Oakbrook Plaza CUP 00-034~ ~
CITY CLERK FILE CHECKLIST
Project Name: Oakbrook Plaza (sign) File No.
Contact Name: Dan Conlin /Idaho Electric Signs Phone:
CUP 00-034
338-9401 / 440-7798
Date Received from Planning and Zoning Department:
Planning and Zoning Level: Hearing Date:
^ Transmittals to agencies and others:
^ Notice to newspaper with publish dates:
^ Certifieds to property owners: _
^ Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
Notes:
^ Approve ^ Deny
City Council level:
Transmittals to agencies and others:
Notice to newspaper with publish dates:
Certifieds to property owners:
City Council Action:
and
Hearing Date: July 5, 2000
n/a
n/a and n/a
n/a
Approve
Findings /Conclusions /Order received from attorney on:
Findings /Conclusions /Order:
^ Approved by Council:
^ Copies Disbursed:
^ Findings Recorded
Development Agreement:
^ Sent for signatures:
^ Signed by all parties:
^ Approved by Council:
^ Recorded:
^ Copies Disbursed:
Ordinance No. Resolution No.
^ Approved by Council:
^ Recorded: Deadline: 10 days
^ Published in newspaper:
^ Copies Disbursed:
Notes: No 2nd ublic hearin for CUP in Commercial
Zone
^ Deny
Resolutions:
Original Res! Copy Cert: Minutebook
Copy Res 1 Copy Cert: City Clerk
City Engineer
City Planner
City Attomey
Sterling Codifiers
Project File
Copy Res /Original Cert:
Ada County (CPAs)
Applicant (non-CPAs)
Recorded Ordinances:
Original: Minutebook
Copies to: City Clerk
State Tax Comm.
Sterling Codrfiers
City Attomey
City Engineer
City Planner
Project file
Applicant (if appl.)
Findings /Orders:
Original: Minutebook
Copies to: Applicant
Project file
City Engineer
City Planner
City Attomey
"Record Vacation Findings "
Recorded Development Agreements:
Original:Fireproof File
Copies to:Applicant
Project file
City Engineer
City Planner
City Attomey
NOTICE OF HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian
and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the
City of Meridian wi11 hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street,
Meridian, Idaho at the hour of 7:00 p.m. on June 13, 2000 for the purpose of reviewing
and considering the application of Dan Conlin, Idaho Electric Signs, for an amendment
of a conditional use permit for proposed larger sign and additional pylon sign to site at
Oakbrook Plaza 2100-2180 Fairview Avenue.
A more particular description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's
office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during
regular business hours.
A copy of the application is available upon request. Any and all interested
persons shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to
submit testimony.
DATED this 19th day of May, 2000.
~~~~~~ti~,~saars~~rrr~~~f~
*,~ ~ OF sr`~®i'~~,
at % ~A/
~_ ILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CI Y CLERK
--~ ~, ~ _
~_~.~ -
~~~ ~~
~ ~ !W
PUBLISH May 26 and Juyr're,,~, K`! ~~~~``~\~
a ~ ` ~ 0~
Ft~l~ltt.Sii ~i't~~t~,,
RT
,--
RT
`,.~
R~
D111VE
R~4
a
__~
RT
RT
~, ;-~
~T
RT
R1 '
~: ~
.,z
I'
~ ,~
~~
~j
' ~~'
~~~ RT
..
'"I
RT ' ' '
I! I
~;,
.
N
~~~
~~~
`°'R~e
RT
RT i
M
C-.
~-,,~~
RT '
RT
R1
RT
I1
R1
'i~i RT
~ ~~
~~
RT
MAYOR HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY 4.
Robert D. Corrie A Good Place to Live LEGAL DEPARTMENT
CITY
CITY OF MERIDIAN (208) 288-2499 • Fax 288-2501
COUNCIL MEMBERS PUBLIC WORKS
Ron Anderson 33 EAST IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Keith Bit-d MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297
Tammy deWeerd (2~8) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 PLANNING AND ZONING
Cherie McCandless City Clerk Office Fax (208) 388-4218 DEPARTMENT
(208) 884-5533 • Fax 888-6854
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian
Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations
to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: __ June 2. 2000
TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 16, 2000 HEARING DATE: June 13, 2000
FILE NUMBER: CUP-00-034
REQUEST: To amend existing conditional use to include larger Sian criteria
and add additional pylon sign to site zoned C-G
BY: Dan Conlin -Idaho Electric Sians
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Oakbrook Plaza - 2100-2180 Fairview
(Norco Industries and assortment of retail tenants)
- SALLY NORTON
KENT BROWN, P/Z
THOMAS BARBEIRO, P/Z
RICHARD HATCHER, P/Z
KEITH BORUP, P/Z
ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR
RON ANDERSON, C/C
CHERIE McCANDLESS, C/C
KEITH BIRD, C/C
TAMMY de WEERD, C/C
WATER DEPARTMENT
SEWER DEPARTMENT
SANITARY SERVICE
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
-POLICE DEPARTMENT
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY ENGINEER
CITY PLANNER
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL)
YOUR CONCISE REMARKS:
Sent By: City of Meridian; 2088886854; Apr-25-00 1:08PM; Page 4
CITY of MERIDIAN MAY 0 9 2000
APPI:ICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL, USE PERMIT P IT'S t~~,. , ~, E~ ~ ` ~~ ~~
~,, ~ Cu P-oo - o3y
NAME: ~-~"-~ L.O-JL ~ ~ PHONE: 3~g-~~~ 1
ADDRESS:_ ~ S"Z ~ .S~Av" % ~`¢`~ 33fs l `f O/
T
GENERAL LOCATION: ~ /~ - ~ / ~'~ ~i9--ice d t ~-~cJ ~-vc
DESCRIPTION OF PROPQSAT CONDITIONAL USE: ~~~~ ~~sTi^-'
~~`z
GGNZ> ~T/ON~I-t- G[~ E rD /.~000C~C ~A~i2~~~ 5i~ r..!
J ~~
G~~ / 7~7~ /.~{- ~ ~'aa ~F ~i ~ '~'~(L05L S t 0;~1. T~, ~ ~ ~ ~
ZONING CLASSIFICATION: ~ - ~
I certify that the information cornained herein is tnie and correct..
Signatiu~e of Applicant
Social Security Number 4 ~~ - `~ y - ~ ( /
LEGAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Pursuairt to established, procedure, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVL'N that the Meridian Planning and
~~ I=otlt~oA vvi~ hr~ld s Public Hearing m the I1~eridian City Hall on
~ .._ _ m- The purpose of the H~cBoig is io consider a
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT sezbmRtoa by ~~} ~ C6 N L ~ N ~r
~ P~P~Y 8' deacr~od as located ar ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~v h*-revs ~-~u ~.ur,;
SUBDIVISION, BLOC.'K ,LOT
TO
r'~
n~~a0
J ~~(iZGtl''<G
r~nr~nr~
6528 SUPPLY WAY • BOISE, IDAHO 83716 (208) 338-9401 FAX (208) 338-9409
Opvo
City of Meridian
C.U.P. 99.036
This cover letter and application are submitted in hopes of re-addressing the sign criteria
in reference to the Oakbrook Plaza located at 2100-2180 Fairview Ave. The property in
question is at this time in the beginning phase of construction to erect two retail
buildings. One being exclusively for Norco Industries, and the second for an assortment
of retail tenants. There will also be a third building for a future restaurant pad. The
square footage will be 21,2000+/-, 24,540+/-, and 5,400+/- respectively.
The criteria we are attempting to amend is specific to the retail plaza and Norco
Industries building. These two buildings comprise approx. 45,750 square feet of a
development that has almost 7001inear feet of frontage on Fairview Ave. At this time,
there are no firm numbers on how many tenants will be in the main retail center but there
could be as many as 15. Of these tenants, there will be a large anchor restaurant, and of
course, Norco Industries, both located at the back end of the development, approx. 250'
off of Fairview Ave. Being set back as they are, both will want appropriate signage on
Fairview Ave. to help start and sustain a healthy business. Leaving the remainder of the
square footage for the remaining tenants.
The 25' x 15' design submitted was drawn with the building architecture, colors, and
appearance in mind. The logo for the Plaza takes up the top third, which is significant to
expedite traffic and designate a professional and well thought-out plaza. The main
cabinet dedicated to the tenants, will include two larger sections (Norco and the anchor
restaurant) and the remaining tenants.
A smaller monument sign set on the East End of the development will address the stand-
alone restaurant pad. The future restaurant has been purposely set back a bit, with it's
own entry and parking. The monument was designed with the same principles as the
larger pylon, and will benefit the visual appearance of the whole plaza, as well as
expedite traffic.
Appropriate signage for a development of this scale is key to the success of the future
business. It will also assist Mr. Kissler, as the owner, to keep the building full of
valuable, successful businesses.
Thank you,
~__.._
___~__._
-c%_
an Conlin
Idaho Electric Signs
~-. ,^
u,~s,SCEtatty oxvm'xvim: anaraxiva •a osiz ~ _ ~ rr
v. ^~ v v ~xoam~mva.naK ~
a
tf z
-~- _ lil
-- ---~- - lil O
I a
i
,, ` ~~ -p ---- -~,--- ---- ri A
C~ ~ k
i /- l
/ ~ ' UI i H
~ ~ ~ ~~Q~~ - it
' w w ~rn~ n -~ I
/ .~ ~ ~ I I I I
aIN ;~ y 1 I I I
°zN If
G li
OI ~ i
~ ~ I I ~ i~
~ ~ Q li
~ I ~I I!~
I
~ ^ III I ~ Iw
~ t Y ~ ~ ! I!a
~ ~--
-- - 1 i I j
• ~ --~ Q~ I
-------~ I rf I i
i I I it
i I I li
~ I it
i r~Q~
r ~ ~~
,' I• N - - - - - - ~ ~ I
s
II
---------~~-~--•-----•-----•---•------ -- ---- II
• I'
-- -- f ~~ - -- -- -- --, i I
#~
b .a-I I
O~ U -0
x~ L
v~ ¢1
a
i
~ ~ o e
$ ~ s~ ~~}
~ ~ ~ ~
d ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S
Y gq <
Q ti ~ ~ 4 ~ !gJ ~ 2 1~u ~ ~ ~~ x
A ~ ~ ~ ~ ww~ yps ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ d ~ 3 ~
N ~ ~ IY ~ 0 6 ~ 4 ~ E ~ f~ ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r~l ~ ~ ~ 6
a ~~~ I~~ ~ ~_~~ W ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~a~~~~ ~~
AFFIDAVIT OF LEGAL INTEREST
STATE OF IDAHO )
ss
COUNTY OF ADA )
I, Jim Kissler 1125 West Amity Road
(name) (address)
being first duly sworn upon
Boise Idaho 83705 oath, depose and say:
(city) (state)
That I am the record owner of the Property described on the attached,
and I grant my permission to
-Idaho Electric Si~ns~ , 6528 Supplv Way Boise, Idaho 83716
(name) (address)
to submit the accompanying application pertaining to that property.
2. I agree to indemnify, defend and hold the City of Meridian and it's employees
harmless from any claim or liability resulting from any dispute as to the statements
contained herein or as to the ownership of the property which is the subject of the
application. _
Dated this ~~~ day of ~~~ , 20 Z~
~~~~ ./~
(Signature)
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year above written.
~ ~.
_ ~ : - . -- _ _ Notary Public for Idaho
\ ~~~" - _ Residing at
-,: °_ .`~ _ - --- My Commission Expires: ~ G 'C~ ? -~
- - - - ,;
-f- ___
~.
~i~
<'
6528 SUPPLY WAY • BOISE, IDAHO 83716
o~~~
)338-9401 FAX (208) 338-J409
I, Dan Conlin, agree to post the property located at 2100-2180 Fairview
Idaho 7 days prior to the hearing.
.. _ .~
~--~ ~"~. - ; `~ S ~ CsC~
Signed Date
Ave., Meridian
/~
~'
A PARCEL OF LAND IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, AAKGE i EJ1ST, 80ISE ~IEAIDIAN, ADA COUNTY,
IDAHO BEING ~AORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOYYS:
COMMENCING AT THE SECTION CORNEA COMBAON TO SECTIONS 5, 6, 7 AND 8 OF SAID
TOWNSHIP ANQ RANGE, WHICH IS MARKED BY A BRASS CAP MONUMENT, THENCE
SOUTH 89 DEGREES 59' 18' EAST A DISTANCE 1336.31 FEET ALONG THE SECTION
(.INE COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS 5 AKD 8, TO A POINT 6EING 10.00 FEET EAST OF
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SO{fhiEAST 4UARTER (1F T1iE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
SAID SECTION 5, THENCE .
NORTH 00 DEGREE 28' 58' EAST A DISTANCE OF 68.21 FEET AND PARALLEL WITH THE
WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 5, THENCE
50UTH 83 pEGREES 32' 56' EAST A QISTANCE OF 230.00 FEET AND PARALLEL WITH
THE CENTERLINE OF FAIAVIfW AVENUE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID
POINT BEING 57.00 FEET DISTANT FROM (WHEN MEASURED AT RICHT'AHGIES TO} THE
CENTER LINE OF FAIRVIE111 AVENUE, THENCE
NORTH 00 DEGREE 26' 58' EAST A DISTANCE OF 619.58 FEET ANO PARALLEL WITH
THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 5 TO A POINT, THENCE
SOUTH 59 pEGAEES 53' 42' EAST A DISTANCE OF 582.68 FEET TO A FOUND 5/8 INCH
IRON PIN, THENCE
SOUTH 00 DEGREE 23' 98' WEST A DISTANCE OF 331.27 FEET TO A POINT BEIN4
57.00 FEET DISTANT FROM (WHE~i MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO) THE CENTER LINE
OF FAIAVIEW AVENUE, THENCE
NORTH 89 DEGREES 32' 56' WEST A DISTANCE OF 506.68 FEET ANO PARALLEL WITH
THE CENTER LINE OF FAIRVIEW AVENUE, TD THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPT
THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT BY DEER RECORDED
UNDER INSTRUMENT H0, 94068952
END OF LEGJ14. ~JESCAIPTIUK
TQTRL P.05
P-152971 JB/HH
~_ ~ d~
PIONEER TITLE COMPANY
OF ADA COUNTY
821 West State Street /Boise, Idaho 83702
(208) 336-6700
888 North Cole Road /Boise, Idaho 83704
(208) 377-2700
Reviewed and approved by:i ~/nj./~,
SPACE AHOVE FOR RF,CORDING DA?A
`:^~~'~ >~ru ?eir ~0.~,at ~ ~ ?~>~>~,~-~ ~?~ 7Ar.7,~.1 ~ ~ ?Plt ~C-4 ?~1~-~,>~ ~,1G ,7(i~ 7,2T~..1i~-t ~?.i1~,1(:-~ 1U~ llll >~ ~G?tl~ .1Gt lti~ ~,i,; ~Gt.,1l-~~t: ?4:,4 ~(~:
WARRANTY DEED
~~
(INDIVIDUAL) i.~
^
' ~
:
^ FOR VALUE RECEIVED
TIMBRE 0. WULFE, an unmarr.'_ed man, as to an ,
undivided one third S~
interest and GRAYE H. WOLFE, SR., a married man dealing with hi s sole and seperate ~~~
^ property, as to an undivided two thirds interest, {their entire interests in the propert~
GRANTOR(S) does (do) hereby GRANT, BARGAIN, SELL and CONVEY unto ~;
JAMES A.
prop ert
KISSLER, a married man dealing with V
his sale and seperate ~"
~~
~ ~ y
GRANTEE(S), whose current addfess rs. 1591 Sendero, Boise, Idaho 837].2
the following described real property in Ada County, State of Idaho,
more particularly described as follows, to wit:
SEE LEGAL DESCRIPTION, EXHIBIT "A", ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE APART HEREOF AND
CONSISTING OF ONE (1) PAGE.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises, with their appurtenances unto the said Grantee(s), and Grantees(s) heirs and assigns
forever. And the said Grantor(s) does (do) hereby ccwenant to and with the said Grantee(s), the Grantor(s) is/are the owner(s) in fee
simple of said premises; that said premises are free from all encumbrances, EXCEPT those to which this conveyance is expressly made
subject and those made, suffered or done by the Grantee(s); and subject to reservatio estrictions, dedications, casements, rights of
way and agreements, (if any) of record, and general taxes and assessments, inclu .irrigation and utility assessments, (if any) for the
current year, which are not yet due and payable, and that Grantor(s) will arrant and defend he same from all lawful claims
whatsoever.
Dated: D tuber 10, 1996
TIMBRE 0. WOLF Y H. WOI.FE, SR.
STATE OF ~ IDAHO ,County of _-_=•__~--_- , ss.
~~
~~
~yi
On this jOth day of _.---~P~EIDher__.___-_.___-__~, in the year of _199.x__ -_, before me ~=
"^~ _ _Che undersigned _____~ , a Notary Public., personally appeared ___ _ __ _ ___ ____ _ ~^~
~ TIMBRE 0. WOLFE and GRAYE H, WOLk'F~r~ifiidr~.._ - ~;
r~ --_ - -- ---- --- --- -- ---- --
^~ known or identified to me to be the person(s)
instrument, and acknowledged to me that __
K~
~~
t/~
~~
:rC it l~ r^i 1^i i'!! r y[ r~l i`ll~l i~(i^( i7f i~ l i 1![ 1
96102'i3y
~U~ ~~~. RECORUEP,
~~ t7l'~`:1 ~ ~ IAYARRO
i30;SE 1D
P~UNEEA TITLE Cp,
'96 DEC 13 Pfd 3 52
FEE ~_~ DCf ~-'~
RECORDED AT 7fIE REQ EST OF
-• d
and ^v~
~ ~/ ~vgcaFy
o n / y Resid;r
~i ~ ~
.~-~ .r~~ _.~
~i
ar.
