have any idea on numbers at all probably that’s a little earlier at his point? You
said you have quite a waiting list.
Kasha Lawrence: There are some people we don’t put on the waiting list
because basically they have to fill out the application and show that they are
serious to get on the waiting list so we can keep that current and call the next
person –
Borup: What kind of numbers that are driving by is what I was wondering. That
would be trips that are already going.
Kasha Lawrence: We’ve done no advertising either the people who come in drive
by and see the facility or by word of mouth and I would say 99 percent of people
are from Meridian. Right now our waiting list and I could – I probably should have
done my homework and went in seen where all these people lived. We’ve got
about 28 right now on the waiting list and I don’t know of any of those that are
from other areas than near us.
Borup: Probably is already north of you and is driving that way anyway you
mean. Like heading from a subdivision to the freeway.
Kasha Lawrence: We have a lot from the subdivision down the street the bird
subdivision The Landing I have quite a few that live there. I have quite a few that
are in Merryweather and the other one that’s around the way on Pine.
Borup: I think that’s answer my questions any other questions from the
Commissioners? Thank you anything final you wanted to say?
Kasha Lawrence: I’ll think of it later I’m sure. Thank you.
Borup: Anything from staff?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman I have just one quick question regarding the irrigation
access just a point of clarification. If that access box is in the front out towards
Linder or is it in the back of the property?
Unidentified audience member: It’s in the front.
Freckleton: So not in an area that would be fenced in, in the back?
(inaudible)
Borup: And you understand that the access needs to be kept for the irrigation for
down ditch use? Anything else from the Commissioners?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 26
Hatcher: No. I move that we close the public hearing.
Norton: I’ll second that.
Borup: Motion is second to close the public hearing, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Hatcher: Discussion.
Borup: Yes you would like some discussion first?
Hatcher: Yes I will go ahead and start off with discussion. I’m not opposed to the
project but I won’t approve it tonight for the reason of documentation that is
before us tonight is too sketchy there is to many gray areas. How are we going to
expand that parking lot, how is the layout of the stalls going to be, how many
stalls are you going to be able to facilitate? What is currently on the plan as stall
number one isn’t a valid parking stall? Are you going to be able to maintain the
required landscaping buffers without sacrificing parking? Your over all count for
allowable children in your facility looks likes its going to be based upon how stalls
the sites going to allow you to put on it. All of these issues are up in the air.
Before I can approve it I want to see hard numbers and would recommend the
applicant go to a design professional or have staff assist you in what the
requirements are. And bring back to this board what you propose and what those
hard numbers are. So that we have a better idea what it is we are approving. I
would include the lay out of the fence the proposed square-footage of the future
expansion because that’s all relevant upon the parking stalls. Basically have all
your ducks in order and have a complete package and I don’t have any problem
at all. Traffic is an issue -- traffic is an issue in the entire valley I hate to say it but
I have really become numb to it. It’s not in our control wish it was because I
would do a lot about it if I could. That’s ACHD’s problem I would sit right besides
you until I was blue in the face and its not going to do any good. Everything else
is in order the application is in order and I think the facility is appropriate, the
location is appropriate. I would much rather see a day care facility than an auto
body shop and I think your neighbors would agree. I would just ask that you
come back -- I recommend to the Council that we continue this hearing to our
next month and finalize it at that time.
Borup: Commissioner Hatcher that question is you concern on build out at
approximately 78 students then?
Hatcher: If the application that we reviewing tonight are going to be based upon
– the application is submitted for 48.
Borup: Right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 27
Hatcher: The applicant has made it clear in testimony tonight that she would –
and its only logical that you expand the parking lot to maximize the stalls. She
would either have more stalls than required for 48 children or she going to be
what I suspect be short of 78. Based upon if we have nine stalls for 48 children I
would suspect we would have to have probably 12 or 13 stalls for 78 children.
Based upon my professional knowledge your not going to get 12 to 13 stalls on
this site based upon its current configuration. Somewhere between –
Borup: So you’re proposing to deny it based on what may happen in the future if
they choose to expand.
Hatcher: Even with what’s before us we don’t know – the parking stalls we have
right now is not adequate for 48 children.
Borup: Right I think –
Hatcher: I would deny it for that –
Borup: Because they are not designated.
Hatcher: Yes we don’t have adequate stalls for 48 children as it stands. We don’t
know were they fence is. They are to many gray areas that I will not approve it as
it stands tonight. But I’m not opposed to the project.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would also concur with Commissioner Hatcher that I think -- in reading the
staff report I think the staff was left with a lot of questions they weren’t able to
answer that the Kasha Lawrence’s don’t have quite all the details yet for this site.
I also agree with Commissioner Hatcher I think that maybe tabling this and
setting it over to allow some of those details to be worked out is the best
alternative rather simply a denial. I do think it is an appropriate type of use for
this area. I think it is better than the industrial uses that could also be done on
that particular site at this time. I think there are some real good reasons to
continue on and try to make this happen. Even in reading the staff report it is
clear to me that in the preparation of this – Subsection No. 2 deals about parking
its based what’s currently there on the site there isn’t adequate parking for 48
children. In Condition No. 3 the fire department says there is adequate space
now for 74 children for a play area an outdoor play area for 74 children. It has to
fenced, it has to be landscaped, it has to be grassed there is a whole lot of detail
needs to be done before you can even do that. In Condition No. 4 the floor plan
there is adequate floor plan right now for the current building for 46 children but
there isn’t a floor plan or a building to have 78 children on that site. There is a lot
of detail that isn’t done yet. I think you need the time to get that done because I
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 28
think it’s a good use of the property. The only I would disagree slightly with
Commissioner Hatcher is that our Ordinance does at least give us the ability to
address the traffic concerns that Mrs. Karmack and Mr. Martinson brought
forward we at least need to address that. I agree also with what he says it really
is ACHD’s concern and its their problem to deal with on how wide that road is
and whether that four-way stop is the appropriate traffic control for that particular
intersection whether it needs to be something different than that. That’s is
ACHD's purview. It is not ours to do that, but we certainly can at least look at it,
and at least make a finding or at least address it with the – we did that with the
gas station for Fred Meyer. We did the same thing. Our ordinance gives us the
power to at least talk about it and at least make it something that we can discuss
as to whether it’s appropriate. I concur whole-heartily with Commissioner
Hatcher. I don’t think we’re there yet. I don’t think there’s enough information
here for us to be able to approve something like this but rather than deny it which
really is going to put you in the same boat. What he’s saying and what I agree
with is that I think some of that detail needs to be brought back and we need to
see it. We don’t have it tonight to be able to look at it and say what is this
parking lot going to look like? Where’s the fencing going to be? Where are the
stalls going to be? Where is the landscaping going to be? How is this building
going to look when 78 children are going to be in it? I think that’s the detail that
we need to see that isn’t present right now.
Hatcher: I think it needs to be presented at its full build-out – what is its full
build-out?
Borup: But, evidently, you say before they can enlarge – no, it needs to come
back before us.
Hatcher: But what the Larsons were asking is that they wanted approval for us
to approve the CUP for 78 children today. There isn’t enough information for us
to approve that, in my opinion.
Borup: I didn’t have that impression. We’re not being asked to approve for 78,
are we? We can’t approve it for 78. The building is not big enough, for one
thing.
Hatcher: The application was for 48 and that’s what’s before us. She did state
that she was submitting for 78. I think that was an error, but it has been very
clear that the intent is for site improvements to be done for future build-up. I’m
not saying that we need to have floor plans and elevations and construction
documents for the future building. I’m just saying that I need to know how big of
a parking stall that we can get on that site – how many stalls can we get on that
site, which in turn is going to govern how many children that this facility will be
able to accommodate. I don’t think it’s going to be 78, but it’s definitely going to
be more than 48. Now, we might have the parking provided for 66 children, but
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 29
the application is only for 48. We don’t even have adequate facilities for 48 right
now.
Borup: My thought is that that’s the only issue is we need to have 9 parking
stalls is what needs to be indicated.
Hatcher: If the application is going to be for 48 only, there needs to be 9 stalls.
There is not 9 stalls.
Borup: We really need to reopen the public hearing, or you could go and talk to
the staff.
Hatcher: Are we going to continue this?
Borup: Well, if we’re going to continue, it would probably be appropriate to
reopen it. We’ll also have two applications before us. We opened them both
together, so I guess we’d close the both together.
Hatcher: Then I would motion that we reopen the public hearing.
Nary: Second.
Borup: Motion is seconded. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Mrs. Kasha Lawrence, you can come on back up.
Kasha Lawrence: I knew I would come back up. As far as a lot of things that
you’re asking that you want hard numbers on, I could have put all of the hard
numbers on there, other than the fact I was confused about the parking. We
cannot get an occupancy permit to even have one child in the door until we
comply with all of that.
Borup: Well, I can’t approve it. I can’t recommend approval to City Council until I
have that.
Kasha Lawrence: Well, most – and our last Conditional Use Permit that they
approved us, they said “Okay.” Let me see one of the things that they called us
on – the trash enclosure. They didn’t like where it was or whatever. They told us
– and right now we don’t have anything about a sign. The Conditional Use was
approved on the condition and there’s lots of conditions. It will just be one more
that the trash enclosure was approved beforehand. The landscaping plan I
already have to approve through Planning and Zoning before I can apply for the
occupancy. I could have stipulated more of that stuff in there and I should have.
I could not have stipulated the parking because I thought the ordinance was 1 for
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 30
every 10 children, so with the 48, I thought we were covered. I did not know the
staffing. As far as the parking, we have to comply.
Hatcher: May I interrupt you for a second? Tonight, before me, I have two
options. I can either continue your current application so that you can have
approval one month from now with the proper information before me or I can
deny your project as it stands. Those are the two options I have before me.
That’s all I have.
Kasha Lawrence: Okay. You’re saying approve it as it stands before you?
Hatcher: No, I say to deny it as it stands before me or approve a month from
now when you bring me –
Kasha Lawrence: The only thing that basically I wanted to say is that we are
definitely planning to be in compliance. Whether that means having more –
Hatcher: I don’t doubt that at all. It’s just that I can’t –
Kasha Lawrence: I have pretty much tried to present the property as it is. I
mean that is what we have. It’s not like our other one. There was nothing there.
They approved it with nothing there. By the time the Conditional Use was
approved to the time we got our occupancy permit, they had us rearrange the
whole parking lot. So, I have no problem getting back and getting numbers and
everything that you wanted. I was just explaining it that how we presented it was
what there was there and we would be willing to abide by whatever you guys
needed.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: Maybe to help explain Mrs. Lawrence’s as to where we’re going with this.
As Commissioner Hatcher said, the option that the Commission has tonight is to
approve it or deny it or alternately ask to set it over – approve it with additional
conditions of something else. I think what Commissioner Hatcher is saying at
least his discomfort and some of my discomfort is that it really isn’t appropriate
for us as a Commission to draft these tonight for you to try to meet because
there really are so many things that are really not very clear as to how this is
going to look. I recognize – like you’re talking about the Certificate of Occupancy
and the requirements that you have to meet. There’s a lot of things – just the
bare bones that I think we’re talking about that we don’t think is there. We can
set it over so that we can get all that detail and get it done and keep this project
moving along, which I think you’ve heard both Commissioner and myself say, “I
think this is a good project and we think it’s a good thing to keep going with and
we’d like to do that and we just need a little more detail that we don’t think is
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 31
present.” The other option tonight, and you can appeal it to the City Council, and
they can either agree with that, do the same thing we’re doing and you’re going
to be three or four months further behind in getting this done. I think no matter
what you’re going to do to build this, that is going to happen. You’re going to
have to do this detail anyway. So that’s really all we’re saying is we really want
to give you the opportunity to get that little bit more information forward. We’re
not saying that this is a bad idea. We’re not saying that this is something we – if
that was the case, I don’t think you’d be hearing us saying set it over. You’d be
hearing things like we’re just going to move to deny it and you can just move on
to the Council and ask them. But that’s not what we’re trying to do. Although it
may seem frustrating that you’re saying that that information you could have
provided or some of that information could have been done already. It just isn’t
enough tonight, in my mind or Commissioner Hatcher’s that it really is
appropriate for us to write all of these conditions that we think really probably
could get done outside of this hearing and then brought back before us.
Kasha Lawrence: As far as the number of children in the building, do you want
me to have – some of the things that you guys are wanting to know, like the
number of children, they usually will give that to you with your Certificate of
Occupancy. Do you guys want that beforehand?
Nary: I think what we have been saying, and again I agree with Commissioner
Hatcher that obviously it’s going to be driven by how much parking you’re able to
put there meeting the landscaping requirements of the parking. So, what we
would be looking at is looking at making an approval based on the number of
parking that’s there. Now, I recognize again, like you said, that the Fire
Department and those folks may downsize it from there, even because of the
building requirements at the time you start doing this. I recognize that, but the
parking is going to be the parking, regardless, other than adding a bigger portion
to the building. That’s really what we’re talking about is how much parking is
going to be there so how much approval can we grant up to that number,
knowing that it may be less than that number, unless I’m mistaken.
Kasha Lawrence: Well, I’m just basically going off of the 48, and as far as the
48, we need 9.
Nary: If you want to present the complete package or the hard numbers for 48
children, here’s how we’re going to provide the 9 stalls for the 48 children.