__-_.____-_ _______ subscribed to the within ~^
`~ ~'
y~
c: B ISE IDAHO ----------- -
_ -.- r
ion x res: ~.-~~
~~'
14~ ~.~ 1U1~ iJ~ ~l'J/ 7u~ jL~ ~~~ )~~~ t ~~ 1J~ ~J~ )_~ ~,.t ~ ~ t..~~ ~..1 i.~ ~.~~1 '
r.. rOr~
o ~
d
y~
z
Q >` N
`~
~ ~ ~ p c*~
~ ~ ~
~ C
O 0 Ch
~L
S~
2 `
V
;~~
d
~~.
~ti
,.
Gj
!~;
Z
Q ~` N
0 ~ c`~
W ~ ~ s c~
~ ~~ `~~
Q~
Li E` w ~
~~
oo~
.~
_~ __
U
r
N N
N ~
N
0
~ J
c
S ~ o
~
~ ~
o
o W
L ~
~ ~ N _
~ d
~ ~
U
a a
~ ~
Z
O ~a
a
w
C7 0
~
a
S m
U H
N
~ ~
d
C~ ~
~ D
O J Y)
O ~
7)
V v O~Q ao
~p
d a> >.
~ m
'~ i
(
v
y
~
,
A N
0
"
z
_ ~ ~ N
~ ~, ~
~
m ~„ ~
~~ ~ ~ o a Q
~o z Q N O
r
N ~
f0
i ~
I~
_~ ~ - i
~ o
~z N
o ~ ~, ~
~~ ~
~o `~
z
1 i°
• - ~
-- -- ~„
.n
_ _
--
-
---
--
-
--
-
--- --
-
--
-
-~.
4'~
`~'
e
7 r)
~
o
~
J
c ~ x a
~ ° ~ o
w --
o
t s
a w
O
~
U
a
U
G
Z r
a
y
a
Q
~ ~~
a
--
ti .~ >
o ~~
O U
oq y ~
a' m
d
1
~~~ 9 co
~ A N
m ~ N
o
_ _ M o
~Y
~p
`Uy
1
Q
z
N ~
W
N Z
~~
c~ a
3 Z
u
~~
Q
~o
W
~Z
is
CD
00
'mot =°~
U ¢ o^
Q
m
y
U
m
Z 2 L N
O m Q
m
F=Q,
UJF~ N
Y NWT-~
=
U ~~~rn
_J N
U x^m
O
O
\
O I~
\ N
U1
C'")
N
LLI
~
Q
- ~O
w^w
1\
=o
c'
~ M
~h
Oo
m \N..
~
Q~ a
~ o
~o Q
4rn O
o
~ ~ ~
Op ~ N
0
coo `.
n: W "~
H
OO .~ ~ ,~., w U
C H O
w
~
~
° z O Q
w x
H ~ ~
O
a c
a
1
I i
LJ"1
C~
1
J
LJl
rY'I .
a
rf1
P
S
r.
..
ru
C~
t
0 a
.~
ru
.a
_•
:.0
J
J
M
00
M
N
= O N
O UQo
m
y Q U
~
oo~
O am
Z
Y m~nFaaN
~?Q~-~
U U~~rn
W
_ ~
~inU
U =^¢'
O
O O
\ ~
~--{
\ ~
Ul c'")
tii M
Q ~s
Qi
~ a
o
~
~ Q
O~ o
_ ~ O
pp \
~"~ O
~ ~
m N z
~~ ~
>~ ~
5 H ~
~- p H
a rn E-y U
~ ~ z
~
N ~
~ H
Ga
O
~ ~
~
~
W W
c°, q ~
'~
~
~ ~ O
^~ w
v w
W ~
o O
x w
H ~
O
~-
Q }
Q
d d
a
~'
i
^
Ul
N
1
1
rt1
~~
I~
O
u~
a
Tom'
I.J
R.~
I'7'9
O
a
ti
.-~
~~
71
r
L
J
-~ Certified Mailing Ret~~s
Project Name ~oY~ File No(s) ~~.~~-
,r-~
July 28, 2000
r~•
VAR 00-010
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING .lUly 5, 2000
APPLICANT Dan Conlin, Idaho Electric Si ns ITEM NO. 6
REQUEST Amendment to CUP for a proposal of a lar er si nand additional pylon si n to the
site at Oakbrook Plaza currently in a C-G zone - 2100 throw h 2180 Fairview Avenue
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
OTHER:
COMMENTS
See attached Recommendations
v
~~
~ ~`"
(~ ~ P
~~ ~i
P~2 ~~~~'
~~~w ~N ~~~- ~
Contacted: ,!~~.~~•~ (n' ~ r ~(, r~ ~~V~ Date: ~ j v~~ Phone: ?i,'~ - ~~~` f
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
WHITE, PETERSON, PRUSS, MORROW & GIGRAY, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
JULIE [V.IIN FISCFIER 200 EAST CARLTON AVENUE NAMPA OFFICE
WM. F. GIGRAY, JII
BRENT J, JOHN$GN POST OFFICE $OX 1 150 104 NINTFI AVENUE SoUTA
D. SAMUEL JOHNSON MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83680-1150 POST OFFI('EBOX 247
WILLIAM A. MoRROw NAMPA, IDAHO 83653-0247
WII.LIAM F. NICHOLS TEL. (208)466-9272
CHRISTOPHER S. NYE TEt. (208) 288-2499 FAX (208) 466~L05
PHII,m A. PsrmsoN FAX (208) 288-2501
STEPHEN L. PRUSS PLEASE REPLY TO
ERIC S. RossmwN ~~~ ~~~
TODD A. ROSSMAN
DAVID M. SWARTLEY
TIItRFrrcER WHITE
June 26, 2000 ~ ~ "`~ ``
~~~
To: Staff .SUN 2' 9 2000
Applicant
Affected Property Owner(s) CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY rl__1=1~K ri~~~r~=
Re: Application Case No. CUP-00-034
Hearing Date: Tuly 5, 2000
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION
Staff, Applicant and/or Affected Property Owner(s):
Please note that these Findin s and Recommendations of the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall be presented to the pity Council at the public hearing on the above
referenced matter by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. Due to the volume of matters
which the City Council must decide, and to insure your position is understood and clear, it is
im ortant to have a consistent format by which matters are presented at the public hearings
be~ore the City Council.
The City Council strongly recommends:
1. That you take time to carefully review the Findings and
Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and be
prepared to state your position on this application by addressing the
Findings and Recommendations of the Plaruurlg and Zoning Commission;
and
That you carefully complete (be sure it is legg~~'ble) the Position
Statement if you disagree with the Findings and~Zecommendations
of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Position Statement
form for this application is available at the City Clerk's office.
It is recommended that you pprepare a Position Statement and deliver it to the
City Clerk prior to the hearing, if possible. If that is not possible, pplease present your Position
Statement to the City Council at the hearing, along with eight (8) copies. The copies will be
ppresented to the Mayor, Council, Planning and Zoning Administrator, Public Works and the
City Attorney. If you are a part of a g~rroup, it is strongl recommended that one Position
Statement be filled out for the group, wFiich can be signed by the representative for the group.
Ve truly you s,
~/
City Attorney's Offi
ly/
r
BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE ) Case No. CUP-00-034
REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL )
USE PERMIT MODIFICATION ) RECOMMENDATION TO CITY
TO INCLUDE LARGER SIGN ) COUNCIL
CRITERIA AND ADDITION OF )
A 25 FOOT PYLON SIGN FOR )
OAKBROOK PLAZA ~
IDAHO ELECTRIC SIGNS )
Applicant
1. The property is located at 2100-2180 E. Fairview Avenue, Meridian,
Idaho.
2. The owner of record of the subject property is Jim I~issler of Boise.
3. Applicant is Dan Conlin, Idaho Electric Signs.
4. The subject property is currently zoned C-G. The zoning district of C-G
is defined within the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance, Section
11-7-2.
5. The proposed application requests a conditional use permit modification
to include larger sign criteria and addition of a 25-foot pylon sign for Oalcbroolc
Plaza. The C-G zoning designation within the City of Meridian Zoning and
Development Ordinance requires a conditional use permit be obtained for most uses
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 1
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION TO INCLUDE LARGER
SIGN CRITERIA AND ADDITION OF A 25 FOOT PYLON SIGN -IDAHO
ELECTRIC SIGNS
/'v
including those requested by the Applicant. (Meridian City Zoning and Development
Ordinance, Section 11-8-1).
6. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission recognizes that the
proposed application is in compliance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
7. The use proposed within the subject application will in fact, constitute a
conditional use as determined by City Policy.
RECOMMENDATION
1. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to
the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the conditional use
permit for a second sign on the site, as requested by the applicant of a 25-foot high
sign.
ey/Z:\Work\M\Meridian 15360M\Recommendations\CUP340akbrooksign.wpd
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 2
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION TO INCLUDE LARGER
SIGN CRITERIA AND ADDITION OF A 25 FOOT PYLON SIGN -IDAHO
ELECTRIC SIGNS
''1
June 9, 2000
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING: June 13. 2000
APPLICANT: DAN CONLIN-IDAHO ELECTRIC SIGNS ITEM NUMBER: 8
REQUEST: AMENDMENT OF A CUP FOR PROPOSED LARGER SIGN CRITERIA AND ADDITIONAL
PYLON SIGN - OAKBROOK PLAZA
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING & ZONING DEPT
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WASTE WATER DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
COMMENTS COMING
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SEE COMMENTS
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: j ~.,
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
SANITARY SERVICE:
C ~`
G
roc
OTHER:
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
MAYOR
Robert D. Corrie
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Ron Anderson
Keith Bird
Tammy deWeerd
Cherie McCandless
MEMORANDUM:
i`~
HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY
A Good Place to Live
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 EAST IDAHO
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
(208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813
City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218
To:
From:
Re:
Planning & Zoning Commission, Mayor and City Council
Brad Hawkins-Clark, Planner'i~
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
(208) 288-2499 • Fax 288-2501
PUBLIC WORKS
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
(208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297
PLANNING AND ZONING
DEPARTMENT
(208) 884-5533 • Fax 888-6854
`v~CEI~~
J l; ~ ~ ~ 200Q
- ~ f~i ~`i~es~iriiax~
?~,rlZ ;
~' `" ':If`fice
Request for Modification to Existing Conditional Use Permit to In~ude~~ ~ B
Criteria and Add a 25-foot Pylon Sign for Oakbrook Plaza -- by Idaho Ele trgc Ssgns
(Dan Conlin)
We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, as conditions of the
applicant. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted
by motion of the Meridian City Council:
APPLICATION SUMMARY /BACKGROUND
This application requests a modification of Oakbrook Plaza/Norco's existing Conditional Use Permit
for their 5.5 acre site at 2100-2180 E. Fairview Avenue. In their original CUP application, the
Applicant requested the same signage (one 25-foot pole sign and one 6-foot monument sign) and
same locations on the site as presented in the subject application. However, at the October 12, 1999
public hearing, the P&Z Commission limited the project signage to a single, maximum 72-sq, ft. sign
(at the recommendation of Shari Stiles during her verbal Staff report). The P&Z motion modified
the October 7th Staff report which recommended approval of both signs as proposed. The City
Council approved the P&Z Commission Findings and Recommendation, including the restriction
to only one, 72- sq. ft. sign. CUP applications in commercial zones do not have public hearings
before the City Council, so the Applicant was not able to address this sign restriction with the
Council directly. Therefore, in order to modify the approved CUP, they are required to submit a new
application.
GENERAL COMMENTS
1. The City has consistently applied the 72-sq. ft. maximum sign size for the Fairview Avenue
/ Cherry Lane entryway corridor since the Fall of 1997 when the City Council requested this
standard be applied. Since it is not an Ordinance, the only avenue for the City to enforce the
72 s.f. sign size is through CUP applications. Since that time, new uses along this corridor
requiring a CUP have had the 72-sq, ft. maximum sign size condition placed on the site
during the application process. Examples in close proximity to the Oakbrook Plaza site
include Elm Tree Plaza, Subway, Schucks Automotive, EconoLube and Walgreen's. Notable
sites in the area that either did not require a CUP or which were constructed prior to the Fall
'97 date and that have larger free-standing signs include Fred Meyer, D&B Supply, Westside
Church, and Chevron.
CUP-00-034
Norco Sign Amendment.CUP.doc
^, ,,~
P&Z Commission/Mayor & Council
June 8, 2000
Page 2
2. Staff certainly agrees with the Applicant that appropriate signage is a vital part of sustaining
a healthy business. The Comprehensive Plan instructs the City to encourage commerce.
However, in the absence of a detailed sign ordinance, the difficulty comes in seeking to
address signage on a site-by-site basis. What size and quantity of signage is "appropriate" or
reasonable for each site and/or business? It is an issue of both community aesthetics (see
Comprehensive Plan policies below) and economics. Until such time as the City adopts a
more comprehensive sign code, Staff feel these site-by-site decisions lie largely with the
Commission and Council.
At build-out of the Plaza, the Site Plan shows an estimated eight (8) business tenants in the
retail building plus the Norco building and the restaurant pad, for a total of ten (10)
businesses on the site. The large center sign proposed in the application contains 144 sq. ft.
of sign background area (12' x 12', not including the logo area). This would provide an
average of 14.4 s.f. of sign area per business on the site (i.e. a 2' x 7' panel). If the second
monument sign is added, this ratio would, of course, increase. By comparison, the Elm Tree
Plaza sign for amulti-tenant site with ten (10) businesses has a total sign background area
of approximately 42 s.f. resulting in 4.2 s.f. of sign area per business (a 1' x 4' panel per
business).
As a ratio of total site area, the Oakbrook Plaza site is 5.5 acres versus the Elm Tree Plaza
area of approximately 2.2 acres. The Oakbrook also has more than twice the amount of
frontage on Fairview. The building floor area sizes are also larger in Oakbrook Plaza. Both
sites are zoned C-G.
While it's difficult to make a direct comparison of these two sites, Staff feels there is grounds
for allowing greater sign area on the Oakbrook Plaza site.
3. Since there is a separate access drive to serve the restaurant pad and this building is both a
different use and tenant separate from the main retail building, the proposed monument sign
at this east end of the site seems appropriate to serve this building. As shown on the
rendering, the design of this sign should compliment any other signage on the site and should
only allow a single tenant panel.
4. It should be noted that the "Denny's" logo on the monument sign rendering is for mock-up
purposes only and is not necessarily the actual tenant.
5. (Correction to note:) The Applicant's application cover letter states the site has "almost 700
lineal feet of frontage." In fact, the site has 5071ineal feet of frontage.
6. If approved, the signs must be outside of the 10' x 20' clear vision triangle at both access
drives. The Site Plan submitted with the application meets this condition. Any changes to the
sign locations shown on the Site Plan require P&Z Department approval.
CUP-00-034
Norco Sign Amendment.CUP.doc
rr, ~
P&Z Commission/Mayor & Council
June 8, 2000
Page 3
7. If approved, the signs must be placed within a landscaped bed area that includes shrubs,
groundcover, lawn or a combination thereof.
8. If approved, both signs must be submitted for sign permits through the P&Z and Building
Departments.
MERIDIAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES
Land Use Goal Statement -Page 23
1. l0U Promote the design of attractive roadway entryway areas into Meridian which will clearly
identify the community.
2.3U Protect and maintain residential neighborhood properly values, improve each neighborhood's
physical condition and enhance its quality of life for residents.
Community Identification Goal Statement -Page 71
1.4 Major entrances to the City should be enhanced and emphasized. Unattractive land uses
along these entrances should be screened from view.
Special Community Design Areas Goal Statement -Page 72
2.2U Encourage area beautification through uniform sign design that enhances the community.
Quality of Environment Goal Statement -Page 73
S.lU Preserve the aesthetic natural resources of the Meridian area.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff supports the addition of a second sign on the site. However, we do not support the proposed
25-foot height and recommend a 20-foot maximum.
CUP-00-034
Norco Sign Amendment.CUP.doc
iJ.i ~/ ~~
l
72a~rr~a & ~tenidiasi ~Innigatco~ Diafiuct
1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395
FAX # 208-463-0092
Will Berg, City Clerk
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
33 East Idaho
Meridian, ID 83642
Phones: Area Code 208
OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861
SHOP: Nampa 466-0663
Re: CUP-00-034 To amend existing conditional use permit to include larger sign
criteria and add additional pylon sign to site zoned C-G for Dan Conlin -Idaho
Electric Signs
Dear Commissioners:
The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on the above-mentioned
application.
Sincerely,
Bill Henson, Asst. Water Superintendent
NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
BH: dln
Cc: File -Shop
File -Office
Water Superintendent
APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES
RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000
BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000
May 23, 2000
06/06/2000 08:42 2088885052
-'"!
ivIAYOR
l^''ober[ D. CU~'rie
CITI' COUNCIL ivlEtvIBERS
Ron Anderson
Keith Bird
Tammy de~vee~°d
Cherie ~1cCandless
33 CAST IDAHO
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 836'12
(305) 555-4433 • Fax (^_OS) SS7•~1513
City Clcrk OIl'ice Fax 1305) S38•a: t3
PAGE 05
LEGAL DEI'ARTiv1ENT
Pl~l3l,IC w(1rzi:s
I31i1L171(rC 17f:1'ART~IENT
,zoS)ao?•azll• Fin ss7.1277
PL~~NNING AND ZONING
oer',~ Rr~~~ Evr
(205) 551.55? ± • Fix S8~•6ti51
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOIL COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CXTY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian
Planning 8~ Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations
to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: June 2, 2000
TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 16, 2000 HEARING DATE: June 13, 2000
FILE NUMBER: CUP-00-034
REQUEST: To amend existing conditional use to include larger sign criteria
and add additional pylon sign to site zoned C-G
BY: Dan Conlin -Idaho Electric Signs
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Oakbrook Plaza - 2100-2180 Fairview
(Norco Industries and assortment of retail tenants)
- SALLY NORTON
KENT BROWN, P!Z
THOMAS BARBEIRO, P/Z
RICHARD HATCHER, P/2
KEITH BORUP, P/Z
ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR
RON ANDERSON, C/C
CHERIE McCANDLESS, C/C
KEITH BIRD, C/C
TAMMY de WEERD, C/C
WATER DEPARTMENT
SEWER DEPARTMENT
SANITARY SERVICE
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
_POLICE DEPARTMENT
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY ENGINEER
CITY PLANNER
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM 8. FINAL PLAT)
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM ~ FINAL PLAT)
U.S, WEST(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT}
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
BUREAU OF RECLAM~Ft(PRELIM & FINAL)
YOUR CONCISE
~CE~D
JUN - 6 2000
CITY OF I~~I~?I~~
SANITARY SERVICE
HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY
A Goud Place w Live
CITY 4~' MERIDIA.N
~ .....
JUN 06 '00 08.49 2088885052 PAGE.05
z8.3Jdd
MAYOR
Robert D. Currie
bbL0b8880z
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Ron Anderson
Keith Bird
Tammy dcweerd
Chtric McCandless
NUB OF TREASURE VALLEY
A Good Place to Live
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 PAST IDAHO
MERIDIAN, XDAHO 53642
(208) SS3-a.133 • Fax (208) 3S"7-a813
City Clerk Officc Fax (20&) S88-218
~b : s i 0e . zz ~,dw
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
(203) 3~5-2499 • Fax ?38-~SO!
P(iRLIC WORKS
2UILDING OEYARTMENT
(20J; 537-2211 • Fax 357-1297
PLANNING AND ZONING
DEPARTMENT
(20S) SS4-5533 • Fnx SSR-6554
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COM1vIENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CYTY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian
Planning 8 Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations
to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: June 2, 2000
TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 16, 2000 HEARING DATE: June 13, 2000
FILE NUMBER: CUP-00-034
REQUEST: Yo amend existing conditional use to include larger sign criteria
and add additional pylon sign to site Zoned C-G
BY: Dan Conlin -Idaho Electric Signs
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Oakbrook Plaza -• 2100-2180 Fairview
(Norco Industries and assortment of retail tenants)
- SALLY NORTON MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
KENT BROWN, P/Z MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT)
THOMAS BARBEIRO, P/Z ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
RICHARD HATCHER, P/Z COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION
KEITH BORUP, P/Z CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
ROBERT CORRiE, MAYOR NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
RON ANDERSON, C/C SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
CHERIE McCANDLESS, C/C IDAHO POWER C0.(PRELlM & FINAL PLAT)
KEITH BIRD, C/C U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
TAMMY de WEERD, C/C INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT)
WATER DEPARTMENT
SEWER DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PREL{M 8~ FINAL)
SANITARY SERVICE
BUILDING DEPARTMENT /~
FIRE DEPARTMENT YOUR CONCISE REMARKS,~~:~ 1
POLICE DEPARTMENT
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY ENGINEER
CITY PLANNER
MAY 2 3 2000
CITE' OF l~IDIAN
~0/ZBd •bbL0b8g80Z=Qi 2i3_Lb'M3_LSb~M Nb'IQI2i3W ii~:bT AA-ZZ-SO
ti
~ HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY '~'
• MAYOR
A Good Place to Live LEGAL DEPARTMENT
Bober[ D. Corrie (208) 288-2499 • Fax 284-2501
CITY OF MERIDIAN LIC WORKS
~1TY ~OUN~,L MEMBERS PUB
Ron Anderson 33 EAST IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT
(208) 887-2211 • Pax 887-1297
Keith Bird MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
Tammy deWeerd (203) 333-4-133 • Fax (208) 337-4813 PLANNING AND ZONING
C(ierie McCandless City Clerk Office Fax (203) 333-4213 DEPARTMENT
~
(_08) 884-5533 • Fas 888-6854
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian
Planning Sz Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations
to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: June 2, 2000
TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 16, 2000 HEARING DATE: June 13, 2000
FILE NUMBER: CUP-00-034
REQUEST: To amend existing conditional use to include larger sign criteria
and add additional pylon sign to site zoned C-G
BY: Dan Conlin -Idaho Electric Signs
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Oakbrook Plaza - 2100-2180 Fairview
(Norco Industries and assortment of retail tenants)
-SALLY NORTON
KENT BROWN, P/Z
THOMAS BARBEIRO, P/Z
RICHARD HATCHER, P/Z
KEITH BORUP, P/Z
ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR
RON ANDERSON, C/C
CHERIE McCANDLESS, C/C
KEITH BIRD, C/C
TAMMY de WEERD, C/C
WATER DEPARTMENT
SEWER DEPARTMENT
SANITARY SERVICE
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
POLICE DEPARTMENT
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY ENGINEER
CITY PLANNER
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL)
R,~C~~D
MAY 1 8 2000
CITY OF IYIE~,IDIAN
OAKBROOK PLAZA
PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300'
AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP SCHIEDEL TERESA F AND
PO BOX 140075 GEORGE JOHN WAYNE
BOISE ID 83714 2252 E GRAPEWOOD DR
1776 N AVEST LN MERIDIAN ID 83642-7332
1722 N AVEST LN
GILLUM DERICK R &
DOVE MEADOWS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC GILLUM AMY M
9550 BETHEL CT 2347 E APRICOT DR
BOISE ID 83709-0000 MERIDIAN ID 83642-7329
N DIXIE AVE
MCCRYSTAL BARBARA A AND
LYASHCHUK FEDOR & DAVIS TAD G
LYASHCHUK YEVGENII'A 2093 E GRAPEWOOD DR
2175 E APRICOT DR MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000
MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000
SIMS MARVIN S JR &
PORTER JAMES V & SIMS SARAH M
PORTER MARCIA J 2363 E APRICOT DR
2201 E APRICOT DR MERIDIAN ID 83642-7329
MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000
SMITH JEANETTE M
PRIOR DONALD P 13376 W HAZELNUT ST
1911 N DIXIE AVE BOISE ID 83713-0868
MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000 2135 E GRAPEWOOD DR
CARLEY JAMES F & HARR KAREN LYNN
CARLEY PAM S 2387 E APRICOT DR
1898 N DIXIE AVE MERIDIAN ID 83642-7329
MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000
BOBKO RAYMOND L
BOUNYAVONG PHONETHIP 5254 RHONDA DR
1883 N GINKGO AVE SAN JOSE CA 95129-4260
MERIDIAN ID 83642-7328 2288 E GRAPEWOOD DR
DECKER BRIAN M & WESTSIDE BIBLE CHAPEL
CAMPBELL DANNA L PO BOX 903
2162 E GRAPEWOOD DR MERIDIAN ID 83680-0903
MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000 2040 E FAIRVIEW AVE
JOHNSON JEFFREY B & STOHL NATHAN B
JOHNSON BRANDI D STOHL KRISTA
2200 E GRAPEWOOD DR 2171 E GRAPEWOOD DR
MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000
FINGER EDWARD P III & SWIGER FRANK R &
FINGER BERYL KAY SWIGER LUCILLE M
2321 E APRICOT DR 2318 E GRAPEWOOD DR
MERIDIAN ID 83642-7329 MERIDIAN ID 83642-7333
DAHLGREN SHIRLEY J
2217 E GRAPEWOOD DR
MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000
~C~
~ ''~
MERTINS TOM W JR LINDQUIST MICHAEL J &
2336 E GRAPEWOOD DR LINDQUIST MARY L
MERIDIAN ID 83642-7333 2351 E GRAPEWOOD DR
MERIDIAN ID 83642-7335
SMITH NICKOLAS G
2255 E GRAPEWOOD DR BYINGTON JAY D
MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000 BYINGTON SHAWNA
2379 E GRAPEWOOD DR
GARCIA ROBERTO S MERIDIAN ID 83642-7333
2364 E GRAPEWOOD DR
MERIDIAN ID 83642-7333 WOLFE DAVID M
2393 E GRAPEWOOD DR
MATTSON DAVID ALLAN & MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000
MATTSON DOREEN A
2382 E GRAPEWOOD DR DOTSON JANIS T
MERIDIAN ID 83642-7333 2409 E GRAPEWOOD DR
MERIDI ~N ID 83642-0000
SEVER DAVID P &
SEVER ANNA K KUYKENDALL BILLY JOE &
2396 E GRAPEWOOD DR KUYKENDALL MARIAN M
MERIDIAN ID 83642-7333 2421 E GRAPEWOOD DR
MERIDIAN ID 83642-7334
WARD KAREN M
2416 E GRAPEWOOD DR CIRELLI BARBARA H
MERIDIAN ID 83642-7334 2443 E GRAPEWOOD
MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000
DONNELLY SCOTT C &
DONNELLY MARLA J SCHMITH NANCY L
2430 E GRAPEWOOD DR 2465 E GRAPEWOOD DR
MERIDIAN ID 83642-7334 MERIDIAN ID 83642-7334
AUSTIN KEVIN J & EWING JOHN R
AUSTIN MICHELLE L 2230 E FAIRVIEW AVE
2273 E GRAPEWOOD DR MERIDIAN ID 83642-5704
MERIDIAN ID 83642-7332 E FAIRVIEW AVE
KISSLER JAMES A EWING SARA L
1591 E SENDERO LN 1500 ELDORADO ST STE
BOISE ID 83712-0000 BOISE ID 83704-8565
E FAIRVIEW AVE 2230 E FAIRVIEW AVE
MCCLOUD RUTH F AV I L L C
10635 OSHETNA CIR PO BOX 44809
EAGLE RIVER AK 99577-8261 BOISE ID 83711-0809
2295 E GRAPEWOOD DR 1658 N AVEST LN
FISHER JEFFREY L & B W INC
FISHER PAULA M BRANDT DONALD K
2311 E GRAPEWOOD DR 250 S BEECHWOOD DR SUITE #120
MERIDIAN ID 83642-7333 BOISE ID 83709-0000
2075 E FAIRVIEW AVE
MILLENSIFER WILLIAM G & 2115 E FAIRVIEW AVE
MILLENSIFER ANNE
2327 E GRAPEWOOD DR
MERIDIAN ID 83642-7333
LONGSON LEES &
LONGSON LEEANN
3497 HOLL DR
EAGLE ID 83616-2843
2145 E FAIRVIEW AVE
2295 E FAIRVIEW AVE
EDWARDS ARTHUR W &
EDWARDS RUE LA
2255 E FAIRVIEW AVE
MERIDIAN ID 83642-5799
E FAIRVIEW AVE
2265 E FAIRVIEW AVE
A & R GREEN THUMB
EDWARDS ARTHUR &
2255 E FAIRVIEW AVE
MERIDIAN ID 83642-5799
CB FINANCIAL DEVELOPMENT LLC
10378 FAIRVIEW AVE STE 216
BOISE ID 83704-0000
E FAIRVIEW AVE
ELLIOTT INDUSTRIAL CO INC
424 PEBBLE BEACH WAY
EAGLE ID 83616-5184
2065 E FAIRVIEW AVE
4
~~J
I~~>~
~ 1 y
`/`~ -
~--. ,-..
CENTRAL CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTI``tENT
•• DISTRICT Environmental Health Division
~1'r H EA LT H Retuo Boise
DEPARTMENT ^ Eagle
Rezone # ^ Garden City
Meridian
Conditional Use # ~ C.C. ~ ~- C~~ ~-~~ y
^ Kuna
Preliminary /Final /Short Plat ^ ACZ
I. We have No Objections to this Proposal. /
MAY 2 4 2000
^ 2. We recommend Denial of this Proposal.
^ 3. Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal.
^ 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment.
^ 5. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of:
^ high seasonal ground water ^ waste flow characteristics
^ or bedrock from original grade ^ other
^ 6. This office will require a study to assess the impact of nutrients and pathogens to receiving ground waters and/or
surface waters.
^ 7. This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources concerning well construction and
water availability.
^ 8. After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for:
^ central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water well
^ interim sewage ^ central water
^ individual sewage ^ individual water
^ 9. The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare,
Division of Environmental Quality:
^ central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water
^ sewage dry lines ^ central water
^ 10. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem.
^ I I. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other
considerations indicate approval.
^ 12. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage
Regulations.
^ 13. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any:
^ food establishment ^ swimming pools or spas ^ child care center
^ beverage establishment ^ grocery store
^ 14. Date: :~ /~/
Reviewed By: ~~~~~~~
[DHD 10/91 r~, m. 1/97 Review Sheet
i"~
~'t
N N N d ~ ~
m av~7~ m
ao
ca
~~
.~~d ~ ~•~
E aEi"'Ec~v
~~1Om5
'
N m
C U
2 ~
E N m O d lC0
~ j N dfA
N ~ ~
'X C X C 'gyp O
E o W~ E a
c ° p o
070 ~ N
C N ~ O pm
~~ _~a;va
E$macimm
a N a y y N
- N ~
O d C~
~ m m.. ~
N N 'G ~ lOil lE
E: ~ ~ O ~ ~? ~'O C V
o- ~
c O R
=
~ mo'o~oo'
c
.°c
7
O a0 i
a
ULL ~
N~
c`O~m`~m
o~ mL
~ (O =
~ LL N •-
N N ~ "O' U
N a
U
p U
caE°$oa7
W
~
f/1
(C 0..~.. ~
OLL V
N C~
L In
m yHN o-
V V ~ i0 N
~
Qm
a7
~ LL ' c
!!7=E
°1~C°'Em
E m °'~- c
0
~ DO ~ j T
O
~ -E~~O m
O N C ~ O U O Y. O> ~
O
'
~ ~ o
~ ~ z cp
r°ri~ o~
Oa
Eac
~aO~~o
N
V d'~
~ ~~`-°S~vim
~
d ~ O N
j ~ ~ ~ O U
am
~
~' _ ~ w N
>'~ Edo
°~Ed~yU
_
N t9 0 p_ F O G A
~
C C ~ CO ~ t0 ~ O O.
O
YO
'~ Y O m
'
yj •~ E .
m c
t
U
N F
i
~
U O N !P
m
~
O
V ~ N
¢
7 ~ d N c0 N j 'p
`L"U~ECc
N l0
L
~ ~
~~- N N O
F ~ a~0~~
C Q
_ O
U-
i
~
6
m E
a~i ~ ~=
~
~ 07
~ U C
U O
U C ~
L
E '..
--..
Q U
m «
a
d f0
U
O
.
7
U ~ 0 m
~
^L7^^ ~ (
'J o
m
~ ~ ~o E
LL ~ ~ ~,
~
~ °'
N ~
~
N _7 ~
N
L
~ w¢ ~ U ~ ~ o
^ ^0^ a \ r ~ ~",
2
`
y
a
~
•
~
m 7 i __
a
a
-
~,
~ ~ ~ ~
m ~ 4
~ ~
~ ' 0 ~
~ f ~
' ~) p~
~~ry (~(~ ~ ~
c1c~
O
a
. ~`l '~ ~ - v
a~Ui p~ ~ ~ d U'
m
Z
O
~
O O ,- ~
V7 i~~
~a
~
d
d
v
j
~
~[ E ~
~
i°
z'
a ~ ~ ~ ~
Q
,~/ t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f~ ~ QO fl0 ~4 Op ~0
fi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~
a
~E
~
~ N -
- ¢~
z a
°
o
1
~ai~
` ~ c
ET
y~~
~ Za
~
~
N
Q r N C7 ~ ~ CO I~ OJ O) ~ _
Zy,
O J r r r r r F J
C
d
a
O
a
m
L
O
Y
C
d
d
a
°:
d
a
O
V
.Q
a
M
ii
/'"ti
O d N N W c
m°-v~~m
aot~[a
'c
.~
~ ~E~W~
yE
aEi"- E my
d
~ ~a~`°-c
C U~ t0~ ~
m
o
m
E
w
a
im
>jHn~
d
E ~ m . ~
c ~~ o
E
W'
E
- a
>.
o
G O ~ C
L j O L O O
r: d--v T
_
mo U'a
~
~ V p~
OCti -ca;.oa
10pT=mom
E d Q
m
_ N
.O o. i~0[
,
~
~d
~ LL ,
v w
~°~'c2'.m~°'
°~ °~ -~
z
O ~0
~
O O E c
'w_ E E v
~ ~ U N ~ C
O O ~~ ~LL ro~oCN~~
O .O m~
iL
_
~ fO _ a>
(n ~
LL E
E N ~X O U id
~
_
N
`er .d.. d
p w
cQE
oa
~ o
~ $
w
N
c0 O .L-. Um
~
~ iy v
LN~cn
C
co F N ~ -
w~°
c
E
m
c°1i
E
~
a Q d
~ ~ c d
m
E ~ ~ S - c
c
m `
d o
~
0 0
p ~ c moo°c~E
9 ~ o
~c~ d
o~n'c~c
I ~ C Z ~O y~
p~ lCO Cp
U ^ ~ O Q
~ Of O Ern N
p) N 7(A
y
E
>
~v>
$
~ ~ U
O C O ~
d °'
~ >$~ EQ ° ayi
o~
E
~
~_ y m
c> o o
F~ c m
o h m B o a
~
t E
~
N ctiy~
~
U O N
`
-• .
v~
~
m ~
~
> ~ ~o
a.