Here’s how we’re going to do this. Here’s how we’re going to do that for 48
children. That’s what will be approved or denied. If then you’ll have to come
back two or three years from now – whenever you decide to do the expansion
and this is how we’re going to change the parking lot and we’re going to build
onto the parking lot for 78 children, or whatever. You can even do it in a two-step
process. But again, that documentation needs to be presented to this board.
This is how we’re going to do it for 48 children. This board is not here to design
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 32
your project for you. You, or a design professional need to do that ahead of time
and present that to us.
Kasha Lawrence: Okay. I understand that. Basically, what my question to the
Commissioners is you’re saying that I submitted an application for 48, but there’s
not enough information for 48.
Nary: I think the only thing lacking is parking.
Kasha Lawrence: Right. I can submit all that, but my question right now is if
we’re going to do on what the parking and landscaping that we’re putting in, we
might as well do the whole thing. That’s why I was asking. Was it 48 that I
applied for? It’s 48? Okay.
Nary: The staff did mention 78 in their comments so that must have come up in
discussion or something as I assumed.
Kasha Lawrence: I have no problem with giving you all of the hard figures and
stuff like that. Maybe because I just went through the whole process and
everything was stipulated. We did come with the whole landscaping and
everything because there was nothing there, but because everything – they wen
tin and stipulated everything different from what I already had. Then, I thought,
okay. I’ll just tell them what’s there and then go ahead and – but that’s fine. I
can come back and tell you what I think would be great as far as to
accommodate 48 kids and all the parking.
Hatcher: I think that would be the appropriate.
Borup: You may want to look into with your designer or whoever –
Kasha Lawrence: Myself.
Borup: Well, whether it makes sense to develop the whole parking lot or not,
because there is going to be some tear-out. You’re already going to be
rebuilding part of it anyway, so whether it makes sense to go right up to your new
building and have to tear that out and to try to accommodate your nine parking
stalls right now. Commissioner Norton, you haven’t had anything to say about
this.
Norton: I certainly agree that there is a lot of numbers, and I first wanted
confirmation on what we were talking about – the 48 or the 78, and so my
understanding, we were talking about the 48. There is no – on the plans, there is
no fence. There is some questions as to what this is going to look like. The
traffic is a serious problem. I’ve had two children go to Meridian High School. I
know what the corner looks like. I don’t know how we’re going to get around
that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 33
*** End of Side 2 ***
Norton: Hopefully their clients will be driving south so they can take care of –
Borup: That’s what I felt. The population of the City is to the north, and if they’re
going to the freeway to work, they’re going to be driving past this way anyway.
There is an extra trip in and out of the site, so that’s going to be maybe adding
some congestion, but not necessarily a lot more cars.
Norton: But the way it is written –
Borup: Compared to other things, it could be that the traffic congestion could not
be – Yes, Commissioner Hatcher.
Hatcher: Can I motion that we continue this discussion to next month?
Borup: Yes, you can.
Hatcher: Mr. Lawrence does have a comment.
Wendell Lawrence: My name is Wendell Lawrence. I guess, like my wife said
through her discussions with Shari Stiles, she opted for the bigger number, but
really I figured that we would have to put in an additional strip of parking. I
assume, and from what I recall, there is a fence drawing on the map set-in. So, I
would assume that our limitations from our initial request of 48, the limitations
would actually be down to 46, and everything else would be covered, because
there is a drawing of a fence line – of what we intend to do with the fence line.
Hatcher: The drawing that we have just is a property line is all. I think the fence
could have been added as an item, but probably – I mean, from what I’m hearing
from the Commissioners, it sounds like the main thing is really the parking layout.
Wendell Lawrence: Right, and then from my map, we’re talking about 900
square feet of asphalt for – actually less than that. There is 900 for five more
stalls. We’re looking at four more stalls. We’re talking about around 750. From
my calculations of the requirements for landscaping and trees, there is enough
trees on site to cover that. With the fence enclosure – well, I guess you’ve said
it’s not on there. With the fence enclosure and that 750 square-feet strip of
parking to meet the 48, I would assume that our actual presentation was
complete.
Borup: What I think what Commissioner Hatcher is getting to is if the parking is
going to extend out to the north end to Linder, he’s also expecting some
landscaping along Linder also.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 34
Wendell Lawrence: Right. What I’m talking about is for the immediate needs of
just the 48 children – just the 750 square-foot strip. The landscape that is
currently on site will cover, and also the fencing in the back the children –
Borup: I think that would depend on where the parking – where the area that you
paved. If the paving was coming out onto Linder, it probably needs to be
landscaped. That is a microphone right there.
Wendell Lawrence: If I may, we’re actually talking about a strip that comes down
and it stops here and angled parking. We’re looking at four stalls. So we’re
looking at angled parking – just comes down a four-stall strip here. It doesn’t
actually go out to Linder Road for the immediate project and current landscaping
and trees cover that as it currently stands. With the fence, at the rear of the
building that’s there – I would assume that we met all of the new requirements
for the building.
Borup: Is there an existing fence there now?
Wendell Lawrence: The fence is currently going down the sideline and then up
the north side. Our intention is actually to just run a strip of fencing here and a
strip of fencing here to cover the back side of the rear of the building – the west
side so that the children exit the rear and to the playground and back in.
Borup: The perimeter west of the property and the south and north aren’t fenced
at this point?
Wendell Lawrence: Correct.
Hatcher: Chairman Borup.
Borup: Yes, Commissioner Hatcher.
Hatcher: Mr. Lawrence, everything that you and your wife have presented us
tonight is fine. Verbally, we don’t have any objection with what you’re proposing.
As far as your intent, your intent is complete, but keep in mind that this is a legal
procedure and it has to be documented. We need to have it on paper. Provide
to us a drawing – a written description of what it is you want to do. This is a
verbal testimony, but we need to have documentation saying that this is the area
that we are going to add asphalt to. This is how we’re going to stripe it. This is
how it meets code and ordinance. This is where – I mean, everything that you
have presented to us tonight verbally is fine. I don’t think anybody here has
objection to what you and your wife are presenting, but it has to be on paper. It
has to be submitted to the Planning Department.
Wendell Lawrence: Like my wife and I said, in our original projection, when we
did the building down the street just four months ago, the requirement was one
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 35
stall for every ten children. So the six stalls – actually assume that more than
covered the requirement for 48 and that’s why we assumed that our package
was complete.
Hatcher: Right. Do you also understand where we come from and that’s why
we’re asking to come back in four weeks with a more accurate package?
Wendell Lawrence: I understand completely. I was just explaining that the
adjustments my wife was seeking from the Commission was based on our
assumption that we actually had complete information and that your adjustments
were to that complete package.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Are we ready to move on? You were about ready to
make a motion?
Hatcher: I was about ready to motion that we continue this to our next hearing
on October 10th
.
Nary: Second.
Borup: Motion seconded. Any discussion?
Norton: Just to clarify, is this for the rezone and the Conditional Use Permit for
both of those?
Hatcher: Yes.
Norton: Thank you.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5. Recommendation: VAC-00-008 Request for Vacation of the
easement common to Lots 14, 15, 18 and 19, Block 2 of Honor
Park Subdivision No. 3 in a C-G zone by Steve Arnold – South of
Franklin Road abutting the west side of Stratford Drive generally
between Scenery Lane and Schiller Lane:
Borup: And if you have got any questions, get with the staff. I think they can
clarify that. Item No. 5 is a recommendation for vacation of the easement –
common to lots 14, 15, 18 and 19 in block 2 of Honor Park Subdivision No. 3 in a
C-G zone by Steve Arnold, south of Franklin, but in the west side of Stratford
Drive. Now, we did not receive any kind of staff report. Is that correct? I
assume you’re doing it verbally, then?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 36
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, Commissioner. This application is actually being driven by
an application, I believe about two years ago that came before the Commission
for School Employees’ Credit Union – I believe it was the School Employees’
Credit Union. I would have to check.
Borup: I thought it was just less than a year ago, but go ahead.
Hawkins-Clark: This is federal, but at that point there was a condition. Number
one, the plat wasn’t recorded yet when they came through for this credit union a
couple of years ago. That’s now been done. Number two was a condition of that
application that the easements be vacated. Was it Pioneer Federal Credit
Union? No, it’s not.
Ugarriza: Capital Educators?
Hawkins-Clark: Capital Educators. Thank you very much, Shelby.
Hatcher: That just came before us six or eight months ago.
Hawkins-Clark: The plat was recorded, but they only had a Development
Agreement on – they had a Non-Development Agreement on the northern half of
the plat. The lots which Capital Educators Credit Union is seeking to build there
new facility on, there’s four lots located here on the west side of Stoddard. The
applicant – or Stratford, I’m sorry – Stratford Drive. The applicant is seeking to
vacate – there are ten-foot easements on both sides of this east to west line – a
total of 20 feet. In order to do that, they are submitting the vacation application.
There is a question as to whether a vacation application was necessary for this
lot line between lots 14 and 15 and this lot lying between lots 18 and 19. I did
check with our City Engineer this evening and he’s saying that the reason it’s not
graphically depicted is because No. 2 here does say that a five-foot easement is
adjacent to all lot lines. They would have to be vacated as well. I talked to Mr.
Arnold about this a couple of times. I think that’s where we’re coming from now,
Steve. At any point, I don’t think we have a problem with recommending
approval on this with the added condition that for the public hearing, since this is
not a public hearing – for a public hearing that they submit a revised plan that
shows and requests a vacation of those two lot lines between lots 18 and 19 and
lots 14 and 15. That technically was not requested in this application.
Hatcher: So the application itself can be modified to reflect that without going
through a whole formal –
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, it could. I think all we’re looking for is just a revised Exhibit
B.
Borup: You’re saying just that the drawing did not indicate that, but the
application does mention those lots, doesn’t it?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 37
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Borup, it does mention it verbally, but Exhibit B
just sort of calls out the ten-foot easements, so –
Borup: And there’s no note on --- Oh, yes, there is a note on this at the bottom,
also.
Hawkins-Clark: Right, which is quoting Note No. 2 from the full plat.
Borup: So you’re saying that you want the applicant to draw it out. Okay. Would
you like to come forward?
Hatcher: We never opened the public hearing.
Borup: No, we didn’t. You understand what staff is asking for.
Arnold: I respectfully disagree with Brad. I am the sitting engineer, but I’ll redraw
my drawing and we’ll have it ready for Council.
Borup: Okay. It may solve any confusion they may have. Commissioner Nary.
Nary: Just so that our record is clear – so Brad or Bruce you think is simply in
the motion if we’re going to recommend this vacation that we simply include that
it is to all the lot lines common to these four parcels and that the drawing will be
therefore amended to include the two between 18 and 19 and 14 and 15.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct – interior lot lines.
Borup: Are we ready for a recommendation?
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: I would move to recommend for the City Council VAC 00-008 – the
request for the vacation of the easement of the common lot lines on lots 14, 15,
18 and 19 to include the ones on the drawing, currently the lot lines that I guess
run north and south between 18 and 15 and 19 and 14, as well as the interior
lines that run east and west between 18 and 19 – 14 and 15 to be clarified by a
new drawing to be submitted with this application – that the request for the
vacation of the easement of the Block 2 Honor Park Subdivision No. 2 in a C-G
zone by Steve Arnold, south of Franklin Road, abutting the west side of Stratford
Drive generally between Scenery Lane and Schiller Lane be approved.
Hatcher: Second.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 38
Borup: Motion seconded. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Commissioners, this next item is originally planned to be at a special
workshop for next Thursday. Before everybody was – well, that was one of the
dates that was mentioned. No, I’m sorry – Monday.
Hatcher: We never got the notification.
Borup: Well, we were going to do some phone calls – or maybe you two got
phone calls. Before it got finalized, we realized that we had a short enough
Agenda, that the Commission may like the idea of discussing that tonight rather
than having a special meeting. So it’s on the Agenda. I guess we can either get
started or we can –
Hatcher: I would like to take a break to get something to drink.
Borup: That would be a good idea. Can we make it five minutes so we don’t
keep the audience waiting too long?
MEETING RECONVENED AT 9:10 P.M.
Item 6. Discussion: Draft Sign Ordinance:
Borup: This is a workshop to discuss the Draft Sign Ordinance for the City of
Meridian. Brad, do you want to give us a brief summary? Is that the approach
we want to take?
Hatcher: I think with the emphasis on brief.
Borup: And any other areas that you feel that might have been a little
controversial, or potential for controversy – things that may merit some
discussion?
Hawkins-Clark: My unbiased opinion is that this is a perfect document that you
don’t need to discuss at all. I’d be happy to pass on a few things. The current
Sign Ordinance has eight different signs that are prohibited. That’s the extent of
it. It’s about a half-page in length. So this is a pretty significant amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance. Thirty-something pages replacing a half page. But I think
the feeling that both this Commission and a lot of citizens was that the City is
going to the point where it’s probably time to get some stronger sign ordinances
in place so that we’re not spending so much time on it, for one thing. Both at this
level and at staff level, we have a little more guidance. So that’s probably what
was driving it. They’re probably just ten things that I would like to point out. On
page 4, there are a couple of definitions that kind of guide this thing later on.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 39
The background area, which on the tables at the back of the ordinance – that is
what we’re talking about – is the area comprising the portion of a sign on which
copy could be placed – not including the supporting structure. Actually, I’ll just
give – I do have a couple of signs that are pretty much the same size that we’re
proposing here maybe to give you a little visual. There’s only three copies there,
but – sorry, I don’t think there’s another two sheets for each and there’s three.