- N C `y
t
0 0 ~ ~
~
~
~ U ~~
` `
.L
..
r a~iuoiomm
~ a
- H ° a~O~t7~
0
a
'~
,
U ~ ~
N 0 -- ~ N
C 01
~ N N O C L
dd«.d
~ c ~
^ ^ ^ N
O
~
lL
V a
N
~
~ Q ` ~
~ y m ~
yN to ~ U
0
TamN
~ /h
d ~ m
~w¢ ~ m Q o
^^^^ a m
2
y
d d
a
°a
a
~
c .
~ ~ a
m
N
d U
fn
~ ~ _
N ~
0
~
~ a
0 0
~ . s ~
°'
N a
E `°
a
~
z
>
Q _
~ U
F Q
(~
W
~
N N ~
~ N
a
~E
QO a' (~f1
~ ~` \1
- aZ ~ a
°
o
'
a
.r C H N
\ c
L ~
{0 ` C
dD ~
N > >`
Z~
. e .~ ~,
~ Q O ~,
c
T
N
C~
~Y
LC~
~O
~
CO
O~
O _
T
T
T
T
T ~ ~,
O Vl
J F- J
e
d
a
C
.O
a
is
m
O
C
.`
d
a
F
a
d
_d
~.
E
0
U
Q)
.a
Q
ti
O
LL
t '~`
~~~m~~~
m °v ~ ~ m
m°o m ai ioQ
y ao`~o"
E'`0
.
Ze cv'
~
E yE
N
E
N 'm c my
v
C tNj~ Y6~ ~
~
_ E N N O N N
_ ? y a~
~
E N ~ m _
'K c ~ c .~ o
W~E
T
Eo
C p ^ C
. ~ O
L ~ O t
O°' _
~~~;tea
V
~
ono C'~ iii E~~~mm
C
( aNV m
]
y ~
.~.a Y~ Om
~ D
daci~~ym
E v ~~ LL N? E~ c ~
~
O d V -p N C O)
c O Rf =a~
N ~-°cy°c
o a O LL o'm E'rn m ~
~ O ~ d t
U
~ f0 =
W lL N a_~((
d d N~ U ip
_
~
V U
c
E
°a
Q.
`~- !q X
o
N O N
!n
L
fC Or y
pLL W C
_
~
~~
m
uo
caiy.E
E
N 2~
LL E N y a
c
~O ~ ~ ~~ O
O A
a
N
~ c
N
c o N
~p tO V 0
p
i N
~
~
v~a
~
U Z fA O E
d$ Op~ N O
H
~
v ~~ N ...
~ -
0 O
O C ch d
~rn°oEmm
°~
m
in
~'~f»E
>
o
j C ~ A 0 U
O r f/1
Q O -
N f0 O p_ F ~ C l0
d
"~ .~ E .
m c
v
N a>
~ -~. ~
U
U O d !!~ ~ ~
L ` 7 ~ ~ ~
U ~~
~~ .? N y N m j V
momm
^
"
Q O` ~~' a
i
L
Fw'a~O~t~
c
O
a
'~
,
~ ~ E
d 0 ` ~' m
~- ~
Q ~ V 0
E~°
-'
°1 ~ ~
mU
.~
CU
a
~ L"~ -
N N :. N
QU ~~
^~^^ ~ a~i
C
l1
~
~ l~('~
(-~„l Q
~
- -°
~ ~'
N~~ ~ m Y~l ~~V c,
s
c
C W W N O °f ~ ~
o
^ ^~^ a° ~ m
M z (~`
N ~ m
a
~ r ~
~
~ f~
~
~ `vp
~
~ - `M,
~ , w N
y
~
a
m
~
~ 1
~
~
~
~
~ v)
~ O
a
~ ~ ~ ~
`~' ~ (~ v d
O
E
~
z
m {^
vJ
~ 0 `
a .. \~
o 0
a
~
~ m
a
Z
~
Q
~ ~ U
F Q
~
~ ~
~
~ N !
N
- a
z 0 a ~.
°
~
`o
'
C H N ry~
,J
~ m c
~~
eo w v
~'
N E ~,
Z~
~
~
~ ~
N
'Z Q ~ J r N M ~ ~fI (O I~ 00 O) ~ _
T T T T T
F- J
a
{0
m
O
Y
C
Y
3
d
T
H
a
°:
d
~.
O
V
.a
Q
n
M
E
ll
a
~`1
~~~~~~
~a~~~~
~$~~aQ
o
t ~
.o
c~-
y
~ . ~~m~~ro
E
E
m
m
E a
i`~
~
v
vd~tl_`c
c ~g~n-a
~ C y y
Emyodm
~ m y amp
X C %C'y YO
m cw a E
T
L j O t ~ O
. r..d-U>.
oS o a 'y
c
G U ~ LL . E ~ ~ d ~ m
v~ _ d d
w
.~ a~ Q 0~ m aci '~ E c r
E,
O ~ W C
U ~ ~
0 ~ ~
O ~
O c ORS
~
ao 2~
~'~ 0
mD c~~ c
v
o~mE'cimc
o
io• ' ~E~'>L
~ ro
'
o
a
rtC=
N U°'
Ali ,m
Ey
x~~
~_aE°oaoi
o o
U O N .
vW L~ Cfn
m
F
~
(6 O~ ~LL ~
~
=
m
v ~ ~ m ~ E
l]C °~ a`~i' c d E ~
E `" Via- c
~ lZ LL O~ U T O O
a
~
o ~ c
~ m ~ o ~~ E
m
o a d c~ c
~ c ~
z ~~
O d°~a~~c
a$a~o
Y
~
^^
N
O V
Qo0 C ch N
m
~
~`
U ~ 0
7~
a ctssE
>
_
N O "' ~ O U
O mw~E¢o~'
p C- L = C O
N _
y lO
C ~ C ~ t0 ~ c 0 0.
O j 00~ «_CD
~
c mN
~=E-
mcFi m_'m
L
O
7 U O d !!~
L` j N ~1 ~ 'O
N ,..~
~
>~ _ w C e`y N lC
wL
7
o U
m~ -' U J C
C
t m m o m m
p ~~
U`
Fw a~O~iq
~ c 4
0
~
a ,
~
~ d E
U 0 ~
N
rn
C ~
'O U CO
~~'QU C N
=U
.. C _
0
¢U _
~
5
^~^^
d E
E LL 0~
o ~ '0
y
a
~
~ ~
O
Y W Ir ~ O ~ ~ ~
j ^ ^^^ a ~ 2
d
` ~ ~ m
~ M ~ N
.0 ~\~ ~1 a
o m
~
~
~
~
~
~
o ~ ~ {{ ~ \ C ~o
E ~ o ~
n
z
v
~ /
a
a --
~+
~ ~ - ~~
z >
~~
a ~ ~ ~
~~
r
~
~
n
ti
~ ~
~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
c~ ~
r ~
~
U L
C j ~
~ N __
d
- Q Z O U
~ C
N
y~ M =~
Z
~,~~ .~
D ~
a
T
N
M
~
~
~
n
~
M
O _
T
T
T
T
T m m
~ J
O
Z J
C
d
i
C_
O
L
R
n
O
C
V
d
a
m
.a
Q
ti
M
E
`o
LL
s
•
•
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
07-10-00
IN THE MATTER OF THE
REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT MODIFICATION
TO INCLUDE LARGER SIGN
CRITERIA AND ADDITION OF
A 25 FOOT PYLON SIGN FOR
OAI~BROOI~ PLAZA ZONED C-
G ZONE LOCATED AT 2100-
2180 E. FAIRVIEW AVENUE,
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
IDAHO ELECTRIC SIGNS,
APPLICANT.
Case No. CUP-00-034
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT MODIFICATION
The above entitled conditional use permit application having come before
the City Council on July 5, 2000, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., at Meridian City Hall, 33 East
Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator,
appeared and testified, and appear-~ng and testifying was Dan Conlin of Idaho Electric
Signs, and the City Council having duly considered the evidence and the record in this
matter and the Recommendations to City Council issued by the Planning and Zoning
Commission who conducted a public hearing and the Council having heard and taken oral
and written testimony, and having duly considered the matter, the City Council hereby
makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order to-wit:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
AND ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
BY IDAHO ELECTRIC SIGNS /CUP-00-034
n
u
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. A notice of a public hearing on the conditional use permit was published for
two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for July 5, 2000,
before the City Council, the first publication appearing and written notice having been
mailed to property owners or purchasers of record within three hundred feet (300') of the
external boundaries of the property under consideration more than fifteen (15) days prior
to said hearing and with the notice of public hearing having been posted upon the
property under consideration more than one week before said hearing and the copies of
all notices were made available to newspaper, radio and television stations as public service
announcements; and the matter having been duly considered by the City Council at the
July 5, 2000, public hearing; and the applicant, affected property owners, and government
subdivisions providing services within the planning jurisdiction of the City of Meridian,
having been given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence.
2. There has been compliance with all notice and hearing requirements set forth
in Idaho Code §67-b509, 6512, and Meridian City Code §§ 11-15-5 and 11-17-5 as
evidenced by the Affidavit of Mailing, and the Affidavit of Publication and Proof of
Posting filed with the staff report.
3. This proposed development request is in a General Retail and Service
Commercial (C-G) zone, by reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code § 11-17-4,
a public hearing was required before the City Council on this application.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
,MID ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2
BY IDAHO ELECTRIC SIGNS /CUP-00-034
• T
facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon
the public if the conditions, if any, of development are imposed and the following is also
found to be required to mitigate the effects of the proposed use and development upon
services delivered by political subdivisions providing services to the subject real property
within the planning jurisdiction of the City of Meridian.
13. The proposed uses within the subject application will be harmonious
with and in accordance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and the City of
Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance because:
13.1 The subject property is designated on the "Generalized Land Use Map" as
"Commercial".
14. The uses proposed within the subject application subject to the
conditions herein ordered will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be
harmonious and appropriate in appearance or intended character of the general vicinity
and that such uses will not change the intended essential character of the same area.
15. The uses proposed within the subject application will not be hazardous or
disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses.
16. The uses proposed within the subject application will be served adequately
by central public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection,
drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer.
17. The uses proposed within the subject application will not involve uses,
activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
AND ORDER GRAI~ITING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 4
BY IDAHO ELECTRIC SIGNS /CUP-00-034
^
4. The City Council has the duty and responsibility to review the facts and
circumstances of each application for special use permit to deternline prior to granting the
same that the evidential showing supports the finding that the following standards are met
and that the proposed development: (Meridian City Code § 11-17-3 )
a. .Will, in fact, constitute a conditional use as determined by City policy;
b. Will be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan
and this Ordinance;
c. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious
and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general
vicinity and that such use will not change the essential character of the same area;
d. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses;
e. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as
highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water,
sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed conditional use
shall be able to provide adequately any such services;
f. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public
facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the
community;
g. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general
welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors;
h. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance.
5. Prior to granting a conditional use permit in a General Retail and Service
Commercial. (C-G), a public hearing shall be conducted with notice to be published and
provided to property owners or purchasers of record within three hundred feet (300') of
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
AND ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
BY IDAHO ELECTRIC SIGNS /CUP-00-034 _ 6
• •
E. Designate the exact location and nature of the development;
F. Require the provision for on-site public facilities or services; and
G. Require more restrictive standards than those generally required, in this
Ordinance.
8. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and
the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted December 21,
1993, Ord. 629, January 4, 1994 and Maps.
DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THEABOVEAND FOREGOING FINDINGS OF
FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, the City Council does hereby ORDER and this
does Order that:
1. That the above named applicant is granted a conditional use permit for
modification to include larger sign criteria and addition of a 25-foot pylon sign for
Oakbrook Plaza, subject to conditions of use, if any, and development.
2. The conditions shall be reviewable by the Council pursuant to Meridian City
Code § 11-17-9.
3. The above conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall
meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application for a conditional use
permit.
4. That the City Attorney draft an Order Granting Conditional Use Permit in
accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Cleric and
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
AND ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
BY IDAHO ELECTRIC SIGNS /CUP-00-034 _ g
• •
then a copy served by the Clerlc upon the applicant, the Planning and Zoning
Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice.
NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION
Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of
Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has
an interest in real property which maybe adversely affected by the issuance or denial of
the conditional use permit may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this
decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho
Code.
By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the ~~ day
of ~ , 2000.
ROLL CALL:
COUNCILMAN RON ANDERSON VOTED
COUNCILPERSON KEITH BIRD VOTED ~~-
COUNCILMAN TAMMY deWEERD VOTED--~~~
COUNCILMAN CHERIE McCANDLESS VOTED a-
MAYOR ROBERT D. CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) VOTED ~
DATED: ~l ~OO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
AND ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
BY IDAHO ELECTRIC SIGNS /CUP-00-034
-9
U
MOTION:
APPROVE
DISAPPROVED:
Copy served upon Applicant, Planning and Zoning Department, Public Worlcs
Department and the City Attorney. ~~,,,,,,,,,~J~
. ```~~ F ~~''~
,y `,
By: .~~z~--~ ~ ~~ Da€~ `
City Clerk = -
- ~~~L -
"~
msg/Z:\Work\M\Meridian 15360M\Oakbrook Plaza CU} ~ I+31$Ci ir~~3~
~~ \\~~
-~ ~ ~
',,., a~,~,~ • ,,
.~
-~~ -ov
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
AND ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
BY IDAHO ELECTRIC SIGNS /CUP-00-034
- 10
• •
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
07-10-00
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF )
IDAHO ELECTRIC SIGNS, FORA )
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION)
TO INCLUDE LARGER SIGN CRITERIA AND )
ADDITION OF A 25 FOOT PYLON SIGN FOR )
OAI~BROOI< PLAZA ZONED C-G ZONE )
LOCATED AT 2100-2180 E. FAIRVIEW )
AVENUE, MERIDIAN, IDAHO )
CASE NO. CUP-00-034
ORDER OF
CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF
CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT
This matter coming before the City Council on the 18``' day of July, 2000,
under the provisions of Meridian City Code § 11-17-4 for final action on conditional
use permit application and the Council having received and approving the
Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission the Council takes the
following action:
1. That the Applicant of the property is granted a conditional use permit for
modification to include larger sign criteria and addition of a 25 foot pylon sign for
Oalcbroolc Plaza, the proposed application request of a conditional use permit for the
construction, development, maintenance and use for modification to include larger
sign criteria and addition of a 25 foot pylon sign for Oalcbroolc Plaza, as described in
the SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, DRAWN: BRS, DATE: 1 FEB 00, JOB NO.
98146, SHEET SC-1, NEW FACILITY FOR NORCO, BRS ARCHITECTS, and in
the SIGN PLAN, SKETCH #7711, DATE: 7/8/99 REVISED 4/4/00, DESIGN BY:
STEVE, SALES REP: DAN, FILE: steve'sc:\jobs\norco2.plt, LOCATION: Meridian,
BY: Idaho Electric Signs, NORCO, Developer, for the development of the
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE I OF 2
BY IDAHO ELECTRIC SIGNS / CUP-00-034
• ~
aforementioned development for a development consisting of modification to include
larger sign criteria and addition of a 25 foot pylon sign for Oakbrook Plaza and which
property is described in the attached E.~chibit "A" and incorporated herein as if set
forth in full hereat.
2. That the above named applicant is granted a conditional use permit for
modification to include larger sign criteria and addition of a 25 foot pylon sign for
Oalcbroolc Plaza, located at 2100-2180 E. Fairview Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, subject
to the conditions of use, if any, and development.
3. The above conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall
meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application for a conditional
use permit.
4. Notice to Permit Holder, this conditional use permit is not transferable
without complying with the provisions of Meridian City Code § 11-17-8, a copy of
which is attached to this permit.
By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 8 ~~ day of
~- ~,~~v~ , 2000.
I
Robert D. orrie, Mayor City of Meridian
Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, Public Worlcs
Department and City Attorney. ~,-„--~---~rrrrrjf
By. ~~-~--- ~' Dated:
City Clerk
~,`~-D~
msg/Z:\Work\M\Meridian 15360M\Oakbrook Plaza CUP\CUPOrder034
r`
4~~~~,,,~~ ~ '``'`f 'mow
~,~ ~ _c, T~ ~'r
y~'' w
y
~ ~
a'''v ~ ~t,.3T iS'~ ' ~.~
J ~ ~~
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -PAGE 2 OF 2
BY IDAHO ELECTRIC SIGNS / CUP-00-034
A PAFCcL OF IN THE SOUTHEAST QIlART'cR OF THE t~WES T OiJAATeR OF
SECTION 5, TOIP 3 NQATF{~ RAT4GE 1 ElIST, SOZSE~IDIAH, ADA CO(R1TY,
IDAHO B'cING uORE PARTICULARLY DESCF[IBEF1 AS FDLLOYYS:
CO1~IE~ICING AT THE SECTION CORNE'as C08~iDN TO SECTIONS 5, 8, 7 ANd 8 OF RAID
TOWtISHIP AND RANGE, V1t{ICH IS AIARKE~J BY A BRASS CAP 1bONLA~E3~iT, -rlENCc
SOUTH 84 DEGREES 59' 1B' EAST A DISTANCE 1336.31 rt~ii ALQNG TF{F Sci.TIOtY
SINE COA4MON TO SAID SECTIONS 5 AND 8, TO A POINT BEING 10.00 F::i E45T OF
TitE SOUT}-MrEST CORNER OF THE SOLFFHFAST 4tIAATER QF THE SO(lTt4yE5 QUARTER OF
SAID SECTION 5, THENCE
NORTH 00 OEGRE= 2B' S8' EAST A DISTAI+tCc OF fi8.21 FcET AND PARALLEL WITH THE
WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUART~A OF THE SOUT'riWES T QUAR7cR QF S.kI~J
S'cCTION 5, THENCE
SOUTH Sg DEur~E=S 32' So' EAST A DISTAl~CE OF 23a.OQ Fc=T AND PAAALLL WITH
THE Cc3JTERLINE OF FAIRYI~Y AVENUE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID
POINT BEING 57.00 FcET DISTANT F301~ (`MiE?1 MEASURED AT RIC~F[T .~iGL.S TO} THE
CENTER LINE OF FAIRZrc~i1 AVEhti1E, THE~iCc
NORTH 00 OErRE= 26' S8' EAST A DISTANCc OF 616.58 F=~~i ANp P,4F~riLL_? WITH
THE 4+(EST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QW1ATEr~ OF iFIE St'1U7t11NEST QUAAT"cn OF S.aID
SEGTIQN 5 TO A POINT, THENCE
SOUTH 59 bEvREES 53' 42' SST A DISTANCc OF 582.88 rc.T TO A FOUND 5/8 ZNCH
IRON PIN, THENCE
SOUTH 00 DE'3RE= 23' 98' WEST A OISTANCc OF 331.27 FE:T TO A POINT BEiNa
57.00 rc~ OISTAHT FRO#i (YME'! ~iEASUHED AT RIGHT ANGZ°_S TO} THE CENT'cR LINE
OF FAZAVIEW AV'c.~1UE, TNE3YCE
NE}fiTFi 99 OEvAEES 32' 56' WEST A OISTAPfCE OF 506.68 FEET ,AND PARALLEL WITH
THE CE}iTER LING OF FAIRVIE~Y AVENUE, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
cXCE?T
THAT FORTIOK COFIY=YESO TO ADA C1]L'-'4'TY FtZC-izYAY DISTnICT BY DES RE:,CRDE7
UNDER INSTAUL{ENT N0. 94065952
tilCncian ~!anning and ?oning Com;~iss~on 1~leeting
June 13, ?000
Page 62
most appropriate. Th city attorney can make that decision end additional
recommendation as well as the staff will have time to formulate that better before
council. Our concerns are being addressed that the Morgan's have raised to us and the
council will make the final decision anyway.
Norton: I'd agree to that.
Barbeiro: I would concur with my second.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: I have to apologize. When we started this I though that would be a 5 minute
item.
8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT OF A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR PROPOSED LARGER SIGN CRITERIA AND ADDITIONAL
PYLON SIGN TO SITE ZONED C-G BY DAN CONLIN-IDAHO ELECTRIC
SIGNS-OAKBROOK PLAZA 2100-2180 FAIRVIEW AVENUE:
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners this project has been before you with a
conditional use permit and the requirement of that conditional use permit was single
monument sign no greater that 72 square feet. This is an application to modify that
requirement and they are proposing the signs that were originally proposed. Brad's
staff report, I don't see the date but it was stamped received June 9, 2000. He does not
that there is some grounds for allowing a greater sign area but we do need to come up
with some criteria for that so it is not just a hap hazard application of various sign
standards when we tried to be consistent as much as possible up and down Fairview
over the last year or so. Our recommendation is to approve the signs as proposed with
the modification that the 25 foot high sign be reduced to a 20 foot sign and that is all.
That recommendation is based on the draft sign ordinance which will be coming before
you in a month. Brad's comments make a pretty good case of the issues showing that
there maybe comparing it to other sites in the area showing that it is a larger site and
based on that there could be some basis to approve larger signs in the 72 square foot
sign that was originally approved.
Borup: Applicant like to come forward.
Conlin: Dan Conlin. I work for Idaho Electric Signs and I am representing Norco
Industries in this matter. Mr. Kissel of Norco Industries has asked me to present the
sign package again. I guess it was originally submitted for the conditional use permit
and during the second Planning and Zoning Commission meeting through this, it was
amended through a verbal statement by Shari Stiles to reduce down to 72 square feet.
Unfortunately for some unknown reason it was not caught by the representative at the
time. I think we are close to staff recommendation. The only design criteria that we
(1~leridian °lanninc and %cning Commission 1~leeting
June 13, 20C~
Page 63
came up with this has a lot to do with what Boise Cit has recommended in a Ict of Their
Y
sign ordinances. That is what we went off of from discussions with Brad in designing
this. He stated that Meridian's future sign code would mimic with what Boise City had
been doing. The five feet seems like a minor detail as far as helping this project get
started. One thing we are worried about this time is the production time. This plaza is
opening middle or beginning of August and our production time will make it tough to get
this sign installed. This makes it difficult for Norco as a hole to least the building out.
Respective clients will want to know what kind of sign they will have on the roadway.
The five feet again seem minor considering that all we are really doing with that extra 5
feet is trying to copy the architectural design of the whole plaza. With the Oakbrook
Plaza we feel that is a really strong case that not only do you put a sign like this, your
not only marketing individual tenants that are going to be present at this development,
your also marketing the development. Tenants will use Oakbrook Plaza in their
advertising and it is important to get Oakbrook Plaza up there as well. We took time to
do a presentation. By looking at that if you look on paper at 25 feet tall with the cabinet
size it may sound intimidating but laid out on a scale in comparison to other signs in the
area, just the McDonald's Chevron sign alone is 32 feet over all height. The
McDonald's cabinet is 12 x 12. We think it is a clean package and make sense. It ties
the entire plaza together. We would like to get the extra five feet.
Borup: Any questions Commissioner's
Nary: The comparison drawing here has the two sign from Meridian Crossroads. Is the
fact that their location close to that intersection and the Eagle Fairview area, is that the
reason for the larger signs versus what is being recommended here.
Borup: That was our rationale there. That was a very large development and we felt
some larger signs was appropriate.
Nary: So this isn't a fair comparison.
Borup: The Crossroads one isn't.
Nary: This other one at the top of the hill there is closer to the freeway. Was the intent
of this was because it was suppose to be visible-the Chevron McDonald's.
Borup: Isn't that the Chevron that is just right down the road. Oh on Eagle Road. That
is not the Chevron on Fairview. Well, that is the one that would count. That doesn't
really mean anything then. We would have like to seen some things on Fairview if you
were trying to compare.
Conlin: The fitness center is on Fairview. If you look at Brad's recommendations and
the comparison he makes to Elmtree Plaza being 2.2 acres and Oakbrook Plaza being
5.5 acres, the scale is over 50,000 square feet with 3 retail buildings. It is a sizable
project and I don't mean to say this is the same size as the family center, but take
Brad's comparison with Elmtree the issue at hand which is Oakbrook and then the
rVleridian Planning and Zcning Commission Nteeting
June 13, 2000
Page 64
comparison with the ily center, in-between there somewr-sere there has to be a
medium that will work for Oakbrook Plaza to be able to market the amount of tenants
they are going to have.
Nary: Mr. Conlin I think your always going to have (inaudible) the bigger the sign the
more people your going to attract. That doesn't necessarily mean it fits with the
topography with Fairview and that location. What would that 20 foot sign be in relation
to the other businesses across the street.
Conlin: The monument sign is basically almost useless. You can't really see it heading
west because of the cars coming eastbound. The sign is only 10 feet tall. The best
visibility the entire plaza has is for eastbound traffic and it is not because of the
monument sign. It is because the wall signs face in an L shape for the eastbound
traffic.
Nary: How high is that clock?
Conlin: The clock is 22 feet overall height and that is the top of the clock. The tower
goes taller then that. What we tried to do is follow suit with what we applied for in Boise
City with the understanding that Meridian's future sign code would probably mimic in a
lot of ways with Boise had done and successful with.
Nary: Do you know how tall the sign is at Fred Meyer.
Conlin: I can't visualize it right now. I'd be guessing at it.
Norton: It looks like your proposing this Oakbrook sign for ten businesses and
according to Brad, he calculated that is 144 square foot sign. Elmtree with ten
businesses has a 42 square foot sign. Yours is like a 100 square foot bigger. Is that
my understanding.
Conlin: Yeah. It is about twice the size. 72 square feet we are going up to 144.
Borup: Unless it is a typo, he said that size was 42 square feet.
Conlin: it is 72. I noticed that as well.
Norton: Where exactly is Oakbrook. You have the address on Fairview but where is it.
Siddoway: Look here on the vicinity map. Oakbrook Plaza is this gray site here. This
red area is Fred Meyer. Using Brad's staff report as an example, he talks about the
application of the 72 square feet that it has been exampled and close proximity to
Oakbrook Plaza that have had the 72 square foot maximum size applied to them
include Elmtree Plaza and Subway, Chucks Automotive, Econolube and Walgreen's.
There are others in the area that did not require a CUP and therefore no way for the city
N1er,,;ian P!anninc and Zoning Commission +bleeting
June 13, 2000
Page 65
to apply this r2 square foot requirement because it does n~x~
e ist as a formal
ordinance. It is simply a policy enacted by the City Council.
END OF SIDE EIGHT
Siddoway: I think it is along the lines of 25 or more.
Borup: If you go the same criteria that property is four times bigger than yours, so your
would have to be four times smaller.
Siddoway: So the issue is whether there is a case that even though this did require a
CUP and we have been consistent with requiring the 72 square feet sign with the CUP
most of those have been applied to smaller sites so we are seeing-there could be a
logical reason to allow for a larger sign, since this is not just a single building, it is 3
separate structures with multiple tenants and the question is, what's the rationale, what
is the basis and what is the appropriate height. Ours based on the draft ordinance,
which is the only other option we can give you as a suggestion is that 20 foot height, but
we do see there is justification for a larger sign and to be specific the two signs, there is
the smaller sign here, a small monument for an individual restaurant pad and then the
larger Oakbrook Plaza which we would say or recommend shortening by 5 feet.
Borup: Does that answer your questions. You said the applicant did not know or
realize that it was a 72 foot sign. I don't believe that was a verbal comment from Shari.
I think that is how is came out of Planning and Zoning Commission and the
recommendation to City Council. I don't know if City Council did anything different but I
believe that was a recommendation from Planning and Zoning Commission so it was
not a last minute verbal change. It was -
Conlin: As far as I can tell from reading through the minutes it seems there was several
points of confusion on this. I don't think anyone is to blame. On October 12, 1999
public hearing P&Z commission limited the project signs to a single maximum 72 square
foot sign area at the recommendation of Shari Stiles during her verbal staff report. The
reports that I have list out what was approved and what we had asked for was approved
and then there was (inaudible) on the back with on sentence on a addition I guess that
stated the 72 square feet. It was stipulated both ways in the reports I received.
Siddoway: I wrote the original staff report on it and believe I did recommend approval of
these signs at that time in the original staff report. =That was then modified by Shari
Stiles in the meeting.
Conlin: I think what happened was whoever was the representative at the time looked
at that, read the paragraph that he read initially and everything was fine and moved on.
Barbeiro: If we lowered the sign to 20 feet then it is going to (inaudible) 5 blocks and
one foot off the ground.
Meridian rlanniny and ~~nir.g Commission Meeting
June 13, X000
Page 66
Conlin: We would ha to alter the roof top or sink it further down to the round which
would give us a problem addressing the vision triangle. There might be some issues
there.
Borup: Why would that be a problem with the vision triangle. If 2 feet is a problem then
6 feet will be the same problem.
Conlin: Is there a criteria as far as visibility
Siddoway: We would require all signs to be outside of the vision triangle. In this case it
is a driveway (inaudible) intersection and not that large. It is the 10 x 20 site triangle.
Conlin: I think it would be a benefit to the visibility even with the shortened vision
triangle. The bottom would be open for visibility. It would be more attractive and safer
application for the sign.
Borup: Why safer?
Conlin: If the sign is lower to the ground we might as well just build a big foundation for
it and make it look like an enormous monument and that would block a lot of visibility
underneath that sign as far as traffic getting in and out. A lot of cities we deal with any
type of pylon sign they will require to be X amount of feet off the ground simply to get
the cabinet out of the visibility for the drivers and for traffic as well.
Borup: Is there a minimum distance off the ground that would still give the visibility?
Conlin: Some cities it is 6. Some 8. Usually not more than 8. The other option would
be to flatten off the roof which as far as production wise it would not be a big deal but it
would take away from esthetic quality of the sign as it ties in with the plaza. In Boise
City one of the things we tried to do with retail centers like this is that they have a
criteria for shopping centers under their Comprehensive Plan. We would be attempting
to get this approved under a residential shopping center with the square footage
(inaudible) it would be more then likely be approved as residential shopping center and
the overall height approved would be 30 feet and about 180 square feet would be
allowed for residential shopping.
Nary: Would it be fair to say that the only reason you are here today is because what
was approved by the City Council back in October of 99 is adequate and I think what
your testimony is that no one noticed that at the time they approved that. No one ever
appealed it to the district court as being arbitrary or anything else. Is that correct?
Conlin: Correct and from all the minutes I went through it really looked like there wasn't
much representation here to here and to respond-
Borup: And, no one made an argument to City Council
iti1zridian Manning and Zcning Commis pion Meeting
June 13, 2000
Page 67
Conlin: The City Co cil minutes they went through and difFerent thin s back and fo
g rth
and the last statement in the minutes I received said that oh, I'm sorry. Was there a
representative here for this. We apologize. It got left at that. No body was sworn in or
said what their name was and what they were representing.
Nary: But, the applicant knew what the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommendation to the City Council was going to be.
Conlin: As far as I can tell it has been a mess from the word go. Basically what we
should have done was not have submitted the signs with the conditional use permit.
We should have submitted them with a regular sign permit. Unfortunately it got messed
up.
Nary: Do you know if a person was there at the meeting because they had a written
recommendation or something in writing to make them show up.
Conlin: I really don't know. The minutes that I have addressed somebody but nobody
was sworn in.
Borup: They would not be sword in. Their name would be on the record.
Siddoway: The issue is it is zoned general commercial which does not have a second
public hearing in front of City Council. It was not a public hearing. The applicant was
probably given a chance to address the council but it was not a public hearing and
council acts on evidence presented from the recommendation from the Planning and
Zoning Commission. It was a conditional use permit at the time and for clarification, we
do require submission of the signage details with the conditional use permit. The one
that came through with H&W tonight, they did not submit sign details. We
recommended a maximum of 72 square foot, which is what got approved on them as
well.
Nary: What I wanted to make clear for the record is if the applicant disagreed with that
recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission was there a means for them
to voice that objection either in writing or in person to the City Council to not approve
those recommendations with that limitation of a 20 foot sign.
Siddoway: I imagine they would have had to submit it in writing to the City Clerk's office
for distribution to the City Council prior to the hearing.
Borup: Actually it wasn't a 20 foot. It was a 72 square foot monument. Quite a
difference.
Nary: I move we close the public hearing.
Norton: I second.
N1~rdian Planning and Zoning Commission tileeting
June 13, 2000
Page 68
Borup: All in favor?
N10TION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Are we in agreement that square footage of the sign is acceptable.
Barbeiro: Steve, you did the original recommendation. Was this the size of the original
recommendation.
Siddoway: Yes it is. 25 feet. I originally drafted staff comments recommended
approval based on this size and it was then modified by Shari to require it to be dropped
to 72 square feet.
Borup: Are we in agreement that the size of the sign is okay. The only question may be
the height. I am a little torn.
Nary: I understand Miss Stiles recommended the 72 square foot -- The 20 foot comes
from the new draft ordinance. At the time when this was approved by the City Council
they didn't deal with 25 or 20 feet. We are dealing with it now and what we are trying to
do is be consistent with what we've done with smaller properties or maybe with what
we've done with bigger properties. It appears to me that the sign ordinance will
probably resolve-
Borup: Essentially that street has a real miss mash
Barbeiro: I wish to make a motion that we recommend to City Council approval of the
request for an amendment of a conditional use permit for proposed larger sign criteria
and additional pylon sign to site zoned C-G by Dan Conlin -Idaho Electric Sign as
presented by the applicant for the 25 foot sign with all other staff comments..
Nary: Second.
Borup: Any discussion. All in favor'?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 5.4 ACRES
ZONED I-L FOR CAFARELLI INDUSTRIAL SUBDIVISION BY THOMAS M.
BEVAN, JR.-NORTH SIDE OF FRANKLIN, WEST OF CINDER:
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Here is the proposed plat, 3 lots. I
would point out in the ACRD staff report that they make mention of a potential
connection for this land lock parcel to come out along Linder road but I would make it
clear that access does not exist at this time. Staff comments submitted by Bruce and
Shari dated June 9, 2000 stand. I will let the applicant address any concerns.