These aren’t great photos, but just to give you a sense that South Stratford sign
– Micron – which you should probably recognize most of these. I think they’re all
in Meridian except the Tsuru Japanese Cuisine, but the South Stratford Micron
sign, for instance – everything except the base, where Micron is in the circle and
then the white – that would be what we would measure as the background area,
not including any of that monument base. The background area on this Tsuru
sign would not include any of that architectural design with the squares – the grid
at the top, it would just be the Tsuru – the white areas. When we’re talking about
background areas throughout the document, that’s what it’s limited to.
Hatcher: When is ordinances implemented? Are you going to have graphic
examples? You present to us these to explain it. Will there be in the
documentation?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, actually. There’s somebody that’s working on drawing
those and I’m sorry that you didn’t get them yet.
Hatcher: When I was going through there, I was like well, where are some
examples to help me go out with?
Hawkins-Clark: Right. That’s a good point. Maybe we need to put them further
in. Right now we were just thinking about putting them – we were talking about
making the definitions one column, and then the right column would be an
associated graphic.
Hatcher: Right. I think that would be really appropriate. I mean, particularly for
designers like myself and whatnot. I can say what Commissioner Nary would
say in page five pages of words, I can say in one picture because of our
profession. I think it would be very appropriate.
Hawkins-Clark: Are you offering your architectural services to draw these for us?
Hatcher: Actually, I could probably help you with that.
Hawkins-Clark: Somebody was working on them and then they retired from a
sign company and decided not to do it.
Hatcher: I also have plenty of connections with the sign companies that would
probably be more than happy.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 40
Hawkins-Clark: That’s one definition to point out. We do have the Billboard
Definition in there which is at the end and we can talk about a little bit more. One
other definition – on page 6, Portable Sign. This is probably the number one in
terms of time spent enforcing the sign code. At least at date has been these
issues of what is a portable sign? What’s a promotional sign? What’s a
temporary sign? What’s a sale sign? The portable signs are kind of what you
would imagine are your sandwich board, your T-frame signs, which would be like
a real estate sign, inflatable signs, hot air balloons, umbrellas used for
advertising – all those would be portable. Compare that with promotional sign a
few lines down, which is a temporary sign to promote the sale of new products,
new management, new hours of operation or new service. A promotional sign
could be a portable sign, except it is limited to those specific things and it’s just a
new something – a new management – you know – new hours of operation.
That’s kind of a distinction in terms of the definitions. The community did, by the
way spend about three meetings just on the definitions.
Hatcher: There’s a typo in the portable sign definition after the word “visible” –
third line from the bottom. “Visible from the public right-of-way” I think is what –
Hawkins-Clark: All right. Thank you. Unless there are any other issues on the
definitions, I just wanted to point those out.
Hatcher: I’m glad you included hot air balloons. That’s one of the ones that
seems to be the biggest complaint that we get is those hot air balloons over the
car lots and things like that. They didn’t fit into the sign ordinance that we have,
so I’m glad you included that. That’s good.
Hawkins-Clark: The inflatable, as Bruce pointed out – sometimes they’re not just
hot air. Sometimes they’re just inflated with something else. Page 8, the
procedure section is fairly kind of performous (sic) stuff. We have some details
as to what we’re asking for in terms of every single sign application. In terms of
this body, you would see basically everything with C on page 9 in the Conditional
Use Permit – resign requirements. We’re not asking somebody – a business
owner or developer to commit to having a full-detailed rendering drawn up for the
Conditional Use Application. The Committee thought that would be kind of
onerous financially to have somebody spend the money to get the full detailed
sign drawn up just for an application that they don’t even know is going to be
approved. We are asking for – when you see Conditional Use Applications,
these four items – the sign type – the maximum background area that they are
proposing the proposed sign height and the sign location. So you wouldn’t
necessarily see the colors. You wouldn’t be seeing the exact size of the letters
and things like that.
Hatcher: So when it comes before us, we could be potentially reviewing and
recommending approval of a sign that could be completely contrary to the facility
that it’s going in. Argument would be – say the new Norco facility, where they
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 41
submitted a Monument sign that had the same design characteristics as the
center. We would no longer be seen – that type of submittal. All we’re going to
be seeing is a written description of background square footage and tech sizes
and then a little comment from staff saying whether it complies with the
ordinance or not and that’s it. Then, low and behold, the sign that gets built
could be a box – a big, ugly boring box, but because it met the ordinance, it’s
fine.
Hawkins-Clark: Well, the sign programs – we are asking for something like that
where there’s more than one tenant on the site. They’re going to have to submit
a sign program, which includes all of the wall signs and all of the free standing
signs, but there’s nothing at the front level that’s saying you’re going to get with
this landscaping plan – with the site plan, a full detail of what the sign is going to
be.
Hatcher: Why are we getting it in now? Just because it’s been requested, or is it
in an ordinance? Are they just doing this because staff is asking for it?
Nary: Well, like the example. We’ve got a pretty detailed thing on the Norco.
Hawkins-Clark: Norco was a Conditional Use Permit just for the sign.
Hatcher: Correct.
Hawkins-Clark: In that case, sure. You’re going to get it. This is a Conditional
Use Permit. I am talking just a standard CUP.
Hatcher: Well, that true. The others – the Crossroads Center and the other
businesses coming down Fairview – they all had in the original submittal, before I
was on the Commission, you still had those.
Borup: We didn’t see anything for the Office Depot, or the office store there –
Nary: Where the Snake River Yamaha is –
Hawkins-Clark: Office Value.
Hatcher: Office Value – but they did come through to us and present, if you
remember, Office Value did give us drawings. We told them it was too high.
Borup: Oh, I am sorry. We didn’t see the Yamaha one.
Hatcher: No, we didn’t see the Yamaha one, but the Yamaha one was –
Borup: That was approved on staff level.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 42
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, it was.
Hatcher: Yes, it was approved on staff level.
Hawkins-Clark: And the only reason – Office Value was because we felt that you
should see it. It wasn’t any kind of ordinance. It was just staff –
Hatcher: As long as there is a check – I mean as long as there is a check and
balance, I don’t have a problem with –
Borup: I think so far it’s been just staff’s discretion to bring it to us when they felt
it was appropriate.
Hatcher: Yes.
Nary: And what you’re talking about, Brad, is really all CUPs, like for example,
tonight – the daycare.
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Nary: I think there’s a standard term that says the signs will be in compliance
with the ordinance, and that’s a staff level review and then we see some of
those, but not all of those.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. Now, with that one, we would have asked for them to
commit to a maximum background area exactly where it would go on the site and
height.
Nary: At least, in your opinion, this isn’t really a change from what we’re doing
now. It’s a little more concrete, but it’s not really a change that we’ll still see
some of the things.
Hatcher: Loosening the requirements any?
Hawkins-Clark: I don’t think so. Actually, I think we’re making it more astringent.
In terms of the amount of detail –
Borup: I had a couple of questions on this page. One was a statement that the
City may impose more strict statures than these regulations if the proposed sign
is determine to exceed what is necessary for adequate identification. It seems a
little vague and open to different interpretations – Page 8 – the last sentence in
paragraph B or section B. It sounds like it’s up to the staff to decide what they
think is necessary and what isn’t, or –
Hawkins-Clark: That’s a good question. This was taken out of the Boise –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 43
Hatcher: It is determined to exceed as necessary. Maybe I – when I read that
and I’m like “Okay.” It is determined to exceed what is necessary for adequate
identification.
Borup: That’s really subjective, isn’t it?
Hatcher: It’s subjective and I’m sitting here struggling as to what it is you’re
actually asking for. What’s being exceeded?
Hawkins-Clark: That was my other point. I don’t know what that means – that
whole sentence.
Hatcher: We’re determining excess – or determining excess of what – adequate
identification or the necessity for adequate identification for what?
Hawkins-Clark: For the site, in terms of identifying the business, it could be that
we’ve covered that with further detail. The Uniform Sign Code, which is actually
a subset of the Uniform Building Code has some guidelines for thickness of your
panel of your glass and the wind load issues. This is sort of referring back to
that.
Borup: Well, no. This is saying necessary for adequate – This is just talking
identification. It’s not talking about –
Nary: I think what I can recall where this has come up in Boise is when, and I’m
not sure that this is specifically appointed to you, but we have had requests in
the past for signs that the Commission and the Council felt were exactly that, and
what it was Burns Brothers Truck Stop on Broadway wanted to build a pole sign
that was 100-feet tall. They could see all the way to Ontario and Mountain
Home. That type of language is my recollection as to what the Commission and
Council said: “We’re not going to allow that sign. It’s way too big. It’s more than
is necessary to identify the site.”
Borup: Boise didn’t have height restrictions in their sites.
Nary: There wasn’t a height restriction on it. I guess if they made it into a cell
tower, they probably could have done it, but for a sign, that’s basically why they
had decided that – was this type of language that it was more – what’s going to
happen every time – I guess what I would anticipate is that you’re going to have
– if the staff makes a decision that this is way in excess. The sign is as big as
the building or more. It’s 100 feet tall or something like that and the staff is going
to point to this and say this is excessive and that’s why we’re denying it. Then
they’ll either appeal it either to this Commission or to the Council and they’re
going to have to justify that that’s a reasonable type of sign. The Council again –
it is subjective that the Council will get to decide. Is that reasonable or do we
think that’s excessive? I think the language isn’t going to come into play a lot,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 44
but it may if there is something that the Council thinks is extreme and it would
give them some ability to say, “That’s just way outside of what we think it should
be.”
Hawkins-Clark: That makes sense. That does sound like –
Hatcher: (inaudible) would be for here in Meridian. It would be a perfect
example. That’s an excessive abuse of –
Norton: And the Chevron sign that City Council just passed.
Hatcher: The big one? They over-voted us?
Nary: They overturned you. So, in other words, even if it’s within the code, we
could still say that’s too big. If the sign says – I think you’re going to have to
have something objective as to why that is. Why do you think that’s excessive?
It’s not in conformance with the surrounding area. It’s obtrusive to the rest of the
landscape of the area. I think you’re going to see it in a situation where the sign
is 100 feet tall, or the sign is as big as a building and they want to paint the entire
side of the building with a sign. Food Services of America is a pretty big sign on
the side of the building. It is a good example. Something where it really shocks
the staff, and the Council can say, “Yes, we like it or no we don’t.” If they don’t
want to do it, at least they have some language that supports that. That’s just a
little bit beyond what we think is reasonable.
Borup: Okay. That makes sense. The other question I had was down below
there at No. 2. It says that these have complete business name logos, subtitles,
et cetera. You’re just saying “generic” name? I would assume a new business, a
lot of times, is going to come in with the sign without having tenants in there yet.
Hawkins-Clark: In that case, that’s true in a multi-tenant sign. We could
potentially approve just the number of panels.
Borup: And a generic name or generic letters in there. You’re not asking for the
name of each business, so every time they add a new business, they don’t have
to come back in for another sign approval.
Hawkins-Clark: They would.
Borup: The way this is written, they would.
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Hatcher: Would we want that?
Hawkins-Clark: Not for you, but for us.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 45
Hatcher: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: Potentially, if you have a – the Shopko Center is a perfect
example – I mean the Family Center. They have those four signs and several
vacant panels and we’re just saying just submit for each panel. They still could
come in so that we’re not seeing some obsessive something or other.
Borup: But the size of the panel limits to what can be there.
Hawkins-Clark: Well, it limits to the size, but it doesn’t limit the content or to color
scheme. We would, for instance – under this, they would have to be approved
for an architectural theme throughout. It’s something to think of. Those are often
over the counter. That’s a staff decision.
Hatcher: Good protection with the City, because I could see if we didn’t have
something like that – you could have a tan shop and it could be a little risqué.
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Hatcher: I don’t care, but I don’t want my kids seeing it.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, that sounds good. I was a little high head on those pages.
I got some more later. Probably two things to point out on page 10, we have two
different types of abandoned signs. One is non-conforming, so we’re saying that
if somebody has a non-conforming sign out there once this code is adopted, and
we’re probably going to have several, that if it’s on property and has been vacant
for a period exceeding six months, or if it’s a sign that doesn’t pertain to the time
or event or a purpose that no longer applies to it’s properties if the business is
gone. It’s deemed as abandoned and it shall be prohibited and be immediately
removed upon notice by us – by the Planning and Zoning Department. Basically
we’re giving six months, and then take it down. If it’s conforming to this code,
we’re saying that they can remain, but the business name panels must be
removed immediately so that it’s basically compliant with Paragraph C. It’s just a
maintenance issue. So we don’t have a lot of signs advertising businesses that
aren’t there.
Hatcher: So are we going to have empty bought signs that we can see through,
or are you going to require them to replace it with an opaque empty panel?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, we’ve got that in C, the second paragraph. Maintenance
requirements include but are not limited to any illuminated – internally illuminated
sign cabinets or sign pails which have been damaged shall remain unilluminated
(sic) until repaired. Any signage that has been damaged – like I said, it really
doesn’t really address that specific issue you just mentioned.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 46
Hatcher: So you’re going to tell them to take down the graphics for a business
that’s no longer there, so now I’m looking at the fluorescent bulbs. I’d rather see
the graphics of the sign.
Borup: Yes, I definitely agree with that.
Hawkins-Clark: We had several complaints on Cherry Lane just a couple months
ago and (inaudible) about between – it’s right across from the Crestmont.
There’s a big sign. Actually, you could see the tubes, and it was actually pretty
bright and obnoxious at night when you’re driving down Fairview on the south
side. Those fluorescent tubes were just glaring.