"~. ~: ~.;ar ~!annu~_ ar„ ~cning Commissicn ti-lee±ing
,;une 13, 2000
Page e0
~ ~-
Bevin: After talking to my engineer I realized I only have 3 items. The first item they
talk about the sewer. We agree to that. Item 2, 3,4 we agree to that. Item 5 they are
saying they designate Franklin Road as a entry way corridor. As such staff
recommends that Franklin landscape buffer be a minimum of 35 feet in width (inaudible)
right of way constructed by the developer as a condition of this plat. On parcel 3 we
have a building permit that we are currently building the Interstate Battery building on
and the city and ACRD approved a 20 foot landscape easement here. What they are
saying on the rest of it they want to go to a 35 foot so coming in on Franklin it would go
from 35 foot down to 20 foot. What we're requesting to do is to keep it all the same.
We are asking for that exception from what staff recommended. Item 6 we agree with
that although my engineer said what that has to do with the landscape buffer having the
storm water retention in it. Your staff is asking not to put it in the landscape but
underneath the surface of the parking lot. We would be glad to do that but DEQ and
City of Boise is trying to get away from that for some reason.
Siddoway: I can respond to that now. What it says it should not be allowed in the
landscape setback unless design details are submitted that clearly show that it would
comply with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan-basically means that we want that
just as was presented earlier tonight in the landscape ordinance-it is a required
landscape buffer. We want it to look like landscaping. If you want to incorporate the
drainage in it, we are all for it as long as you provide design details that show its going
to be still a landscape buffer and not just a gravel drainage area.
Bevin: That is fine then. We are having grass. No problem. We agree to that and
submit that in. Number 7 okay. Now number 8 and 9 we lumped together here. The
original approval they allowed a driveway right here. We designed the building around
this driveway. It is a drive through building where the semi comes in through here, goes
through the building and unloads and comes back out. What the staff is asking us to do
is do away with this driveway-we've all ready built the building (inaudible-Bevin off
microphone through out testimony) plan that approved by ACRD and City of Meridian.
We built the building with driveway here. Now they are saying they want to get rid of
this and put it over here on easement (inaudible) ACHD was saying that if the
easement intersection -they are saying that if this becomes a road and that becomes a
intersection, then our driveway here would be too close to that intersection. This
easement showed on the original plat so somebody either missed it or what happened.
We found out that ACHD we went to them and asked them about it and what they said
is if you look at exhibit C on the back page no actually exhibit B of what I handed you
tonight, their site specific requirement on page 2 article 3 is they rather instead of
getting rid of that driveway, they rather locate a temporary driveway as proposed
approximately 140 feet west of the property line as temporary driveway and that is the
one we showed you there and will be eliminated when a shared driveway or public
street is constructed within the 60 foot easement. What they are saying is they will
allow us this driveway here until this road is built. Once the road is built then we'd have
access through here.
ti1e~ ~i,n ='arming anc coning Cor emission Meeting
June 13, 2000
Pager 1 M
Borup: Steve does s want it removed immediately?
Siddoway: Our intention is to get that access road in immediately and then close it off
after they have access.
Edwards: The difference shows on the schedule C or exhibit C. This is ACRD map
they gave us. Why they want to grant us the temporary and wait and keep their options
open because on exhibit C the road that is marked in blue is the road they think is going
to happen up here. They think that road is very close to becoming dedicated. Also they
told me they have another road that has been applied for but they have not done the
process yet. ACRD told us they much rather have access to that northern parcel then
they would on our easement. One reason is they don't want to put a bridge in there if
they don't have to. Plus they thought the city might be more or better for the city to
bring the sewer and water over the land like that then it would be over a canal. Also
they said they estimate the trips generated by the industrial area north of the
Subdivision generate about 60 trips per acre per day. While this is comparatively light,
they'd still prefer this traffic to ingress egress up here onto Linder which is a collector
street then they would onto Franklin which is a arterial. They don't want this road.
Borup: Steve are you saying then that P&Z staff differs with ACHD's recommendation.
Siddoway: I am not understand how we differ.
Borup: Aren't you saying that P&Z wants the driveway eliminated now and that there be
access from that 60 easement.
Siddoway: As opposed to what?
Borup: As opposed to leaving the driveway in place and have it accessed on that 60
foot easement if it ever becomes a public street.
Siddoway: Yes, we do differ in that we are saying it should be dedicated as a public
street as part of this plat. Staff does have a problem with that. Number 9 under Shari's
conditions has although the highway district (inaudible) references a future public road
to the land lock parcel from Linder road no plans have been submitted for approval by
the City of Meridian and the 60 foot wide access easement shall be shown as a public
road unless approved as a private road by the City Council.
Borup: Who owns that land lock parcel.
Edwards: Miss Martin. They don't access it now it is bear ground. There is nothing
there. Just one lot. What I think ACRD is getting at is they are trying to hold this off
until they can get the determination on that parcel here. They don't have it yet but he
told me this morning that they have all the terms and conditions agreed between the
applicant and ACRD. Now just the formality of the dedication so everyone has agreed
to put the road in here and they have not got to that stage yet. ACRD is asking us to
tl?eridian Manning and ~onir,g Commission Meeting
June 13, 2000
Page 72
hold off and wait to serif that can be done and finished ivin
g g them acc,.ss in the back
in a position that is more favorable to the city and to the ACRD.
Nary: I want to be dear from Steve and I know this is not your report, but is the concern
trying to match up with ACHD's recommendations or trying to do something a little
different.
Siddoway: I think there are more issues with that potential access out to Linder that
may make it not as feasible as -the way it is being presented is that it is all most a sure
thing and I don't think it should be characterized that way. We feel that this access
should be provided.
Martin: Justin Martin. I live at 2332 E. Apricot Drive. I would be the representative for
the parcel that is going to be landlocked. My only comments would be-
Borup: Is it going to be or presently is?
Martin: Landlocked? It is -there is no bridge over the canal. We do have a bridge
designed that would meet Ada County's (inaudible). We have not spoken with Ada
County about it. We have no plans for development. We know nothing of the new
accesses from Linder except what Mr. Bevin showed me tonight and obviously I will be
looking into that.
Borup: What would be your preference.
Martin: I think it would be better if we had one on each.
Borup: You willing to pay for them?
Martin: We weren't willing to buy the access to Linder Road based on the price the guy
who owns the land was giving us. We would have rather built the bridge we designed.
My concern would be that if it is not dedicated a public street, and easements don't
come across from Linder Road at that point that road we'd be accessing our property
from Franklin on would be too close to the other driveway. So I guess on the other
hand is that it is looking like ACHD is giving them a open ended contract. We have no
problem paying for a bridge.
Norton: Lot one does not have any sanitation. Are you planning on developing lot 1.
Martin: Yes eventually.
Nary: I move we close the public hearing.
Norton: I second that.
Borup: All in favor?
Meridian Planning end mooning Commission Meeting
June 13, 2000
Page r3
N1OTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Steve do you have any idea why the other one was approved at 20 feet.
Siddoway: How long ago was that put in. I don't know.
END OF SIDE NINE
Nary: Is the 35 foot buffer basically going down Franklin west of this property so just
this one portion is what the applicant is asking he wants it to be 20 because the one
piece of property to the east of him is 20 feet. All the property going west of this
property is 35 feet.
Siddoway: Our standard should be 35 feet along all interior corridors. That has been
the standard for years. I don't know where the 20 feet came from.
Nary: One glitch in the program should not change the standard we have.
Borup: What are we approving on lot 3.
Siddoway: Interstate Battery sits on lot 3. It is a 3 lot Subdivision. Apparently the 20
feet that has been discussed was approved on lot 3.
Borup: That was part of a building permit not part of a plat.
Siddoway: Correct.
Borup: Is there a difference.
Barbeiro: How can a building permit change a ordinance. The building permit allowed
only a 20 foot setback. That doesn't make sense.
Borup: The building is how far back from the road?
Siddoway: Based on the site plan that was approved for lot 3 with Interstate it looks like
they have a 20 foot landscape buffer and then the two bays of parking with drive isle in
between with the minimum standards and then the building abutting against the parking.
I think we are stuck with 20 landscape buffer on lot 3 and then this line here would show
what the 30 foot buffer would then line up with it. The building is constructed. I think we
have to live with that on lot 3. Nothing else to do.
Nary: I would move that we approve the preliminary plat for the 5.4 acres zoned IL for
Cafarelli Industrial Subdivision by Thomas M. Bevan, Jr. north side of Franklin west of
Linder with the staff comments as attached specifically addressing the condition 5 which
has a 35 foot landscape buffer that we specifically want that to be included but would
titericiun FianrinG arC 'oning Commission Meeting
June ' ~, 2000
Page 74
recommend to the C Council that condition 8 and 9 be amended to reflect that the
be in compliance with the ACRD requirement that the shared driveway on lot 3 only y
needs to be removed when the access on the easement public road that is adjacent the
60 foot access easement is becomes a public roadway or public or private road when it
is developed. Untif that time the driveway on lot 3 can remain where it is at. Basically
performing 8 and 9 to be consistent with the ACHD's requirement as presented by Mr.
Beven and his comments on time B which is ACHD's site specific number 3.
Norton: Would you amend your number five for the thirty five foot setback for lot 1 and
lot 2 since lot 3 is all ready been built on at 20 feet.
Nary: Yes, absolutely.
Norton: I would second that motion.
Borup: Discussion?
Barbeiro: One of Mr. Bevin's concerns was that should there be access off of Linder
and 10-20-30 years later they decide they want that easement frankly they can come
back and do that. Do you want to make any sort of amendment that if access is on
Linder that we will no longer accept the option of easement off Franklin.
Borup: The motion was to accept the ACHD recommendation and I don't know that
ACRD addressed it to that extent.
Nary: I am not sure what the concern is that some time in the future that is going to
impact (inaudible) remove that driveway in ten years. I think that is the way ACHD-
they left that open.
Borup: Either that or apply for a vacation. All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Certified Mailing Returns
Project Name, ~ ^ n file No s
'o
Date of Hearing Name Address Reason for Return
-. ,_. r~
(. ~ ~ ~
Meridian City Council ?`r~ouncil Meeting
October 19, 1999
Page 11
Rountree: Okay. So we need to add that to the agenda. Okay.
Gigray: And I would, Mr. President, with your permission, advise that this is with
the consent and understanding of the Mayor.
Rountree: Okay.
Bird: We can put it in the consent agenda.
Rountree: Is there any objection for consideration of consent agenda?
Bird: Not me. I think it'd be great.
(Inaudible discussion between Council members.)
Rountree: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Council? Staff? Anything else you want to bring up at this point?
Okay. Mr. Gigray.
O DISCUSSION OF IDAHO INDEPENDENT BANK'S REQUEST TO MAKE
ADDITIONAL REQUEST OF COUNCIL BY CHERRY LANE GOLF
COURSE LETTER OF CREDIT.
Gigray: Mr. President, members of the Council, I just want to make sure you
have in your packets, I think we provided you with a memorandum at the request
of the Mayor concerning certain features with regards to the discussion of the
request of Idaho Independent Bank. Hopefully you have that in your packet. It
should be with reference to the provisions of the leasehold deed of trust. Just
explains my points on some of the provisions of that. I just want to make sure
you have that in your packet because those were distributed. We also provided
you, I believe it's been discussed by the Clerk, a memorandum just to acquaint
you with procedure and possibly a legal issue with regards to the appeal which is
Item No. 17.
Rountree: Okay. Mr. Mayor, I'll turn it back to you.
Corrie: Thank you, Charlie.
Rountree: We're through with the pre-council meeting. If you want to go into
adjournment for a few minutes, that would be fine.
Bird: Recess.
Meridian City Council M~ng
October 19, 1999
Page 4
O DISCUSSION OF IDAHO INDEPENDENT BANK'S REQUEST TO MAKE
ADDITIONAL REQUEST OF COUNCIL BY CHERRY LANE GOLF
COURSE LETTER OF CREDIT.
Corrie: Okay. On the regular agenda, first before No. 1 is the discussion of the
Idaho Independent Bank's request to make additional request of Council by
Cherry Lane Golf Course letter of credit. Before I start, I want to let the public
know that this is not a public hearing. There will be no public input in this. This is
a discussion between the City Council and what they have been requested by
the Independent Bank to do. I guess, what is the pleasure of the Council? Do
you want to have the attorney explain his letter to you?
Anderson: Yes, please.
Corrie: Mr. Gigray.
Bird: Do it in layman's terms, too.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, as I understand the
consideration before you, it is the request by the bank that the City agree by a
separate agreement to provide the bank with notice on two occasions: one if
there's a default on the part of Cherry Lane Recreation, Inc., and number two,
there is a 60-day notice request in the event there would be modification of the
lease agreement. This would be done by a separate agreement between the
bank and the City. It's something for you; I think it's a matter of your discretion
as to whether or not you wish to do this. I believe that the City Council has taken
the action that is required under the terms of the lease agreement to perform, but
is a matter for your consideration. I have been asked to provide some
information to the Council by the Mayor to acquaint you with at least some of the
terms and conditions the lease-hold deed of trust in regards to its provisions so
that at least you have that information available to you. I believe you have the
lease-hold deed of trust in your packets, and it has a very small font which is
somewhat difficult to read. If you want me to go through this memo with you, I'd
be more than happy to do so. I defer at this point, Mr. Mayor, as to what you
want me to do.
Corrie: Okay, Council. Anybody want to go through it?
Bird: Short version.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Gigray.
Bird: Yeah. I do.
Corrie: Okay. Let him know that.
Meridian City Council Me~Ti'ng
October 19, 1999
Page 5
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I want him to go through that.
Corrie: Okay. Mr. Bird would like to go through it, please.
Gigray: Sure. Basically, the instrument proposes like a deed of trust on your
house to secure an obligation of a loan which I assume Cherry Lane Recreation,
Inc. would have received from the bank, and then as security for that loan, they
would have alease-hold deed of trust. We don't -our statutes regarding deeds
of trust talk about providing a security interest in real property. I know the bank
says this is a somewhat unusual form in Idaho. Not often seen. It seems like
there's a plausible explanation under Idaho Law that you can in fact do this.
What happens is that there's a trustee appointed which would be Pioneer Title
Company. As long as payments are made timely and there's not default under
the original note or the deed of trust, nothing happens other than it's held by
Pioneer Title and then they'd have to reconvey the interest of the bank back to
Cherry Lane Recreation once the obligation is paid. If Cherry Lane for some
reason defaulted under the terms of the agreement, and I have in Point 5 kind of
a laundry-list of what that deed of -lease-hold deed of trust provides would be a
default, then the foreclosure procedures after notice, and if there was a failure to
cure the default, could be entering and taking possession of the property and
proceeding to sell the property as you would sell the property after 120-day
notice first for sale and then the purchaser, the highest bidder, would then get the
interest of Recreational Properties, Inc. There are some provisions here where
the bank, through the trustee, could assume and take possession and manage
the property. They would have to perform the terms and conditions of the lease
agreement as the lease agreement has provided. They couldn't remain in default
because they wouldn't be in any higher position than Cherry Lane Recreation is.
That is basically how this is set up.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: This is also the letter of credit? This is more than just the letter of credit.
This is for the loan.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I know that having and going
through these requests or condition, as I understand it, for the issuance of the
letter of credit. You may want to inquire of Cherry Lane Recreation as to whether
or not it involves more than that. Point 3, I noticed on the form that was provided,
provided for two separate loans, one in the amount of $400,000 and the other in
the amount of $500,000, and it is drafted so that if there were arrangements
subsequent to entering into the lease-hold deed of trust up to $1,800 000 it
would still cover that. It limits -that doesn't mean that the initial loan would be
that amount, but it would provide for that kind of negotiation in the future.
Corrie: Other questions from Council?
Meridian City Council M~R',`ng •
October 19, 1999
Page 6
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Any discussion on their request?
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Do we have any indication from the lender that this is the only avenue
that they can accept in order to make the loan, provide the money for the letter of
credit and apparently the money for financing the construction?
Corrie: Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Rountree, members of the Council, the
discussions that I have had relative to the request that you have before you are
with Mr. Edward Hansen who represents Idaho Independent Bank. He advised
me that the bank is somewhat uncomfortable with lease-hold deeds of trust. No
reflection upon Cherry Lane Recreation, Inc. It's just the form and that they
would be in a position, at least, this is my understanding of his representations to
me on the phone, that they would proceed to issue the letter of credit and
proceed with the loan arrangements, I assume, with Cherry Lane Recreation, Inc
if the City would agree to the request that you have before you. There was
originally a discussion with Mr. Hansen, and he had indicated that they would like
to have a provision that the bank would be in a position to have to consent to any
change in the lease agreement. My discussions with him were that I thought that
this would be a very difficult issue for the Council to deal with, but certainly they
have any right to present whatever they want to. He felt that they could live with
notice and so you see the form of this request, and it's two-fold. One, if there's a
default, they have to receive notice of the default. The bank does in addition to
Cherry Lane Recreation, Inc., and number two, 60 days prior to the effective date
of any modification of the lease agreement, the bank is to be notified, and, of
course, as you look through the lease-hold deed of trust, if the bank didn't like
some of the provisions of any amendments to the lease agreement, they would
have to take that up with Cherry Lane Recreation, Inc.
Bird: Ninety days.
Gigray: Ninety days. Excuse me. Ninety days notice. That's in my memo. I
misstated it. Thank you, Councilman Bird.
Rountree: We've been at this too many months now. Personally, I would like to
see it move forward, but I cannot accept the position the City would be put in this
particular proposal. I have no particular problem with the notice requirements,
but I do have some problems with the idea that the City would be taken out of
any position as it relates to the Golf Course in a default situation. I don't have a
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 19, 1999
Page 7
solution. I believe we were advised at the beginning that the solution was there,
but it apparently hasn't been found at this point.
Corrie: Any other discussion?
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I guess the other comment I would make is it seems that
this negotiation process that apparently has been established is not acceptable
either. I think we need to just sit down and roll up our sleeves and find a solution.
If we continue to have letters bantered between our attorney and their attorney,
and then have to have it scheduled at a regularly scheduled Council meeting, the
soonest anything can be done has atwo-week delay. We're not getting
anywhere. We've been two weeks here and three weeks there a month just
meeting our meeting schedule, and I don't know if a special meeting is in order to
deal with this specifically between our legal representation and us that we can
negotiate something that appears acceptable and then take action. Throw that
out for discussion.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I agree with Councilman Rountree. I think it's went on long enough. I don't
know how we got it, but it's got to go forward. I have a real problem taking this
out of the first. If you read the Pioneer Title will be the trustee and they've got the
right to come in and sell the lease, whatever, which I don't like. If this is all
because of the letter of credit, then I for one would be for dropping the letter of
credit. It all falls back on us regardless one way or the other, so if this defaulted,
we're going to pick up the bill. I think it's went on long enough. Let's get the
thing solved and let Cherry Lane go on with their clubhouse and we get out there
and get us a good clubhouse and get the course going like it's supposed to be.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I, too, have some real reservations about some of the items in the
lease-hold deed of trust, and I would concur with Councilman Rountree. I'm not
sure that this the right format to set down and discuss these. I think probably a
one-on-one meeting with the City Council and Cherry Lane, Inc. and their legal
representatives and ours and has out what some of our courses are, and let's get
that agreed to before we come back to a Council meeting because this has taken
forever in the current process and current format that we're doing it now.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: Yes. I concur with what's been said tonight. I can't put the City or the
taxpayers' property up for a loan, but I think we do need to sit down with an open
Meridian City Council Mee ing
October 19, 1999
Page 8
meeting with them and see if we can't come up with some form and means of
getting this project put together. Thank you.
Corrie: It seems to be the consensus that we need the Council, the two
attorneys and the Cherry Lane Rec to sit down with the Council.
Bird: Absolutely.
Anderson: And the bank.
Corrie: And the bank, yes. And the bank. Since they're involved here.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: If the bank's willing to accept the notice requirement again, I don't
have a problem with that, but if it's going to go beyond that, then I agree. We
need to sit down and hammer it out. If we can offer that back to them, and
they're willing to accept that along with the offer that if that's not acceptable, we'll
sit down. That gives them the option.
Corrie: Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, just to answer Councilman
Rountree's question, it is my understanding the bank would be prepared to go
ahead with the loan if the City honors their request that you have before you.
Rountree: The whole thing. Go ahead, Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Right. And as I have discussed in my memos to the City Council, I
believe you've already done what you are legally obligated under the lease to do.
I think this goes beyond that, but I think it's a matter of your discretion whether or
not you want to do that. If you want to enter in negotiations with the bank and
with Cherry Lane Recreation, Inc. on if you are going to provide them with notice
and go this extra step that you need some consideration on the other side with
regards to potential modifications of the lease agreement or otherwise, then I
think it'd be a very good idea to sit down with the representatives of the bank and
Cherry Lane Recreation, Inc. to see if that couldn't be hammered out.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Gigray, are you talking about the agreement of September 30cn~
Meridian City Council Meeting •
October 19, 1999
Page 9
Gigray: Yes. The one that's in the packet.
Bird: Okay.
Corrie: Any further discussion?
Bird: Yes.
Corrie: Wouldn't you like to make this into a motion that we do that, Mr.
Rountree, per your preference, or do you want to just -
Rountree: I didn't hear anybody object to that, oppose.
Corrie: I didn't either. If nobody objects to it, we don't have to have a -
Bird: Let's set a date.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: The sooner the better.
Rountree: Do we want to discuss a potential date, Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Pardon?
Rountree: Discuss a potential date, Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Okay. What date would you like to -we've got 26t", there's a - we have
a set -
Rountree: We could have a special meeting on the 26th in conjunction with the
workshop.
Bird: Okay.
Corrie: Do you want to have that?
Bird: That's fine if that's agreeable with the other parties.
Corrie: This is not a public hearing, but is that all right with the bank? The 26tn~
What time would you like to have it?
Bird: 6:30?
Corrie: 6:30?
Meridian City Council Mi'!~ing
October 19, 1999
Page 10
Bird: Is that okay with Cherry Lane?
Corrie: Cherry Lane, is that permissible to you? The 26tH at 6:30?
(inaudible) gone until the 28tH (inaudible)
Corrie: He's gone until the 28tH. I'm sorry. Okay. That's going to put us into -
we can have it before the meeting at 6:30 on the 3~d of November. He'll be back
by then, will he (inaudible)?
(inaudible)
Corrie: Can you come up here while that - so we can get it on record? I couldn't
hear you.
Lovan: Mr. Mayor and the Councilmen, my name is Wally Loven. (inaudible) of
Cherry Lane Recreation. As I said, my attorney is gone until the 28tH of this
month. I was considering having an attorney of his organization come in this
evening. He said it would take him quite awhile to go through and get everything
square in his mind so he represent me. Right now, I started last February in
getting this thing, trying to get it going, and here we are now in October. Now
we're going to November and we're looking at the first of the year. I don't know
the answer except that we're just not going anywhere. We're spinning our
wheels.
Corrie: That's why we want to get together.
Lovan: Yes. I know that, Bob. I guess it'll have to be that way.
Corrie: Yeah. Council, would you like -
Lovan: Then -
Corrie: Can everybody be here on the 28tn~
Bird: Yeah. The 28t" is fine with me.
Corrie: Charlie?
Rountree: I'll be here.
Corrie: Okay. (inaudible).
Bird: Is his attorney going to be here or does he just get in that day?
Lovan: He's supposed to get back on the 28tH
Meridian City Council Mng
October 19, 1999
Page 1 l
Corrie: Will that give him enough time to have the meeting at 6:30 the 28th, then?
Lovan: That I can't answer.
Bird: We need to set a meeting and get it -Wally's right. We need to get this
thing ironed out and get it done and let's get going.
Lovan: If we go into November, then I wait a month and a half to finish the
clubhouse, and there's no way.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we schedule a special meeting October 28, 1999 to
negotiate the terms that may be necessary to reach agreement for the bank of
the leaseholder, Cherry Lane Recreation, Inc. to agree to lending the leaseholder
sufficient funds to cover letter of credit desired by the City, meeting to be held at
6:30, City Half.
Corrie: Do I hear a second to the motion?
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion's been made by Mr. Rountree and seconded by Mr. Bird to hold a
special meeting October 28th at 6:30 p.m. to work with the Cherry Lane Rec, the
bank and the City to see if they can resolve the letter of credit at that point. Any
further discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I'm assuming that we would leave the caveat that if their attorney
does not have enough time on the 28th if he doesn't get in until late or something
that we could leave that up to you to reschedule a meeting or something.
Corrie: If that's desired - if that's okay with counsel.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, that's within your power.
Corrie: Okay. All right. With that in mind, any other discussion? Okay. All
those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
WHITE, PETERSON, PRUSS, MORROW & GIGRAY, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
JUSTIN P. AYLSWORTH
]UUE 1tLEIN PISCHER
WM. F. GIORAV, HI
D. SAMUEL JOHNSON
WILLIAM A. MORROW
CHRISTOPHER S. NYE
PHILIP A. PETERSON
STEPHEN L. PRUSS
ERIC S. ROSSMAN
TODD A. ROSSMAN
R. STEPHEN RUTHERFORD
TERRENCE R. WHITE
200 EAST CARLTON AVENUE, SUITE 31
POST OFFICE BOX 1150
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83680-1150
TEL (208) 288.2499
FAX (208) 288.2501
NAMPA OFFICE
104 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH
POST OFFICE BOX 247
NAMPA, IDAHO 83653-0247
TEL (208) 466.9272
FAX (208) 466.4405
William G. Berg, Jr.
Meridian City Hall
33 East Idaho
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Re: IDAHO INDEPENDENT BAND APPEAL
FILE: 5.1.A
Dear Will:
PLEASE REPLY TO
MERIDIAN OFFICE
~ECEIVEp
SEP 15 1999
City of ~eridiasi
City Clerk ®ffice
Regarding the above referenced matter, please find enclosed the original of the
ORDER GRANTING APPEAL OVER-RULING OF PLANNING AND ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR'S DENIAL OF ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER PORTION OF
IDAHO INDEPENDENT BANK SIGN AND ORDER OR REMAND, for the City
Council meeting of September 21, 1999. If approved, please serve a certified copy of the
ORDER upon the Applicant, Planning and Zoning, Public Worlcs Department, and the
City Attorney.
If you have any questions please advise.
Very truly
y, III
Enclosure
Lmail via Internet @ wfg@wppmg.com
September 15, 1999
msg~Z:AWork\M\Meridian 15360M\IDAHOINDEPENDENTBANKAPPEAL\ClerlcOrderAppeaLltr
i ~
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL
OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR'S DENIAL OF
ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER
PORTION OF IDAHO INDEPENDENT
BAND SIGN
CASE NO: AP-99-001
ORDER GRANTING
APPEAL, OVER-RULING OF
PLANNING AND ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR'S
DENIAL OF ELECTRONIC
MESSAGE CENTER
PORTION OF IDAHO
INDEPENDENT BAND
SIGN AND ORDER OF
REMAND
This matter coming before the City Council upon the appeal of Idaho
Independent Banlc, by and through its representative, Idaho Electric Signs, and the
Council having received the Appeal Application form, and the record in this matter,
and having heard the arguments and presentation of Shari Stiles, the City of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Administrator, and Debbie Anderson, representative
of Idaho Electric Signs, and Gerry Mattison, from Idaho Independent Banlc, and
being fully advised in the premises issues the following Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order:
ORDER GRANTING APPEAL OVER-RULIN~GL OF ELLECTRONIC PAGE 1 OF 5
AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DEN
MESSAGE CENTER PORTION OF IDAHO INDEPENDENT
BAND SIGN AND ORDER OF REMAND
•
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Idaho Independent Banlc submitted for approval, to the Planning and
Zoning Administrator, a sign as depicted in Sketch #7250, Revision 2/18/99, File:
Steve C:\JOBS\IDAHOIND.PLT.
2. The Planning and Zoning Administrator's office denied the Electronic
Message Center portion of the proposed sign upon the basis that it violated the
provision of § 11-2-415 C paragraph 7 of the Municipal Code, which prohibits signs
in all districts, except as otherwise provided by ordinance with "flashing lights or
strobe lights of any color", as evidenced in the fax transmission to Debbie Anderson,
from Brad Hawkins-Clarlc dated 8-12-99.
3. The Idaho Independent Banlc, through its representative, Idaho Electric
Signs, timely filed an appeal of the Administrator's determination and decision for
hearing before the City Council.
4. The system, which will be used for the Electronic Message Center, is a
LED (Light Emitting Diodes System), which emit very little light, and will be a
amber colored system with equivalent light from the LED of approximate 5 watt
incandescent system, and will not use the "flash" message system display.
5. Subject to the conditions of Finding no. 4, herein, the proposed
Electronic Message Center is not a "flashing lights or strobe lights" prohibited sign,
ORDER GRANTING APPEAL OVER-RULING OF ELLECTRONIC PAGE 2 OF 5
AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DENIAL
MESSAGE CENTER PORTION OF IDAHO INDEPENDENT
BAND SIGN AND ORDER OF REMAND
•
and therefore the decision of the Administrator of denial is over-ruled.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The City of Meridian has duly enacted the following ordinance
provisions regulating signs as follows:
1.1 The activities and types of signs shall be expressly prohibited in
all districts except as otherwise provided by this Ordinance.
1.2 Flashing lights or strobe lights of any color.
2. The City ordinances provide at § 11-2-404 D 1 a of the Municipal Code
for an appeal, hearing and review by the City Council of an order, requirement,
decision, interpretation or determination by the Planning and Zoning Administrator.
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPEAL, OVER-RULING OF
PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DENIAL OF ELECTRONIC
MESSAGE CENTER PORTION OF IDAHO INDEPENDENT BAND SIGN
AND ORDER OF REMAND
Based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND THIS DOES ORDER THAT:
1. The decision of the Planning and Zoning Administrator of denial of the
Electronic Message Center portion of the proposed sign upon the basis that it
violated the provision of § 11-2-415 C paragraph 7 of the Municipal Code, which
ORDER GRANTING APPEAL OVER-RULING OF PLANNING -PAGE 3 OF 5
AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DENIAL OF ELECTRONIC
MESSAGE CENTER PORTION OF IDAHO INDEPENDENT
BAND SIGN AND ORDER OF REMAND
•
prohibit signs in all districts except as otherwise provided by ordinance with:
"Flashing lights and strobe lights of any color", is over-ruled upon the condition that
the proposed sign uses a system for the Electronic Message Center, a LED (Light
Emitting Diodes) which emit very little light, and will be of amber color with
equivalent light from the LED of approximate 5 watt incandescent light, and will not
involve the use of the "flash" message system display and otherwise is in accordance
with the presentation and dimensions as depicted in Sketch #7250, Revision
2/18/99, File: Steve C:\JOBS\IDAHOIND.PLT.
2. This matter is remanded to the Planning and Zoning Administrator for
further action in accordance with this decision.
NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION
Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City
of Meridian. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person
who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the denial of
the appeal may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and
order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code.
By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held September 21, 1999.
ROLL CALL:
COUNCILMf1N ANDERSON VOTED ~~~/~~r~u
ORDER GRANTING APPEAL OVER-RULING OF PLANNING -PAGE 4 OF 5
AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DENIAL OF ELECTRONIC
MESSAGE CENTER PORTION OF IDAHO INDEPENDENT
BAND SIGN AND ORDER OF REMAND
~ M
COUNCILMAN BENTLEY VOTED ~E~
COUNCILMAN BIRD VOTED "~ E l~
COUNCILMAN ROUNTREE VOTED~_
MAYOR ROBERT D. CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) VOTED
DATED: ~~-Z( ~~
MOTION:
APPROVED: ~-' u~~' DISAPPROVED:
Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, Public Worlcs
Department and the City Attorney.
t\~~,~rrrrrrrrrr!!
ity Clerlc ~~~ ~ ~o~o~rFO `$' xr'~~.
_ S~t~.L
~ d~ w
G„ to ~ ,.
~~ ~
,,~, ti
msg/Z:AWork\M\Meridian 15360M\IDAHOINDEPENDENT~BANKAPPEAL\ORDERGrantingAppealOver-RulingPZDenail
ORDER GRANTING APPEAL OVER-RULING OF PLANNING -PAGE 5 OF 5
AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DENIAL OF ELECTRONIC
MESSAGE CENTER PORTION OF IDAHO INDEPENDENT
BAND SIGN AND ORDER OF REMAND
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: SEPTEMBER 21 1999
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
APPLICANT: IDAHO ELECTRIC SIGNS
REQUEST: APPEAL OF P 8~ Z ADMINISTRATOR FOR ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER FOR IDAHO
INDEPENDENT BANK
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
COMMENTS
SEE ATTACHED ORDER
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: ~
J
SETTLERS IRRIGATION: n ^~, ~
l~~' ~~
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
OTHER: of the Ci of Meridian.
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property tY
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
PAGE 11
Rountree: 10/5/99. No discussion? All those in favor of the motion?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: APPEAL OF PLANNING
AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DENIAL OF PROPOSED ELECTRONIC
MESSAGE CENTER FOR THE IDAHO INDEPENDENT BANK BY IDAHO
ELECTRIC SIGNS: (APPROVE)
Rountree: Item No. 7, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, appeal of Planning and
Zoning Administrator's denial of proposed electronic message center for the Idaho
Independent Bank and electronic sign. That item has just been recently slipped in. No,
excuse me. Go ahead and act on this item,and then I've got some additional
information.
Anderson: Mr. President.
Rountree: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I'd like to abstain from voting on this as I have a conflict of interest on this
particular issue.
Rountree: My question would be, should you remove yourself from the bench or just
abstain?
Anderson: Probably ought to leave.
Rountree: Don't go far. Okay. We have -
Bentley: I have a question.
Rountree: Okay, Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: Item No. 2, Page 4, it says this matter is remanded back to P & Z
Administrator for further action. Is this correct procedure?
Gigray: Mr. President.
Rountree: Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Councilman Bentley, members of the Council, the reason that language is in
there is because that is the -- Administrator's the one that issued the permit, and it was
~ ~
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
PAGE 12
denied based on that one portion of the sign, and you've overruled the order of the
Administrator by this order, so you remand it back to her in accordance with this
decision as this says so that she can then go ahead and issue the remaining portion of
that sign. And that's the reason that language is there.
Rountree: Thank you.
Bentley: Okay. Thank you.
Rountree: Any other -
Bentley: I have none.
Rountree: --questions, comments?
Bentley: (inaudible)
Rountree: I need a motion.