Borup: Because the graphic was missing.
Hawkins-Clark: The graphic was missing. Actually, there was no panel at all.
We probably should add maybe a statement.
Hatcher: (inaudible) -- empty opaque panels at all times should –
Borup: Or not take the name down. I don’t know. Is that a big problem?
Hatcher: I don’t see a problem.
Borup: Having a name up there.
Hatcher: I’m not going to argue the point.
Borup: So a building that’s been vacant for a while like the – I don’t remember
what store – where the Salvation Army is in there now.
Norton: The farm store.
Borup: I mean that thing was empty for like a year. So you’re saying that any
sign that was there or if it would have been assigned there, they would have had
to remove the sign?
Hatcher: After six months they’d have taken it down.
Hawkins-Clark: After six months, yes.
Hatcher: And then spend the cop, a business that’s no longer there will have to
spend the money to replace it with an empty, opaque panel.
Hawkins-Clark: No, they’re saying remove the whole – oh, what do you mean –
no, conforming. It depends on if it’s conforming or not – if the structure is
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 47
conforming is what we’re saying in this. Conforming abandoned signs may
remain.
Borup: Okay. So if it’s a non-conforming abandoned, it needs to be removed.
Hatcher: The sign in its entirety.
Borup: Yes. Okay. That’s a good way to clean up the signs. A non-conforming
abandoned – that makes sense. A conforming abandoned can still stay there.
The conforming one can stay there until the new business comes in.
Nary: It just has to be turned around or whatever.
Hatcher: So we’re not talking about removing the panels. We’re talking about
removing the entire sign. Okay. For some reason, when I got off on it, I was
thinking differently.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. No, but I thought what you were talking about – if it’s
conforming, then it’s advertising a business that’s not there. We’re still saying to
take out their name panel or turn it around like Bruce’s. Turn it around –
Borup: I’m not sure why the City cares about that.
Hawkins-Clark: But if you don’t, we can certainly change that. The committee
probably was –
Borup: Turn it around and turn the light off.
Hatcher: Exactly. The way I understood you to say that was you were requiring
them to take that non-existed building out of there. What I was saying was I
would rather see that non-existing business than to see the light – the tubes and
everything behind it.
Borup: That looks a lot more abandoned than a sign that’s in good repair that’s
got more business there.
Hawkins-Clark: You’re saying that you don’t mind having panels that advertise
businesses that are no longer there.
Borup: That would be preferable to me, then, like Richard was saying, then have
the panels removed and see the inside of the sign.
Hawkins-Clark: What we’re saying is we're going to replace with an opaque
blank.
Borup: That’s better, but there’s some (inaudible)
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 48
Hatcher: There would be an expense there for a business that no longer exists.
Nary: Who is going to do it?
Hatcher: If it’s a multi-tenant facility, then you could get the landlord to do it – the
renter, leasor or whatever – that guy.
Borup: Someone could go up there and turn the panels around and turn the light
off so it’s not going to see at night and in the daytime turned around and you’re
not going to be able to read them, which to me is a lot more readable than
having someone go to their expense of replacing it all.
Hatcher: Exactly.
Borup: I think you’d have a hard time enforcing that.
Nary: Was the six months just based on a code or was that just the Committee’s
preference? It was approached for non-conforming uses that talks about six
months. Is that where the six months came from?
Hawkins-Clark: It was.
Nary: Okay. The one thing that probably I have seen some problems with is –
you know how lawyers are. It probably would be helpful if you had it saying
continuously six months, rather than exceeding six months, because sometimes
you do have people moving in and out – things like that. Unless you really want
it – once the non-conforming use for that sign – the business moves out, you
want that sign taken down. I’m not sure which way you want to go. It doesn’t
matter, but I’m just thinking that sometimes where the issues sometimes come
up is how continuous was the use. Was it really abandoned or not abandoned?
I don’t know if it’s something you want to keep hassling with or not.
Borup: We have got a couple places in town where businesses only last a few
months.
Norton: That’s true.
Nary: It would seem to me, on a non-conforming use, once that use ended, you
would want the sign to come down – no different than a non-conforming sign –
no different than a non-conforming use. You don’t want another non-conforming
use coming in there and being able to use that sign. Once that one ended, you’d
want it to be removed, I would think.
Hawkins-Clark: But if the use – there’s not a nexus there, is there? If the use is
non-conformant, that’s different than if the sign is conforming.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 49
Nary: I understand that, but what I’m saying is it appears to me the reason that
you separated them into two different things is part of the intention on non-
conforming signs is it’s no different than non-conforming uses. When they start
using the business for that sign, you want them to take the sign out because it’s
not compliant with the code. I’m not sure that there’s enough, and maybe
disagrees and the final draft – I’m just not sure that this gives you enough to be
able to take the signs down when they stop using the business, and that’s what
you want to do. When they take that business out and that sign is non-
conforming, you want it to come down.
Hawkins-Clark: So you’re saying do it immediately then?
Nary: Well, you want to have the means to be able to do that. I’m not sure if it’s
clear or not. Maybe it is. Dave, do you have a thought?
Swartley: Mr. Chairman, I agree with anything Mr. Nary says. I’m sorry. I seem
to have gotten sick in the middle of this thing. I am kind of in another world right
now. I’m not feeling well.
Nary: We had an issue a few months ago where we had a business that had a
non-conforming sign and the businesses –
Borup: We were ready to plan this in workshop. I don’t know if you even
would’ve needed to been at.
Nary: The business was trying to transition to another business. That would still
be a non-conforming use, so it might fall under the use requirements and it would
probably be okay. What we wanted them to do was take down the sign and
make the new non-conforming business have compliance on. Once that use
ended that related to that non-conforming sign, that use of that sign was done.
We didn’t want them to have it anymore, which makes sense to me because the
whole attention is to get away from non-conforming uses and have them conform
whether it’s a sign or a use. I don’t – I haven’t really thought it through as to
what more you do, but it doesn’t appear to me to be that clear that that’s what
you’re wanting to do – that once that use ends, that sign is no longer allowed.
You can’t put another non-conforming business in there and keep a non-
conforming sign out there. You would like it to be compliant with your code.
*** End of Side 3 ***
Hawkins-Clark: It does. I guess I see this paragraph as achieving that myself,
but maybe I’ve spent too much time with it. We are saying – we are referencing
the use by saying “property.” Maybe we need to accept as otherwise provided
any sign located on property that has been vacant for a period exceeding, which
refers to the use. That sign on that property is abandoned and it’s to be taken
down.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 50
Nary: Are you looking at it in continuous in there, though?
Hawkins-Clark: I can see adding that. That would make it that sign – any
property that has been continuously vacant for a period exceeding –
Hatcher: See, I read that six-month thing. Was the intent for that six months to
be kind of a grandfather clause when this thing is enacted or are you giving a –
I’m looking at a tenant that doesn’t have a conforming sign, vacates the building
and so long as another tenant moves in within six months, they can continue to
use that non-conforming sign. That’s the way this is reading to me.
Norton: Is there a grandfather clause like that further, though, that takes care of
all that? I think you have a grandfather section in here.
Hatcher: Because if it’s a non-conforming sign, once that tenant stops using it, it
should be removed immediately.
Nary: Is there a problem with doing that?
Hawkins-Clark: We were trying to stay consistent with the Zoning Ordinance,
which only allows that to happen when property is conveyed, or changes
ownership. Right now, if you have a house in a light industrial zone and you’re
using it for a residence, and the landlord has a renter that comes and goes, that
house can still be used as a residence. As soon as the deed changes hands,
then we come in and we say that’s not – we’re trying to stay consistent that way,
but –
Nary: What about another example – same thing for a business. Is it set there
too?
Hawkins-Clark: It would. If you have, like a lot of our buildings in old town are
owned by people that just lease out the space.
Nary: As long as the tenant goes in and out, it’s essentially grandfathered.
Hawkins-Clark: It’s tough to track because our Building Department – they don’t
require Certificates of Occupancy for just a tenant to my understanding. I think
they –
Nary: Not unless it changes use, I think.
Hawkins-Clark: For just a tenant – a new tenant that comes and goes.
Nary: Unless they need tenant improvements or something.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 51
Hawkins-Clark: If they are doing – yes, right, but it’s still the same owner, and so
we’re just saying that that owner has a chance. We can change that if we want
and that was the goal.
Nary: My only thought is that – I guess to me, we’re the wiggle rum ends of
being and the arguments of being is when there is something that either appears
to be unclear or contradictory. You can look at A and it says basically, “any sign
located on the property that’s been vacant for a period of six months, or
continuously for six months, or any sign which pertains to a time (inaudible)
longer applies, which would be one day. If the Farm Store moves out the next
day, if that was a non-conforming sign, the sign is supposed to come down. If we
see it, we give them a notice that it’s supposed to come down. The sixth month
doesn’t apply at all. It appears to me that I don’t know how you could have a six-
month issue when the other portion says that if you’re out compliance one day
and we see it, we give you a notice. You have to take the sign down. So the six-
month isn’t even an issue at all.
Hawkins-Clark: If it’s a blank sign.
Nary: Now, I am saying if it’s a non-conforming. I am not talking about the
conforming ones, but if it’s a non-conforming sign, you say if it’s vacant for six
months or if it’s vacant – if it’s no longer the same use of that property is what the
sign is there for, it has to come down. Well, how would it be vacant and still be –
it would have to come down, anyway. So I think the argument would be is it
supposed to be six months or is it supposed to be one day. I think you would
want it to be one day. If we saw it, and it was non-conforming, our attention is to
get non-conforming signs out and conforming signs in. The six months really
isn’t necessary and I think what you’ll have is you’ll have a conforming use with a
non-conforming sign and they’ll re-rent it to another conforming use and keep the
non-conforming sign up there and they’re going to look at the six months, and
say, if I do it in 30 days or 90 days, we’re compliant. You can’t make me take
down my non-conforming sign. All I’m going to do is change the letters on it.
Really, what you’re wanting is to get the sign out. On the non-conforming, that’s
the only thing I would think is that it really doesn’t need to have that six-months
and then the other. I think you can probably have one.
Swartley: And again, I agree with Mr. Nary.
Norton: You’ll just be taking out the three to six months?
Hawkins-Clark: Looking at it again, I think the six months just makes it a little
confusing, and really, in the non-conforming area, you really just want to be rid of
them and you want them to be conformant, so I think if we see it, we should be
able to say that you have to take the sign. It’s non-conforming. It doesn’t relate
to that business any longer.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 52
Nary: How does this compare to some of the others that you looked at? Boise
and the other cities. Did they have this clause?
Hawkins-Clark: It was common. This type of clause, certainly in all of them, the
Cupertino, California had a more restrictive – I don’t think I saw any that were the
next day. I don’t think – 10 or 12 –
Nary: Well, I mean just in theory.
Hawkins-Clark: Well, I know in theory. But still, that could be anybody in old
town that has the sign on the face of their building and their tenant says well, I
am out of here tomorrow and it’s vacant for one day. You see it in the streets
trying to find somebody to fill it and he doesn’t for three days. We’re saying to
replace this sign. We had some small business owners on the committee and
they were basically coming at it from the perspective, “Wow.” I think that’s kind
of harsh.
Nary: Six months is harsh?
Hawkins-Clark: No.
Nary: Oh. Immediately it was harsh.
Hawkins-Clark: Immediate – they feel like they should have a chance to fill up
their space and six months seemed like a common time that they felt was
reasonable to fill it.
Nary: But are the new sign requirements that restrictive that they didn’t think that
they could comply? Is that what their concern was? All we’re saying is you’d
have to take down the non-conforming sign and put up a conforming one. We
don’t – we’re not saying they can’t re-rent it and we’re not saying they can’t have
a sign there. We’re just saying it has to comply with our code. So was that what
their concern was that we couldn’t put up – because you’re going to have to
change the sign anyway, right? If they change the business, they’re going to
have to change the sign in some manner.
Hawkins-Clark: Well, not if it’s a freestanding sign. Not necessarily. All they do
is replace the panel.
Borup: Were there that many signs that would really be that non-conforming?
Hawkins-Clark: I haven’t done a survey, but there’s several. Some of those
signs –
Borup: I mean big ones. Would they be much of an expense to fix?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 53
Hawkins-Clark: Well, for instance, one of those signs at the Family Center – like
the Chevron – that’s $35,000 for one.
Borup: That’s what it means – replacing something like that. There’s a major
expense. If you’re talking about most of the ones that you see in old town, I –
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Borup: -- don’t think they’re that big of a –
Hawkins-Clark: Like most ordinances, stuff to put something down that covers it
all.
Hatcher: Does the staff’s intent on this, though, to give a six-month grace period
– a continuous six-month grace period – not just a six-month grace period from
the time this is enacted, but anytime that a tenant changes – a space changes
tenants. Basically, do you want Commissioner Nary to address the ability to
make a person take down a non-conforming sign as soon as that tenant leaves,
or are you saying if that tenant space has been vacant for more than six months,
then, we, as a city, have the right to ask you to replace that non-conforming sign.
If you turn that tenant space around within a six-month period, we’ll allow you to
continue to use that non-conforming sign.
Nary: Instead of taking out the six-month thing, taking out the other portion.
Hatcher: What is the intent?