Bentley: Mr. President.
Rountree: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: I move we approve the order granting the appeal overruling of Planning and
Zoning Administrator's denial of an electronic message center portion of the Idaho
Independent Bank sign in order of remand.
Bird: Second.
Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law which overrules the denial of the sign in Item No. 7. Roll-call vote.
Councilman Bentley.
Bentley: Aye.
Rountree: Councilman Bird.
Bird: Aye.
Bentley: Councilman Rountree.
Rountree: Aye. I'll choose not to vote.
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
PAGE 13
Bird: He has to vote.
Rountree: Do I have to vote?
Bentley: Yes, you do.
Rountree: Well, since I made the motion, aye.
Bentley: You thought I was kidding.
(inaudible audience discussion)
Rountree: Tell Ron he can come back now. He's not missing all the fun.
Gigray: You all want him back, don't you?
Rountree: I believe we're now where most of the audience wants us to be, and that
would be with Items 8 and 9. Before we open the public hearing, just a little
housekeeping for all of you to make it potentially easier on us and as well as easier for
you. We would appreciate that you all give us your thoughts, your concerns, our issues,
both against and for, but to limit your comments to no more than three minutes and to
try to limit the number of times that the same kinds of things are said. We're looking at
a 25-item agenda tonight, and we'll be here until sometime tomorrow, and I don't think
you all want to be here that later either, so just a word of procedure. The way the
hearing will go will be very similar to the hearings that you all attended, or at least some
of you attended at Planning and Zoning. The applicant will make a presentation to tell
us about what it is they're proposing. You'll have an opportunity to testify before the
Council. The applicant will again have an opportunity to address any questions or
issues that are brought up during that testimony period. The Council will have a
discussion on that, and the Council will ask questions of both the appicant as well as
those who are testifying, if they have questions. At the end of that, we will close the
heaering, there'll be a discussion, and then the Council will make a recommendation as
to where we go from here. But again, probably for all of us this evening, I know we've
got people who have been standing out there since 6:30, and I wish we could
accommodate you all, and maybe if nothing else comes out of this, the need for a new
City facility of some kind. Got to put in a plug when I can. And again, I welcome you all
here this evening. I know a great number of you are here for the first time in terms of a
City Council meeting, and I don' t know how it will turn out for you, but at least I ;pope
you feel and walk away that you've been treated fairly. So with that, I will ask one more
question. We have two public hearings on this particular item. One is for annexation
and zoning, and one is conditional use permit. The annexation and zoning deals with
whether or not this piece of property comes into the city, and if so, how it will be zoned
and what kinds of uses could then follow. The conditional use permit is a permit or a
~ ~
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
PAGE 14
request to do a certain kind of use, presuming it's annexed and zoned. Now I have the
option of asking you all, would you like to have or would you consent to having both
hearings opened up at the same time to save having to go through essentially the same
kind of process twice, or is there enough of you that would like to see two separate
hearings, and I'll do that by a show of hands, so is there anybody in the audience that
would like to see two separate hearings? And I can't see everybody out there, and I'm
(inaudible) hear what I'm saying: Is there anybody out there that would object to that
procedure? Do I have any objections from the Council?
Bird: No. I think it's a great idea.
Rountree: Or Mr. Gigray?
Gigray: I think it's preferable.
Rountree: The last item I'm going to do, is I'm going to open up the agenda at fihis point
in time and take recommendations from the Council on if we will close our consideration
of hearings at a certain time this evening. Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: Mr. President, as we've done in the past, I think it would be my preference to
close the public hearings at 10:30 so we can continue with the rest of our agenda.
Anderson: I concur with that.
Rountree: Concur that - so for those of you who are hear for another public hearing,
we will not open up another public hearing after 10:30. Hopefully we can get through
most of them if not all of them, but if we get to a point where it's 10:30 and there's a
couple public hearings left, we will reschedule those to our next regularly scheduled
meeting. I hope that's not a great inconvenience to you, but really at that point in time, if
you're having a public hearing at that time in the evening, you're probably not
necessarily getting the full benefit of everybody's thinking processes at that late of time
in the evening.
8. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION & ZONING OF 20.35 ACRES (FOR R-15
ZONING) OF LAND FOR PROPOSED 300 UNITS OF MULTI-FAMILY RENTAL
(FOR PROPOSED SUNDANCE APARTMENT HOMES BY SUNDANCE, LLC -
NORTH OF OVERLAND ROAD AND WEST OF LOCUST GROVE: (ATTORNEY
TO PREPARE FINDINGS)
9. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 300 UNITS OF MULTI-
FAMILY HOMES BY SUNDANCE, LLC -NORTH OF OVERLAND ROAD AND
WEST OF LOCUST GROVE: (TABLE UNTIL 10/5/99)
•
•
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: SEPTEMBER 7 1999
APPLICANT: IDAHO ELECTRIC SIGNS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 27
REOUEST_
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
COMMENTS
SEE ATTACHED APPEAL
l~ ~ c
~~
~~~
,~~ ~~~~
c
~~
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
OTHER:
Ail Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
F-' i~ ~ . ~
~~B~ ~~~
Appeal of Decision of:
Applicant:
Address:
Phone Number:
Nature of Appeal:
APPEAL APPLICATION FORM
Zoning Administrator
City Engineer
Building Department Staff
P&Z Commission
Other (Specify)
AUG 2 4 1999
Shari Stiles
Idaho Electric Signs
6528 Supply WaY
Boise ID 83716
X208) 338-9401
Idaho Electric Signs is appealing the decision by the Planning Director, Shari
Stiles, to deny the application for a proposed electronic message center for the Idaho
Independent Bank. The decision was based on an interpretation of the current ordinance
prohibiting "flashing lights or strobe lights of any color". (See attached) It is our
contention that the intent of the ordinance is to prohibit marquis or strobe lights, which
may create a safety hazard or an "eyesore" to the community. We believe that an
electronic message center does not fall within these restrictions. Furthermore, it is hoped
that an electronic message center will also provide a service to the community by
displaying local events and information previously difficult to obtain. The sign will be
located in the center of town and will not effect the residential community.
Signature
Fee: $100.00
2-415 SIGNS
2-415 A UNIFORM SIGN CODE
The Uniform Sitm Codc, as published by the International Conference of Building
Officials. shall be the guide concerning standards and regulations for all signs within the
City, and three (3) copies of the Uniform Sign Code shall be kept and maintained in the
office of the Adminishator or the City Clerk.
2-415 B SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS
Any sign or structure located on a eammercially zoned lot which is adjacent to a
residentially zoned lot shall be set back so as to meet the side, rear, and front yard setback
tequiremeets of said adjoining Residential district if such residential setback
requirements exceed those of the Commercial District.
2-415 C PROHIBITED SIGNS
The following activities and types of signs shall be expressly prohibited in all districts
except as otherwise provided by this Ordinance:
The tacking, pasting, or otherwise affixing of signs of a miscellaneous character
and visible from a public way and located on the walls of buildings, hams, sheds
or on trees, poles, posts, fences, or other structure;
2. On-premise business sigts that advertise an activity, business, product, or
service and which sre no longer conducted or available on the premises on
which the sign is located;
3. Signs placed on any curb, sidewalk, post, pole, elearoller, hydrant, bridge, or
tree except official public notices as posted by a public officer;
4. Signs which are placed in any public right-of--way except publicly owned signs,
trafftc control sigQals, directional sigps, and signs which direct and guide trafftc
and parking on private property but bear no advertising matter;
5. Signs which restrict vision within any public right-of--way;
6. Off-premise signs; and
7. Flashing li~ts or strobe lights of any color.
2-415 D FEES
All foes for permiried signs by this Ordinance shall be the same as outlined in the fee
schedule far buildings of the Uniform Building Code (Ord. 430, 4-2-84).
*:* TOTAL PAGE . D2 ~~~
~i i r yr MItKIUIHIV
_ "Hub ofr;easure Valley'
.. _. Idaho
Meridian, Idaho 83642
888-4433
«,..r,._~..
DATE: 8/24/99
T0: CITY OF MERIDIAN
JOR: 114.200 - OIPEP.N
ACCOU`dT: ID IND. BANIZ
AMOUNT: $100.00
FOR: DEBBIE ANDERSON
Order No.
Name ~ / Date
~/~G~G ~~ ~ Z 7 ` ~ y
J
Address ,6528
~~~
~ t'.~ 7~ 7 Q C~ ,/
Phone: J ~ U - L `f'O~
SOLD BY CASH C ~L.D CHARGE Orv ACCT.
~ ~ "~9DSE. RETD PAID OUT ~~
~
I i
I C ' ~~~YU I
/~ I
I
I I I
I
' C~i~~i%~iV~
~ I
I
I i
I
~ ! ~
I
i
I
O 3g2o Z
I
I
All claims and returned go ods MU T be accompanied by this bill.
4 TAX
--~-
Recei
0 010 7 3
~
Tf~~:~ L a`% ~sl-
GS-202-2 V A
PRINTED IN U.S.A. ,J P"~"reo wn" ~ ~ Q
SOYINK - C`./yttAriKJ 6LU
~~IJ~JaOO
®f ~~ 6528 SUPPLY WAY • BO1SE, 1DAH0 83716
~D~~~~c ~, (208) 338-9401 • FAX (208) 338-9409
PAY ONE HUNDRED AND 00/100 DOLLARS
CHECKNO.039202
DATE: g/24/99
~ 100.00
U.S. BANK
HILLCREST BRANCH
1515 SOUTH ORCHARD
BOISE. IDAHO 83705
92-372 / 1231
PAY TO THE ORDER OF CITY OF MERIDAAN
MP
1;
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: ~~ /~ Cr
APPLICANT:. f~ r?-c~ w~~~_. -.~ ;'~ ~.~ / ; L~ - /
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: ~
REQUEST:_~J''". ~`1' ~ ~~ ~~: ~i~ .,~`t G~~=~''tiGC.~ ~- ~ /->7 c~r~.
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
~ ~~
~`
~~
,r,S
~'
^ ~~
~~ ~~~s
~,'
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
OTHER:
~ f
6528 SUPPLY WAY, BOISE ID. 83716 (208) 338-9401 • FAX (208) 338-9409
June 1, lyyy
To: City of Meridian City Council Members
Re: Electronic Message Center Discussion
Dear Members of the Council,
Dc~--t- ~'e~~r fis
~"arm # lib--l
It is our understanding that you will be discussing tonight whether or not to allow signage in the
city which would incorporate an electronic message center. The confusion as to whether or not to
allow this type of signage seems to revolve around two issues: 1) The section of ordinance which
prohibits signs with "flashing lights or strobe lights of any color" and 2) the city's dislike of
signs such as the one found at Texaco station at Eagle and 184. We ourselves, are currently
requesting the approval of a sign with an electronic message center for the new Idaho
Independent Bank located on First Street across the street from the new Generations Plaza.
In order to appreciate the difference in the sign we propose as compared to some of the signs you
may be familiar with, it is important to explain some technologies. Message center signs are
illuminated in one of'three ways. The most common is with incandescent bulbs which range
anywhere from 5 watts per lamp all the way up to 50 watts per lamp. The signs currently found
in Meridian on the 184 corridor such as the Texaco and the Meridian Ford would be in the 30-50
watt range. A fluorescent "flip type" system can also be found primarily on "time and
temperature" units and it emits very little light. However, the technology is quite old and
therefore they are primarily being replaced by LED systems which are more reliable and flexible.
LED type systems also emit very little light and are available typically in either red or amber. We
are requesting an amber colored system for the bank. The equivalent light from the LED would
approximate that of a 5 watt incandescent system.
Messages, too, can be delivered to the screen in various ways. It is true that these systems have
the ability to "flash" messages. Our client has agreed to not use this method of display but will
rather "scroll" messages. We believe that this compromise places us in compliance with your
ordinance, a section of the ordinance which we feel was probably intended to prohibit signs of
the "Las Vegas" or "Fifties" style which relied heavily on flashing strobe lights and neon. The
sign we propose is nothing like this. It will be used, certainly, to display information on bank
offerings as well as time and temperature. Just as importantly, the bank wishes to be a part of;
and contribute to, the community. To this end they have agreed to allow the use of this sign to
advertise local city and school events. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
r~
'/~!,
'~eborah Anderson
/DAHO electYic S/GNS iNC.
Account Executive
!~
Toward a Better Understanding of Message Centers
Because the communicative medium of electronic signage is relatively new, a number of
questions have quite naturally arisen relative to its use in the environment. In general, electronic
signs are subject to the same land or property use standards which apply, in any given
community, to all sign subject to public view. These standards typically seek to impose some
degree of order and communicative balance to sign systems which serve public need. To this
end, some types of signs may be favored over others depending upon prevailing community
preferences and attitudes toward individual sign types. The following question and answer
format is intended to provide some means to allow community planners, legislators and other
interested persons judiciously to evaluate the positive role that electronic signage can play in
providing a high degree of communication, information, direction, and aesthetic appeal to most
communities.
Q. What exactly is an Electronic Changeable Message Sign?
A. An Electronic Changeable Message Sign is an electrically activated sign whose message
content, either in whole or in part, may be changed by means of electronic programming.
Q. How do Electronic Changeable Message Signs work?
A. Electronic Changeable Message Signs display messages on a display surface comprised of a
number of "pixels" not unlike the display surface of a modern graphic computer. Currently,
these "pixels" typically consist of either incandescent lamps, reflective disks, light emitting
diodes (LEDs), liquid crystal components (LCDs), neon or plasma light segments, or various
combination of the above. Under the control of a computer, the "pixels" on an Electronic
Changeable Message Sign can be energized to display messages in alphabetic, graphic,
symbolic, or pictorial modes. Current technology can also provide for display panels of
partial or full color capability, by means ofultra-sophisticated computer programming
capable of blending primary color "pixels" into partial of full color pictographs.
Q. Who can use Electronic Changeable Message Signs?
A. Electronic Changeable Message Signage can be used in any public or private institution or
commercial business enterprise which has the need to transmit timely information to
motorists or pedestrians. Current technology allows the use of Electronic Changeable
Message Signs both indoors and outdoors and in extremes of all weather or meteorological
conditions.
Q. Are Electronic Changeable Message Signs permitted under the Federal Highway
Beautification Law?
A. The Federal Highway Beautification Law, which regulates outdoor advertising on interstate
and federal aid primary highways in the U.S.A. specifically allows for Electronic Changeable
Message Signs advertising activities conducted on the property on which they are located.
Q. Are Electronic Changeable Message Signs considered "flashing" signs?
A. No. Typically a flashing sign is a sign which seeks to attract attention to itself or its fixed
message by means of a sequential or intermittent display of light. In this context, the flashing
made of operation is employed primarily as an attention arresting device. Electronic
Changeable Message Signs also utilize a sequential display of light, but only as a means to
r
effectuate changes in "pixels" configuration on the display background. This sequential
action usually involves certain individual "pixels" being turned off, while other individual
"pixels" are turned on, which results in the message change. True flashing, on the other
hand, would involve the action of rapidly turning the same "pixels" on and off. Although
true flashing can be made part of the program of an Electronic Changeable Message Sign, it
is not central to the operation of the medium. Thus, in its primary role of providing
changeable information, the Electronic Changeable Message sign should not be considered a
flashing sign.
Q. Do Electronic Changeable Message Signs cause traffic accidents?
A. No, Electronic Changeable Message Signs do not cause traffic accidents. A number of
empirical and theoretical studies have been conducted by various research and academic
organizations in an effort to determine if any casual relationship exists between the presence
of roadside signs and traffic safety. Not only has no casual relationship been found, but a
number of researchers and qualified observers have actually concluded that the presence of
signs may actually serve to heighten a motorist's attention, and thereby make a positive
contribution to traffic safety. In an exhaustive study relating to Electronic Changeable
Message Signs entitled "Safety and Environmental Design Considerations in the use of
Commercial Electronic Variable Message Signage", the conclusion was made that "...under
routine driving conditions, there is little, if any, correlation between driving performance and
the presence of roadside advertising signs."
Q. Are Electronic Changeable Message Signs effective?
A. As a medium of communication, Electronic Changeable Message Signs have been found to
be one of the most effective information and/or advertising mediums available. For public
service institutions and small business particularly, both of which must operate with limited
resources, the measurable impact of the use of Electronic Changeable Message Signs to
inform or to advertise has been uniformly outstanding. Typical reports from commercial
usage indicate increases of twenty to thirty percent in the sale of products or services
promoted through the use of Electronic Changeable Message Signage. Similarly, public
service and civic institutions have experienced considerable increases in public awareness
and response to programs and events advertised by means of Electronic Changeable Message
Signs.
Q. Can Electronic Changeable Message Signage harmonize with community standards?
A. Electronic Changeable Message Signage can generally be custom designed to accommodate
any community or architectural environment. Although the provision of timely information
is the primary purpose of the medium of Electronic Changeable Message Signage, aesthetic
harmony with existing or planned landscape and environmental conditions is of equal
importance to the design of the graphic display itself. In addition, because of the inherent
capability of Electronic Changeable Message Signage to display more than one message, the
environmental clutter resulting from the use of numerous signs, each displaying only one
static message, can frequently be eliminated.
f
_~,
~--,.~
T/ME-O-Mi4T/C~~
Since 7932
~~
~;.
~r,~~;, ~~ ~.~.
O
V
~O
~o
2
Q
O
0 0
o ~
I~
~ ~
~. _ r
I ~ ~