Hawkins-Clark: And I like what Commissioner Hatcher says. I think that makes
sense and that seems pretty fair. If it is a turn-over kind of business or location
that has some turn-over to it, but it’s still being occupied and it’s still being used,
although they may a non-conforming sign and all they’re changing is some
panels and things like that, that makes some sense just to allow them to continue
to do that until they have to totally have to repair the sign, or change it or
something else or they abandon it. That makes sense too; so taking out the
other clause might be the more appropriate one and meets the business folks’
needs as well as his needs.
Nary: I don’t know that the other one necessarily contradicts. It says, “or
purpose.” What’s the purpose of a sign? Any sign that’s there is going to have
the same purpose – to advertise for the business. The only two things that
wouldn’t be is the time and event and that’s for some temporary – an annual
event or something like that, maybe.
Hatcher: No, that’s not true. A good example would be –
Borup: And how is this sign no longer –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 54
Hatcher: -- an old gas station gets converted to a used car lot. You are going to
have the gas price sign.
Borup: Okay. Wrong purpose.
Hawkins-Clark: I think it’s the kind of deal that you ask ten people and you’d
probably get at least ten different answers. In some ways, it’s philosophical.
What does the city want to do for business owners? Do we want to clean up the
City aesthetically?
Hatcher: That’s what we want to do.
Hawkins-Clark: To me, that’s what I want. If it’s non-conforming, then this is the
chance to do it, but it could be seen as being onerous on a small business
owner. You got –
Hatcher: Then that’s why you give them the six-month clause. Hey, look. We
want to clean up our city and make this a nicer place to live, but we understand
the financial burden. That’s why we have a six-month clause in our ordinance.
Hawkins-Clark: So you’re supportive of that?
Hatcher: Yes, I am supportive of changing the wording basically to say, “Except
as otherwise provided in this code, any sign located on a property which pertains
to a time, event or purpose which no longer applies to this property for a period
exceeding six months shall be deemed as abandoned.”
Nary: If you talk about financial burden, if a landlord has a property vacant for
six months, there’s a financial burden there. All this is doing is saying that you
have to take the sign down. That’s really all it’s doing. It’s not saying that you
can’t re-rent it. It’s just going to say if it’s longer than six months that it’s vacant,
you’re going to have to take that sign down and put up a conforming sign. That’s
all.
Hatcher: M&M Meats next to Payless Drug – wasn’t it months or a year and a
half that sign sat there?
Nary: They just replaced the one in the parking lot.
Borup: The one in the parking lot has been run into.
Nary: They just put it in there the other day.
Borup: Oh, they finally replaced it?
Nary: Yes, it’s bright now and it’s not all smashed.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 55
Borup: Was that their sign that got smashed?
Nary: Well, there was a sign in the parking lot. I think it was theirs.
Hatcher: At one time, it was H&M Meats.
Norton: So essentially, nothing really has happened except for Richard thinking
about moving the seating six months to another place.
Hatcher: I’m just kind of playing on what Commissioner Nary had mentioned and
just change the wording around and get rid of the “or” because that “or” gives
you two conditions, which are in contradiction with one another. Pick either one,
and go with it. I think the six-month grandfather clause is the City’s good will to
our businesses. But if you can’t conduct business effectively and you have
abandoned property for six months, we’re going to – as a City; we’re going to
clean it up.
Nary: My observation on the most part is the City staff and employees are pretty
reasonable on most things. If the sign is just really ugly, then maybe that’s time
to put some pressure on it.
Hatcher: You didn’t by chance, since you mentioned –
Borup: If it’s not so bad, then maybe you don’t push it so hard.
Nary: What you may want to do because we have talked about that a little bit is
separate from the non-conforming and conforming section about turning the sign
around and making sure there’s a panel in there so that the lights aren’t exposed
to the street – those kinds of things that are different than what we’re talking
about and whether the sign gets to actually physically still be there or not be
there. Once they don’t have the use of that property, it’s not being used for that
business. Then the sign shouldn’t be displaying that that there’s a business
there for that. It doesn’t mean they have to actually take the sign down. They
just need to turn it around or turn it off or something like that, and that might be a
different section, just so that it doesn’t seem mixed to people. That’s a more
technical kind of thing.
Hawkins-Clark: You don’t think that the paragraph C, adding that in there would
be adequate or do you –
Nary: Yes, just other than C. That would be fine. I just think because that was
what we were talking about. C is probably the best place for that.
Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Well, I’ve got that. That’s good. Okay. I’ll make that
wording change that you suggested, Richard. The blanketing issue – residential
– that’s the same. I’ve just got about six more things here. On page 11,
animation – we are saying that, “No, an animation --.” I did point that out, but it’s
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 56
defined basically any sign that blinks or which would be any electronic sign that
flashes or can have the potential to flash. Those are all prohibited in the office.
The C and the CC, the technical zoning districts and all residential, so we’re
saying we allow them in the C-G, the larger commercial zones and light industrial
for a maximum of 20 percent of the sign background area. They would basically
still be –
Hatcher: Sign structures may not move. We can’t have a big old bucket of
chicken moving around anymore?
Hawkins-Clark: It’s out.
Nary: We have some of these zones that are either adjacent or facing residential
zones, so if you have a – I’m just thinking of places like where you have a light or
a C-G zone that’s facing or right adjacent to a residential zone, we wanted to be
turned away from a residential zone, because obviously this would be allowed in
the Family Center, but we don’t want it facing all of the residences, so it’s blinking
on those people. We want it faced away from them, so that –
Hawkins-Clark: That’s actually covered in E on page 10.
Hatcher: I think the Texaco sign is a pretty good example. That sign is
perpendicular to the residential neighborhood, but yet, it still blinds them.
Borup: I think it’s way more than 100 feet, too.
Hatcher: Yes.
Hawkins-Clark: So are we okay on that animation?
Borup: So this is just – in E, it will just be prohibited within 100 feet, so it doesn’t
matter if it’s oriented towards the residence, or away from the residence.
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Borup: That’s fine.
Hawkins-Clark: No. K is no bare poles in Meridian. All structures will always be
covered and then L, on page 12, we’re saying they should’ve all be always be
set in some kind of landscaped area, so you couldn’t have a big parking lot with
just a bare pole sticking out of the parking lot. They would need to have some
kind of landscape base around it and that’s just an aesthetic thing. That’s also in
Boise’s code and Nampa’s.
Hatcher: Four yellow ballards aren’t acceptable?
Hawkins-Clark: I guess if they have painted tulips on them.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 57
Borup: What’s your concern with signs on a roof? That’s down there in F on
“prohibited.” I was just curious.
Norton: Page 12, F.
Hawkins-Clark: There are some issues there as far as safety, but mainly I think
it’s aesthetics. It’s like all of the Maverick stores have roof signs. If you go up to
the front door, there’s a small little – they’ve got an L-Bar or something attached
to the roof right above the main doors and that’s just something that the
committee said “We don’t want that.”
Hatcher: What about Pizza Hut? Pizza Hut typically puts their signs up on the
top of their mansard.
Hawkins-Clark: Well, mansard signs are (inaudible). We treat those as a wall.
Hatcher: You treat those as a wall, even though it’s up on the roof, because a
mansard is a roof and not a wall.
Hawkins-Clark: Right, but the sign on a mansard, would be viewed as a wall
sign, just on the face of it. I know it’s an architectural nightmare for you.
Nary: This says the sign – what you’re talking about for Maverick, is says this
sign has to be constructed only on and over the roof. Are they over the roof of
the building? I thought they were on the front facing of the –
Borup: Or supported in the roof structure.
Nary: No, it says “on and over the roof of the building supported by the roof
structure or extending vertically above the highest portion of the roof. So there’s
two different things there. The Maverick ones – are they?
Hawkins-Clark: It’s supported wholly by the roof of the building and it’s over the
roof.
Hatcher: That’s the only one that I can think of that supports – the Fosters
Warehouse in downtown Boise.
Nary: The Pioneer Horse.
Hatcher: The Pioneer Horse.
Norton: Ranch Club? 6th
and Main.
Nary: The old horse on top of the pioneer canvas.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 58
Hatcher: Oh, yes. There is that one, too.
Hawkins-Clark: We do have an old town code. This doesn’t apply to old town,
by the way. I guess we did that older, but this ordinance would not apply to old
town. We have a separate ordinance that’s in the works. So as far as historic
signs on roofs, I think I agree with you. We want those, but – and this was not
uncommon, either. There were some cities that allowed form and some that
didn’t. I think some of it’s – what do you want?
Hatcher: A lot of your cities –
Nary: And I wasn’t saying that I disagree with you. I just didn’t know if what you
were trying to prohibit was being prohibited by that. I wasn’t sure. I don’t recall
what it looks like as to whether or not it’s wholly on and over. I guess when –
when I always see those kind of things and say “and” and this requires us to
prove two things rather than one thing.
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Nary: I just wanted to make sure –
Hatcher: They’re pretty cheesy.
Borup: It’s on the roof.
Hatcher. Yes, what’s that?
Borup: It’s on the roof.
Hatcher: It’s not mounted on the roof. It’s mounted on the facade of the rood –
the fascia. But it has brackets basically that help support it.
Hawkins-Clark: But if it extends above the highest portion of the roof – we’re not
talking about the base – about the roof line as far as where it candle levers up.
We’re talking about the highest portion of the roof.
Hatcher: What’s the appliance store down there off of Capitol? Sam’s? No.
Norton: Jim’s?
Hatcher: Jim’s Appliance. That’s another good example of what he doesn’t
want. I can’t think of anything in Meridian that –
Nary: There’s that chicken on top of the restaurant, too, in Boise – Jim’s Coffee
Shop.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 59
Norton: State Street.
Nary: There’s a chicken on the roof, so it’s not really a sign. It doesn’t have any
wording on it.
Hatcher: I can’t think of any conditions in Meridian.
Borup: On page 13, No. I, it refers back to Section 8A2 and 8F. I can’t find
either one of those if I did it right or I looked right.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Nary: There is an F.
Borup: But it says “off-premise sign” but then it goes back to “wall signs.” How
are you going to have an “off-premise wall sign?” I don’t know.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, I’m sorry. We did need to correct that. That was in the
older version. This is about version number four. I just didn’t catch that.
Borup: So what should those be referring to?
Hawkins-Clark: Off premise sign except it’s permitted in a fine – that should be
the billboards one. And the plan development – Central Valley Corporate Park –
we’re saying that if you have a corporate subdivision and you want to have – for
instance, Home Depot is an off-premise sign. It’s technically not on Nahas’
property, but we’re saying that if he comes in with a planned sign program at the
very beginning of his project and says, “Well this is where I want –.” Directional
signs would be the same thing. We’re pointing somebody to a location that’s
technically off-premise, but it’s approved as part of a larger program. It’s the
billboard section in that and the plan center – planned sign program.
Norton: Brad, I just wanted to comment. I’d like the temporary sign – signs that
you didn’t need permits for. I thought that was very well laid out. For us people
who have garages – it’s on page 13. People have garage sales and people have
bazaars – little bazaars like at Meridian High School or whatever. It’s kind of nice
to have this – that you can do that stuff as long as you pull your signs down.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. Good. We are saying no more than 32 square feet,
which could be pretty big. It’s like a piece of plywood.
Borup: Yes, that’s a 4x8 piece of plywood, so that’s pretty good size.
Hatcher: I just saw a garage sale sign just the other day that would violate that.
They had taken some old Coors Rodeo Banner, flipped around backwards and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 60
stuck it in their lawn with posts and they spray painted or something, “Garage
Sale.” It was bigger than 32 square feet.
Norton: Somebody is going to come around and take away all of the extra
campaign signs that are in everybody’s front yard? Two or three?
Hawkins-Clark: That would be a comment for legal counsel.
Swartley: This is the one question I was waiting to talk about.
Norton: No. 14.
Swartley: Page 14, No. 10. Then I am going to take off because I have got
some issues down here. I’m sorry.
Borup: Did you say you had a couple things? Why don’t you just go ahead and
bring them both up now?
Swartley: Yes, that’s what I was going to do. Well, we’re there. I’m not entirely
sure, and I’m afraid that Bill would correct me, but from what I remember – I
didn’t do any research before this, but I’m not entirely sure that 10A or even B. I
didn’t really see until now. I’m not even sure that C – any of these would pass
Constitutional tests, but again I haven’t done – this is just from reading it
cursorily, if that’s a word. I don’t know that these are content neutral. I think that
they need to be worded a little bit differently. I don’t think that they would pass.
We’re talking about a restriction on speech, and you’re talking about a strict test
and I don’t know that it would pass. Bill, do you have a feel for that?
Nary: I’m not sure if it would pass the state code requirements. The state code
allows – doesn’t have a limitation on campaign signs. It just requires your
permission to the property owner, and if it’s public property – if one person gets
to put up a sign, everybody can put up a sign on that property, if they’re allowed
to do that. I’m not sure if the state law wouldn’t preempt some of this language.
I don’t have it in front of me to compare.
Swartley: And we would never get to the Constitutional questions.
Nary: It may preempt some of these anyway, so that’s kind of an area that might
get a little sticky, and I don’t have the state law to compare, so I don’t know. You
are supposed to take them down, but the issue, as they say, if you go for the
next level, then the issue becomes if somebody has a Kennedy for President
sign in their front yard because he’s a big fan of President Kennedy, is he
technically violating your ordinance. Technically, he might be, but yet, he’s
vouching to making a political statement. He’s not there to violate the ordinance.
It may just be a sticky area that you may either want to rethink or at least make it
compliant – make sure it’s compliant with whatever the state code says and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 61
leave it at that. Those are things that probably aren’t worth the hassle to deal
with. You don’t want Jacquelyn B. calling you.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. In Boise, I thought that we took that straight from Boise.
Boise’s code does say one or more.
Swartley: That was the other thing I was worried about is just restricting it to one.
I don’t know that that was –
Borup: Boise restricts it to one or more, huh?
Swartley: That’s what they say.
Nary: Obviously, we don’t enforce that real strictly. It’s just that I think what
you’re trying to accomplish is a very good thing, and you don’t want to get
bogged down by some of the minutia that’s somebody is going to spend 10
minutes to the Council saying “Hey, this is a problem.” We’d spend another 20
minutes talking about it and it’s really not that significant.
Swartley: On Subdivision C, you’ve got real problems. Political or Campaign
signs are prohibited on all public property. That has a real Constitutional
problem, so I would suggest either rethinking this or getting rid of it in its entirety.
Hawkins-Clark: Is that what you’re saying is one of those two things?
Swartley: Yes.
Hawkins-Clark: I’d certainly. The Sign Committee didn’t have a big deal on this.
They did want to sort of --
Nary: The biggest beef people always have is like with what was just said.
People take them down when it’s over with. That’s what people want. That’s
what aggravates people is they still see them months later and it isn’t a political
statement. It’s somebody who is lazy and just doesn’t want to bother, or a
candidate who can’t remember where they put all their signs so they just assume
that people will rip them down and throw them away.
Hawkins-Clark: So put something in the code about lazy people. Make it a
criminal statute. We’ll throw them all in jail. Moscow doesn’t regulate political
signs at all on their sign code.
Nary: That’s Russia.
Hawkins-Clark: I know you’re talking about Idaho. That’s a very liberal town, too.
Keep that in mind. So is that the questions of this body?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 62
Nary: What I would suggest that if you want to include it and take the state code
provisions and mirror that, and then you’re probably as safe as you could be in
dealing with it that way. Then, you are at least addressing it, but probably that’s
where you would leave it unless somebody thinks there’s a need to go more. I
really think most people’s beef is that they just don’t take them down and the
state law requires that they take them down within a certain number of days.
Hawkins-Clark: Is that would this body wants? Are you saying this is all what
you would like to see? Just keep Item A2 – 10A2: Campaign signs shall not be
erected earlier than 60 days and they must be removed in 10. That’s the only
thing that we would put.
Hatcher: I don’t object to anything that you have said here.
Nary: The size might be a problem as well, though.
Hatcher: We want to make sure that we are not in violation of the –
Nary: Restriction on free speech, Keith.
Borup: On size, too.
Nary: I think so.
Borup: And how long can it be up?
Nary: That doesn’t restrict the speech – the length of time, I don’t think.
Norton: Ten days after election is plenty of time.
Nary: Isn’t that what the State Code says? Does the state code say –
Borup: As big as you want as long as it comes down in 10 days.
Nary: I don’t know about the size. I don’t know if –
Swartley: I don’t think the code addresses size. It may. Do you know, Bill?
Nary: I don’t think it does. I think it addresses location and taking them down. I
don’t think it addresses location and taking them down. I don’t think it addresses
size and the state code. You have got to remember you’re not talking just
political candidates. You’re talking about political issues, as well as candidates.
I recognize that the City doesn’t necessarily want on Eagle Road a big giant sign
that’s pro-abortion or anti-abortion or something like that that’s bigger than a
billboard.
Swartley: But they’re allowed to do it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 63
Nary: You can regulate time, place and manner of certain types of speech, and I
think in your sign ordinance, because it’s really a more technical area that you’re
not really worried – you’re not really dealing with a Constitutional. You don’t want
to end up there. I think what you want to do is simply mirror the State Code on
those issues and then you don’t have to deal with that from a Sign Ordinance
standpoint. If it violates some other things, then deal with it from that, but –
Hawkins-Clark: I think I understand where we’re going. We’ll check the State
Code and if it deals with any of these things and contradicts, then we’ll take it
out. Otherwise, leave it as is.
Borup: And a practical matter would come down to a real challenge. You’d
probably just ignore it, wouldn’t you?
Nary: If the State Code addresses it.
Borup: I mean if there was a problem with someone wanting to do a big giant
sign.
Hatcher: We couldn’t stop them.
Borup: That’s what I mean.
Hatcher: As long as you had permission of the landowner.
Norton: But that’s going to creep in, too about when they can go up and when
they need to come down. Did we address, Dave, the No. C about prohibiting
these signs on public property – C under page 15?
Swartley: I’m not saying that, but you’ve also got to understand these people
might go out and –
Borup: Hold the right-of-way on here, too.
Swartley: All hand-held public signs are allowed.
Hatcher: I was just thinking, I mean, how do you protect the City, though
because this is really more directed to you two. The Water Tower is public
property. So what prevents me from going up there and putting a political
statement? It’s public property. You can’t prevent me from putting a sign there,
so how do we protect the City from –
Swartley: I think the City still has rights that are similar to what a private owner –
I mean the City Hall is a public building. It doesn’t mean you can paint a sign on
the side of it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 64
Hatcher: It would be considered vandalism.
Nary: Still, I think you still have the right. Yes, I think the City still has the right to
limit, and what most cities do is you can’t do any – They’ll let you put it in the
park, but not on the water tower. They used to say you can’t leave it anywhere
because they don’t want to have to dictate any of those things. It’s easier to just
say no to everything. Union Pacific is a good example. They’re really restrictive
of its private – kind of close their public agency, but they’re really restrictive on
putting political signs on their bridges and overpasses and things like that
because they don’t want to deal with that. They’d rather just say no to everybody
and deal with it on a case-by-case basis, which is a lot easier for the government
to deal with. To me, it’s an issue that isn’t that significant. Most of the public
would prefer the people to just take them down. Rather than ending up spending
a lot of time dealing with that, does that fit? Is that Constitutional? Is that not
constitutional? I just remember the state law and not worry about it.
Swartley: Aside from people not taking them down after elections, what
problems has the City had?
Hawkins-Clark: I’m really not aware of any.
Swartley: Okay. Sorry. That was my two cents.
Freckleton: Dave, on Item C, there was an ordinance passed by City Council a
year or two ago about electioneering. I believe, in that ordinance, it prohibits
candidates from posting campaign signs on City Property – public property. So, I
guess what I’m wondering is when you’re looking at this, it might not hurt to dig
up that ordinance and make sure that that it doesn’t jive.
Swartley: I’m sure it doesn’t. Okay. I’m sure the constitutionality of that
ordinance was addressed at that time, so – are you just saying that there is a
provision already?
Freckleton: Are you just saying that there is a provision already?
Swartley: That ordinance, I believe it did have the provision that said that it was
prohibited.
Nary: And there’s the state law provisions. It’s the same thing. You can’t put
campaign signs within certain feet of the polling place and things like that, but
actually, if you read this strictly, you couldn’t even put a “Vote Here” sign unless
you had the permission, but it would apply to anything political. I don’t think it’s a
problem to restrict it. Like I said, rather than spend a lot of time on it, I would just
make it compliant with the state code.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 65
Borup: Okay. Are we on for next? Have you got some other – did that catch
both of your things, Dave? Do you have some other things? Miscellaneous
questions? What’s the best way to proceed here?
Hawkins-Clark: I don’t really have anything other significant to point out. If
you’ve read it and –
Borup: I have a question. I thought you mentioned billboards are prohibited.
Where is that specifically or is that in by definition of type of signs that are – so it
doesn’t specifically say billboards are prohibited.
Hawkins-Clark: No. They regulator is off-premise.
Borup: Off-premise is the regulation there?
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Borup: And then, we don’t have – How about all of these parcels that we’ve got
that are still in the County. There’s nothing that we can do about that, is there?
Is that what we’ve got going up here now?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Borup: And that’s in the County, isn’t it? That’s what I kind of figured.
Hawkins-Clark: Those little white ones, yes.
Borup: That’s what I noticed. That was since I knew about this coming. I
thought (inaudible). Did they think they purposely did that – to stay ahead of the
sign ordinance or something or –
Hawkins-Clark: I don’t know.
Borup: I have a question on that I-84 overlay zone on page 25. Maximum
freestanding of the 40 feet height. How does that compare with the Home Depot
sign or the Family Center signs now? Would those both places be in
compliance?
Hawkins-Clark: They would. The Home Depot is right at 40, I believe.
Borup: Okay. That’s what I was wondering. I didn’t know about –
Hawkins-Clark: Meridian Ford – is that the other one you said?
Borup: No. The Family Center.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 66
Hawkins-Clark: The Family Center is 35.
Borup: Okay. All those signs seem to be appropriate for the size of the project,
to me.
Hawkins-Clark: Bob Nahas was on this committee and he felt that the 40-foot
was – especially given the background area that we’re allowing. We’re allowing
up to 200. That’s a big sign.
Borup: No. 300. Let’s see.
Hawkins-Clark: 300. Right. That’s like a 30 feet tall by 10 feet across, and
that’s just the background area.
Borup: And that’s – did anybody else have any other questions?
Norton: I just had a question about your tables. I was trying to think if it was in
alphabetical order or in square feet order. How were the tables done?
Hawkins-Clark: Well, we started out with the – we’re kind of moving from low-
intensity to higher-intensity.
Norton: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: All of the low-density, low-intensity residential zones and then
the multi-family is Table B, and then the office is Table C. It’s sort of intense, but
it’s no rhyme or reason.
Norton: I see right in the middle where the zones are, and I didn’t see those
earlier, so that had to –
Hawkins-Clark: I can see where that would be confusing.
Nary: Okay. Brad, one other legal point, on page 17B, Legal Non-conforming –
it basically expands the definition of non-conforming signs from the definition of
section. I don’t think they were meant to be two different things. They were
meant to be the same thing, but one refers to it as a non-conforming sign and
definitions as a legal non-conforming sign on page 17, and it should probably
either be the same, or if they are two different things, then legal non-conforming
should be in the definition as well as non-conforming – if they’re meant to be two
things.
Hawkins-Clark: Right – which they’re not.
Borup: So you’re saying to just delete legal?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 67
Nary: Or call it legal non-conforming. If there are two different things, then they
should both be in definition for one thing, then the whole definition here should
be the same as the whole definition in the definition section just so there isn’t a
conflict.
Hawkins-Clark: Maybe since we’ve got non-conforming under abandoned, we
should stick the legal on the definition to clarify. That got a lot of discussion, too,
at the committee as far as what it makes it non-conforming. If you have
concerns or input on that. The main thing, they’re being –
Borup: When you say “legal non-conforming,” aren’t you essentially a
“grandfather non-conforming?” That makes it legal?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Nary: The legal is fine. I just think they should be the same thing in both places
just so if somebody looks at that, they don’t think it’s a different thing.
Borup: Did you have anything, Richard?
Hatcher: I had absolutely nothing. I was just waiting it out.
Nary: The other thing I’m looking at is page 37, No. 2. Basically, it gives the
authority of the Planning Director to make a decision that’s an immediately
serious dangerous sign to the public and have it removed immediately at his
expense – at the property owner’s expense, can they appeal that? Those are
the issues that I can see is that you have a Planning Director who is either going
to say, “I’m never going to do that because I don’t want to make that call,” or
they’re going to make that call and somebody is saying, “I’m not paying the bill
for that. I didn’t think it was dangerous. Just because Shari thought it was
dangerous doesn’t mean I should pay for the removal of a $5000 bill.”
Borup: This is on the street or sidewalk.
Nary: Well, I’m not sure what that meant. When I first read it, I thought it meant
that – lying on the ground. I’m not sure, but if you read it, “finds upon public
streets, sidewalk, right-of-way or the public property where so ever located which
presents an immediate serious danger.” I understand what you’re trying to get
at. If something is dangerous, we need to deal with that as quickly as possible. I
just think you realistically – the Planning Director – it just seems like it probably
needs a little bit more from a due process standpoint. Who is going to pay the
expense? What if somebody – I don’t know who is going to be able to make that
call. How are you going to have any documentation to show that? If we
provided some notice, it depends. We’ve had issues we’ve talked about before
the meeting. We had an issue in Boise with a sign that we felt was going to fall
down on people. That was for the old Fairview Drive-in. When we tried to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 68
remove it, after we had a hearing, the guy parked vehicles in front of it so we
couldn’t get the vehicles next to it to take the sign out because he still disagreed
with it. Then we had to tow the vehicles and it was a real hassle. It just seems
like you’re giving a lot of authority to the Planning Director that they may not want
to exercise. Maybe they need something else to supplement it to make them
either have some process for the property owner or some way for them to feel
comfortable to make that decision so that they actually can use that if they need
it.
Borup: Was this intended for like if a sign fell down – fell off the building and on
the sidewalk or something? Someone has got to clean it up. Is that the dent or
beyond that?
Hatcher: What is your intent for that.
Hawkins-Clark: Well, the paragraph is titled “Removal of an Unlawful Sign.” I
guess we don’t really define unlawful. Unlawful would be potentially any non-
conforming, but we already have a section that deals with that. My guess is
probably Shari – at least if she’s the Planning Director for long and doesn’t want
this in here.
Nary: Like I said, to me, when I read that, the intent obviously is that if you have
something that is a dangerous condition, then you want to be able to have a
means to be able to remove it. I think that a property owner has a right. The
government doesn’t have the right to come and take my property and take my
sign down at my expense and I have no input. The only person I have to go
back to is the Planning Director who said, “It looked dangerous to me. It looked
like it might fall on somebody, so I called up the maintenance crew and had them
take it down.” I think you’re going to – again, it’s a slippery area. I don’t think
you’ll probably run into a lot of problem with it realistically. But I just think it may
need to be kind of flushed out a little bit as to when would that happen. At least,
we would have to give a notice that we’re going to come and park a vehicle in
somebody’s property and take the sign out of the ground. You have to tell them
we’re going to come and do that. We don’t necessarily have authority to enter
their property just to take that out because we perceive it to be dangerous.
Hawkins-Clark: I think really the intent was talking about that are either hanging
over a sidewalk or located on. Just six months ago over in a subdivision – I think
it was – what’s that subdivision on Ten Mile and Cherry Lane? It’s on the south
side of Cherry – Parkside Creek. In Parkside Creek, there was one of those real
estate metal signs sitting in the sidewalk and a girl was walking –
*** End of Side 4 ***
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 69
Hawkins-Clark: -- not that we would go and rip off that sign, but it’s in the public
right-of-way, too. So it’s already prohibited. Maybe we’ve already covered
ourselves.
Nary: Maybe it’s something that the language should say something in the
interest of public safety – it it’s determined – if we have to – if we’re going to
remove it because it’s in the public right-of-way, we’ll provide notice, but we’ll
remove it immediately to evade the danger or something – something that at
least is clear when you’re looking at it. Somebody is going to be making some
record that there is a public safety risk here that the immediacy of removal is
more important than giving a hearing prior to removal. We’re going to have to
take this out because it’s extremely dangerous. And we’re not entering private
property to do it, so we don’t have any issues with that.
Borup: Did you have a couple of others?
Norton: I just had under E: Sale and Sign Removal by City – the hearing to –
Under No. 1, where it says, “Owner may request a hearing before Planning and
Zoning Commission concerning the sale or other proposed disposal of the sign.”
Do we have any authority to do anything? Do we just recommend the City
Council to – it seems like all we are is a board to recommend.
Hatcher: We weed through the garbage. The City Council doesn’t have to,
basically.
Nary: But they do anyway.
Hatcher: They’ve chosen to do so, but they’re bringing it upon themselves. Our
intent was to make their life easier and I think our city is big enough now that we
should be able to – we should be giving the power to make those decisions.
Nary: I’d put that down as a topic for next workshop.
Hatcher: Let’s make City Council’s life a little easier that they have to give us the
authority. Instead of making recommendations, we – the buck stops here.
Swartley: Actually, in that case, it does stop there because it’s final unless they
appeal your decision on the disposal or sale of the sign.
Nary: This only comes into play if we remove the sign. We’re storing the sign.
They won’t come get it. Then we’re giving them notice saying if you don’t come
get it, we’re going to sell it.
Norton: I think you’ve done a really good job with it. Very hard work. It’s hard to
get consensus with all of the people involved.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 70
Hawkins-Clark: You wanted a sense for some of those sizes, like that Idaho
Angler Sign – that’s an eight-foot tall sign. That’s the maximum height in
unlimited office zone.
Borup: So what’s the next step? Do we need to schedule this for a public
hearing?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. I think, Shelby, we got for an ordinance change, does it
require 30 days, or does it have to be twice in the paper?
Ugarriza: Yes, it has to notify twice, but if – I can catch it at the same time. If
you want to do it for October, we can do it in October.
Hawkins-Clark: I think unless there’s other discussion or another workshop, then
it would just be a matter of where you wanted it to be –
Borup: I don’t think we need another workshop.
Hawkins-Clark: A regular meeting or just a separate hearing date?
Borup: I don’t anticipate any public – much public testimony.
Hawkins-Clark: Well, I know that representatives from a couple of different sign
companies and Association of Idaho Realtors are going to come and talk about
it.
Borup: Have they had a chance and they’ve already had a chance to look at it,
so they’ve got some problems with something, huh?
Hawkins-Clark: I really haven’t heard a lot of strong negative. I think more of it’s
fairly just kind of concerns.
Nary: I sure wouldn’t want to see it as an item when we have nine other items
and that one. I think we would be here until 2:45.
Norton: Let’s do it in November.
Nary: Either in November or have it as a separate meeting so that way we can
either deal with it a little easier or otherwise it will be here forever. Even if it is
minutia, it’s going to be 12 people with one section they don’t like and one
section they want to change. It still takes two hours.
Norton: Do we need to schedule another meeting then?
Nary: Yes, because we don’t know what November is going to be and we know
October is full. November could be the same. Unless you want to drag this thing
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 71
on for however long, sounds like we ought to go ahead and get a separate
meeting scheduled right now then.
Borup: Sure. So what works?
Nary: October 4th
– Wednesday in October.
(Inaudible conversation among Commission members)
Borup: October – well, I don’t know if we’re going to be able to do anything on
Tuesdays. What day is City Council – oh there we are.
Nary: If we went to the 25th
in October and this was Item 1, the only other things
that we would plan to do is if we had – if we were running really late on the
regular meeting and we had to move any of those items, we could move a few of
those, but nothing else.
Borup: Good idea.
Nary: We need to be doing only this on the 25th
or whatever continued or if the
things – if the calendar got real jammed and we had to move a couple of them off
of the regular meeting and then they’d already have a meeting set. As long as
they’re here, you can continue them here.
Borup: 7:00 or do you want to do it earlier?
Hatcher: 7:00 is fine. Anything earlier is really hard to do.
Norton: I think 7:00 would be consistent.
Nary: 7:00 is probably easier. I really think it is so well detailed that all you’re
going to get is a few people saying, “Well, I really think you should put two 12-
feet instead of 10 feet. I don’t think it’s -
Unidentified: The realtors are going to want to build and post their open house
signs anywhere in the city they want to and real estate signs.
Borup: That’s not in the category of a temporary sign? So are they paving it,
then?
Unidentified: They have seven days to take them down.
Borup: They can only be up for seven days. They are going to complain about
that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 72
Unidentified: You see the one that they wheeled out in front of Cherry Lane
Village. They built signs with wheels on the end of it so they can cart them
around advertising Lakes at Cherry Lane.
Borup: On Fairview or on Ten Mile?
Unidentified: On Cherry Lane. Interlachen –
Borup: Yes. I just drove down today. I didn’t see it.
Unidentified: It was out there all weekend.
Borup: Oh. It’s just brought out on the weekends then. It wasn’t there today.
Unidentified: It looks like they’ve built it up so that (inaudible)
Hatcher: Put it on Cherry for seven days. Move it to Ten Mile for seven days.
Move it back to Cherry for seven days.
Nary: If it’s on wheels, though, that’s different. That would be a portable sign.
The real estate signs have to be in place. Seven days after the sale has
consummated – that’s not bad.
Borup: Oh. Seven days after the sale. I thought you meant seven continuous
days. Oh, no, that’s not a problem.
Hatcher: Before we adjourn this meeting, I wanted to bring to the table – would
you add to your list of items for the workshop with City Council the discussion
with what we can do as a City to either adopt – modify our ordinance or
whatever, the ability to enforce regulations and improvements within ACHD’s
right-of-way as far as – I know we’ve tried this. Remember the apartment
complex at Locust Grove and Franklin where we wanted to have left-turn lanes
added, but it wasn’t an ACHD implement. ACHD didn’t say anything about it.
We said we wanted it. It kind of became a mute issue because the project
wasn’t passed, but it was a big sticky issue. We’ve had several other projects
over the course of my involvement that it seems very logical to have these
improvements done. At the time of our recommendation, it should have been
part of the condition, or at the very least, in some conditions like tonight, I don’t
think that it would be appropriate to ask Crucial Technology to put curb, gutter
and sidewalk in on this road, but we will never get curb, gutter and sidewalk on
that road if we don’t start making them put money into a trust so that when that
road is improved, the money is already there. Trying to get that money from
them after the fact, it’s going to come from the taxpayers rather than from the
tenants. Those are all existing buildings, so they aren’t going to pay impact fees.
They didn’t pay impact fees, no. How are we going to do it? They’ve come here
and wanted to double the size of their facility. We could have made them – if
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 73
there was something in place, we could have made them put money into a trust
for their improvements because we could have imposed improvements on them
now for future construction. We have no engine in which to do that, and ACHD
isn’t doing it.
Borup: Maybe that’s what we need to ask them – maybe a legal issue.
Hatcher: It might be a legal issue, but I think it’s something that needs to be
brought up rather than just a general talk.
Borup: I think that would be a good idea.
(Inaudible comment from the audience)
Hatcher: If we had parameters, maybe that’s a perfect example.
Nary: Yes, I think some of the others, like you were saying, the apartment and
stuff, there’s something to do there. This one, nothing is probably going to
happen there.
Hatcher: That might be a bad example, but so many times we run across these
projects where it’s not in ACHD’s immediate plans, but “Oh, no. Don’t put it in
because we’re going to put something there five years from now.” Well, that
doesn’t help us for the next five years. We need to be able to – okay. Five years
from now, it gets torn out. Well, ACHD is now going to have to flip the bill
because they wouldn’t do it right the first time when we wanted them to do it in
the first place. I don’t want it to become a battle between government entities,
but we need – it seems (inaudible) as a city – anything within our cities
boundaries – I don’t know. Maybe it’s like a personal preference. East Boise
versus West Boise is a perfect example. East Boise was built after certain
ordinances and restrictions and stuff was put in. All of East Boise has curb,
gutter and sidewalk. It looks complete. It looks clean. You go to West Boise or
the Bench or something like that – older. You can’t even find sidewalks let alone
curb and gutter. It looks urban. It looks rural. It just looks incomplete. It looks
dirty.
Hawkins-Clark: You’re messing with the State Statute – sets up the Highway
District formula. That’s the way it states, unless you move out of Idaho. We’re
the only state that has it. So, if you don’t like it – wasn’t it in the 60’s when they
brought that in?
Borup: Early 70s.
Hawkins-Clark: 70s when they brought it to the Highway District?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 74
Unidentified: We’re the only county that has the Countywide Highway District
like this.
Borup: Yes. Canyon County has five of them.
Hatcher: Personally, I’d see it as a big, black hole.
Nary: My perspective has been it isn’t always and maybe there is – the problem
is that the Commissioners change or Councils change. There’s nothing that says
the ACHD can’t say, “We will deal with the bigger issues – the bigger traffic
control issues, but if you want to deal with the subdivisions, go ahead. Just do it.
We’ll put these minimum restrictions that they have to do and you can add on
other ones that you want to, also.” Those are cooperative things between them,
and that’s something that the City Councils and the ACHD can do. That’s just a
cooperation thing. ACHD hasn’t ever been very cooperative. That’s been the
problem. That’s where the bone of contention has been.
Borup: I don’t know that they’ve been really uncooperative.
Nary: They’re better now, but there have been times that they said, “Tough.
We’re the Highway District.”
Borup: Yes. You’re talking two years ago.
Hatcher: (inaudible)
Nary: Right now, you’re in this cooperative mode of saying, “Let’s work together.”
It is frustrating for citizens to come here and say that traffic is a problem to them.
Like I said tonight, we kind of came – when it really comes down to it, it’s ACHD’s
call. There’s only so much we can do. We don’t have.
Hatcher: We can talk about it until we’re blue in the face, but we can’t do
anything about it.
Borup: Then our input needs to get in there before they have the hearing at
ACHD maybe, but I don’t know how you do that.
Hatcher: That just goes back to whether it gets put onto our agenda and our
docket. If it’s something that goes to ACHD and we don’t have a final report from
ACHD, it shouldn’t come in front of us.
Borup: Well, no, but if we want to have any influence, we need to get our
stipulation in there before it goes to ACHD, so maybe that’s better if it has it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 75
Hatcher: Yes, but that would be procedure. If we wanted to add our two cents –
well, no because what would we be adding? We don’t necessarily want to
dictate what’s going to be done. We want to add to what ACHD has already –
Borup: And we don’t know what they’ve done.
Hatcher: We don’t know what they’ve done. In this situation, it gets like we want
a draft from them so we can add our two cents and maybe then they’ll add our
two cents into their final. I don’t know.
Borup: Half of the time there’s not going to be time for stuff like that.
Hatcher: Parliamentary procedure between two judicial bodies.
Borup: We’ll put that down and talk. We don’t have a –
Nary: Date for that yet.
Borup: No. At this point, we don’t, other than just an informal agreement that we
would have a couple a year. How long has it been since the last one? Does
anybody remember?
Hatcher: Three months, four months ago.
Borup: So it’s time to start scheduling new ones, I think and maybe get some
other things on. The only other thing that I have – let me ask you guys is that
idea of maybe summary minutes rather than verbatim minutes. Any thoughts
either way? My thought was we’d probably read summary minutes more
thoroughly, but there are some things that need to be verbatim. I think maybe,
for one thing – for one thing, our discussion should be verbatim and maybe the
staff report – probably. Of course, maybe that’s half the thing. Then maybe most
of the applications commence, but not always. Sometimes they go on and on.
Hatcher: How are you going to – leave it up to the person?
Borup: Most cities – what does Boise do? Don’t they do summary minutes?
Nary: They do summary minutes and we usually end up in a problem. That’s
where the problem is because what happens is people go to – now, here, it’s
probably not as problematic, because right now, we’re not making a final
decision. They get to go give their next two cents to the Council, anyway. The
problem that we’ve run into is we do summary minutes. The person goes to
appeal –
Borup: Then you have to go back and transcribe them anyway.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 76
Nary: Right. They go to the Council and say, “That’s not what I said,” or that’s
not exactly what they were talking about. That wasn’t the basis of the decision
and it’s not always very clear, but since we aren’t making a final decision, it
probably –
Borup: See, right now, I don’t think – the City Council doesn’t read our minutes,
and maybe they would if they were a little shorter.
Ugarriza: They have them for their Item Packets.
Nary: The minutes?
Ugarriza: Yes.
Borup: I haven’t seen evidence of anybody reading them other than Tammy.
Nary: Does the City Council read them as to why we made a decision that we
did if they’re going to – especially if they’re going to do something differently.
Swartley: I don’t know if they do read them, but they’ve all made the comment
that they want them because we’ve asked about doing – yes, we have asked
about doing summary minutes, and they just don’t want us to.
Ugarriza: Summary is pretty subjective because one person may feel that this
statement is important where another person may not realize the importance of
it.
Nary: But they’ve said that they want the whole thing there. I don’t know if they
read them or not. That’s not the issue. The issue is one.
Borup: You can tell by here when you listen to what they’re saying whether
they’ve read it or not.
Nary: I have seen very little evidence of it.
Norton: What else is on your list?
Borup: That was it.
Norton: Summary minutes and then ACHD.
Borup: About P and Z Final Approvals and things not going to City Council.
Probably a compromise would be a good way to start. Day cares and CUPs and
everything was on here tonight. I don’t know why any of that needed to go to
City Council.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 77
Hatcher: Then how are you going to –
Borup: A subdivision – subdivisions, commercial developments –
Hatcher: Do it by zones – anything that’s light industrial or light commercial or
something like that.
Borup: Well, maybe. I think it can be specified.
Hatcher: Big shopping centers or chain stores or –
Borup: Well, no – maybe even the commercial stuff in a light – would – should
go there, too.
Hatcher: If it’s Bob’s Haircutting, we take care of it. If it’s Shopko, they look at it.
Borup: Yes. You’re going to have some stuff in between.
Nary: The pitch to me to the Council is your agenda is getting longer and longer
and longer and we’re here willing to do something and realistically, they’re very
fortunate that they have people who really want to take the time to try to get good
stuff passed forward, regardless of what they’re going to do with it. It could stuff
pass forward to them, rather than just saying, “It doesn’t matter what we do.
They’re going to hear it again.” That’s fine. Let it go. We could’ve done that with
the daycare tonight and said, “We’re not the final decision maker. Let the
Council figure it out.” Just pass it on. Just make sure it’s not totally out of
compliance and we’re just here to rubber stamp it.
Borup: Does Council want to take their time to hear about Micron’s Call Center
and vacating easements?
Nary: Pitch to the Council is that your agenda isn’t going to get shorter as the
city gets larger. We’re here to do something. What we can do is take that
burden off of you so the ones that you do here are the things that are contentious
– that somebody wants to appeal – that somebody thinks we’ve erred and done
something wrong or overlooked something and those things. Those are great.
Those are the things the voters care about. The voters aren’t going to care
about the Micron Call Center. They don’t care.
Borup: Well, I think in Boise, that’s probably something that would be on the
Consent Agenda that the staff already handles and they feel if they want to
appeal staff, then it goes to a hearing. We’re not going that far yet.
Nary: That’s the way to least. They have to want to relinquish some –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 78
Borup: So we’d just be taking over the stuff that Boise does on a staff level,
essentially.
Hawkins-Clark: I think they want that. What I understand from Shari and her
conversations with particularly, Councilman Anderson is they want you – they
want to –
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Hawkins-Clark: I think they just don’t have the time.
Nary: Maybe they just need to hear it from us, too saying, “We want it, too.”
We’ll do it.
Borup: That would be all that much extra for us for doing it anyway.
Hatcher: Exactly.
Borup: Some of these things – rather than having a redraw and go to City
Council, it’s redrawn and comes back to us.
Nary: We can take that burden off. We’ve got people that are willing to do it.
Borup: That should probably be the first priority. One of the workshops we had,
we never got around to most of the stuff we wanted to do.
Hatcher: Exactly. We ended up talking about their stuff and they were going
around talking about our stuff.
Borup: Yes. So, if we put that into the first priority and see if there’s any – and
I’ll ask – I’ll talk to the Mayor or Will or whoever we need to. What would be the
best? Mayor or to Will to get that time set up for another workshop?
Ugarriza: I don’t know who sets those up. I can talk to Anita tomorrow and find
out.
Hawkins-Clark: What’s the date that you decided on? Sign Ordinance?
Norton: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 for the Sign Ordinance at 7:00 p.m.
Nary: Right now, we’d like it to be the only Agenda Item unless we have
something from the normal meeting that has to get pushed over. Hopefully,
that’s all we have.
Borup: I think they never got out of their executive session is one of the
problems.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 79
Hatcher: I remember that.
Nary: So we sat here for an hour and then they came in the time was up. We’ve
got another meeting or something. I don’t –
Hatcher: Yes, it was kind of a hazard meeting.
Nary: I don’t think we had that good of a – I don’t think we had that perfect
agenda, anyway.
Hatcher: It was one of our first ones.
Nary: It was just what we wanted to talk about. I think we had one item. I don’t
remember what it was.
Hatcher: That was when Kent presented formats.
Borup: What’s happening on that?
Hatcher: I’m seeing some of it implemented. Haven’t you noticed? In fact, I
wanted to comment. I was one of the –
Freckleton: We’ve tried to standardize. We’ve got all of our comments. They
are totally electronic now – the letterhead and everything so we can e-mail.
Hatcher: I thought you did that all along. I wanted to comment to you and Brad
that the packages the last couple of months have gotten a lot cleaner and a lot
more good size. They’re a lot easier to deal with. I want to compliment you guys
and the rest of the team.
Borup: Has there been any discussion on cutting down some of the paperwork
and compiling the department comments on the one sheet or anything like that
that hasn’t been worked on at all? That came up at the meeting. The majority of
the time, it’s “no comment” or “okay.” It’s a shame to waste a whole page of
paper on something that doesn’t say anything.
Ugarriza: Would you rather not have the “no comments?”
Borup: I think it’s good to know that they at least made a comment.
Ugarriza: We can put that on the front sheet.
Hatcher: I personally really like what Kent had presented. It’s not uncommon to
what I do in my business and Boise City Fire Department – boom – this is what
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 80
they said. One or two pages – it’s a reiteration granted somebody has to take
the time to build a form, but once the form is built, it’s just “no comment.”
Borup: That’s already in there. You just copy it.
Hatcher: And then you type in what the comment is so that I don’t have to go
through and flip through 20 pages to look at 20 “no comments.” I can look at one
page and look at 20 “no comments.” But there are comments that pop up and I
want to know whether or not –
Nary: The Irrigation District or –
Borup: It looked to me like the easiest to start implementing those on some of
the easier ones, like the ones tonight. You may not want to go into it on the
Subdivision or a big development. A little more to it, but on some of these simple
ones would be the ones to experiment on and try out the new form. I don’t know.
Is that Shari that needs to say, “It’s time to start doing it?”
Nary: Call her up tomorrow, Keith.
Borup: That was my next question. Do we want to just – let’s see if we can’t
start on some of it.
Hatcher: We could take 40 pages and just attempt; it just makes all of our lives –
even your guys’ that much easier.
Borup: I don’t know if you guys have ever been in here when they’re preparing
this stuff. That copy machine is going hours at a time and there’s stuff piled over
everywhere.
Freckleton: One of the biggest problems was keeper of the records. When
comments come in, they don’t come to Shari or me, so it would compile and
come to the City Clerk’s office.
Borup: So that means it would be a whole process different thing.
Freckleton: Yes, because we were talking about a whole different process.
Borup: Well, that’s probably what needs to be decided first, then?
Hatcher: Maybe the City Clerk compiles this list that we’re talking about and then
forwards it to you for the compilation of the packet.
Borup: But that’s not the way Kent was talking about.
Hatcher: He didn’t say “how.” He just said that this is what the final project was.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 81
Borup: That’s what they were doing. He was the one that was doing that.
Hatcher: Yes, he said he was the one doing that.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Norton: I think everybody just needs to get a computer and we’ll just
computerize it all. No more paper at all.
Borup: So how would that work in your department, then? Would it go to a
different person – whoever is working on that application?
Hawkins-Clark: Well, it would mean – number one, things being pushed back a
little bit in terms of hearing dates, which is one of our major complaints is that we
take too long in the City. As soon as we get an application in the front door, we
send it over to the Clerk’s office, and then they take that application and send it
out. You usually get things back sometimes the day of the hearing, though, right.
Ugarriza: Yes, sometimes the day we send it out and sometimes the day before.
Hatcher: Don’t we have a requirement that that stuff is to be –
Ugarriza: To be given to us. I usually want it the Wednesday before the
meeting. So they usually –
Hatcher: And you’re talking about from other jurisdictions – not things that are
out of control of the applicant.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. Like the comment from ACHD – from the school district.
Ugarriza: Yes. They usually have 30 days – 20 or 30 days. When we get it, we
have to have it scheduled for a meeting within 45 days.
Freckleton: As long as you remember Kent saying how he was able to tell if I
want this comments by this date. I don’t know (inaudible).
Hatcher: I think 20 days is still adequate.
Ugarriza: Well, it is 20 days not including the weekends, but it’s like two or three
weeks.
Hatcher: Twenty calendar days versus work days. Still, that’s adequate. It
needs to be – I can’t use the word “enforce,” but it needs to be emphasized.
Ugarriza: We don’t ever have a problem with it. People get their comments in.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 82
Hatcher: So it’s just a matter of –
Norton: I don’t think we need to solve the problem.
Hatcher: No, we don’t need to solve the problem. I just wanted to bring it up so
it’s a topic of discussion in our work session.
Borup: Let’s encourage it. If it’s not, then we’ll just keep going like we are. It’s
not going to happen overnight.
Hatcher: Quoting of the appropriate code sections has been a tremendous help.
Nary: The electronic presentation is the most impressive thing to me because
we don’t have that in Boise. We don’t have Power Point for everything of
Planning and Zoning. Most of it is done by overheads. It is harder to follow.
This is much easier – much more professional looking. It really is very
impressive.
Hawkins-Clark: So the biggest thing that would help you is the quantity of stuff
that you have to go through. Do you like the bigger plans so you can pull out a
ruler or do you – (inaudible)
Hatcher: I like both. I have no problems with 11x17 at all, but my eyes are still
good.
Nary: It’s really hard with certain types of plans because if you’re looking at a
plat note or something like that and you put it on a regular piece of paper, you
can’t read it. I’m not going to take a ruler to a blueprint. I’m not going to do that.
Do I need them all the time? No, I don’t need them all the time, but I couldn’t tell
you ahead of time which ones I don’t.
Borup: It depends on the project – like the Fred Meyer – I could have done
either way on that one.
Hatcher: I wouldn’t need full-size ones for the project like that; I just need the
general –
Borup: But the daycare one, or anything that’s got buildings and layout and that
kind of stuff –
Hatcher: It deals with setbacks. Dealing with dimensions, I would probably want
a full-size one.
Nary: For me, a lot of times, having a smaller one would be fine. If I had a
question about it before the meeting, I could certainly call and ask if I could have
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 83
another one of those and you could put it in my box and I could get it later or I
could look at it here. For me, it wouldn’t matter.
Borup: They come from the applicants, so they need to –
Nary: I’d just hate to throw it all away. That’s the thing. We get all that paper
and then throw it out.
(Inaudible conversation amongst Commission members)
Borup: As far as meeting times, should we just wait until City Council makes a
change and not even bring anything up and then worry about a date? They’re
going to have to do an ordinance change. We’ve got a lot of time to –
Nary: Well, you have got to figure we may have another member – Commission
member by that point. They do have to change their ordinance
Borup: It might have another day for us to worry about them. That’s my feeling.
I’m not even going to bring it up. Other than, at a meeting before last, I was to
write a letter to City Council requesting that we have the fourth Tuesday.
Nary: And now it seems like that’s – there’s not much point to do that.
Borup: That’s what I’ve been told twice by two different – Will said he didn’t think
we’d do it and I talked to Mayor and he said the City Council has already decided
and he said it won’t do you any good. So, I said there was no sense in writing a
letter.
Nary: It doesn’t make sense to try to pick an alternate day at this point until they
actually do change it and then we may have another Commission member then
who – that will work for that person.
Borup: Right now, Wednesday is not the best day for me, but next year it’s going
to be better. That would be fine.
Hatcher: Wednesdays were impossible for me a month ago and now they’re
probably one of the better days.
Borup: I’ve got one Wednesday that I have got a conflict, but other than that, it’s
all –
Norton: We need a motion.
Hatcher: Motion to close the meeting and workshop. Did we ever close the
meeting and open the workshop?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
Page 84
Ugarriza: Not formally.
Hatcher: We informally did.
Borup: We set up the workshop. I guess we never closed our other meeting.
Can we do that retroactive thing?
Hatcher: I think retroactively, I motion that we closed it three hours ago – two
hours ago.
Ugarriza: At 9:00, didn’t we?
Nary: It was like five to 9:00 because we were going to take five minutes.
Norton: That’s right. 5 until 9:00.
Nary: So I’ll second the 8:55 motion to close the meeting.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:55 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVE:
_______________________________
CHAIRMAN KEITH BORUP
ATTEST:
_______________________________
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK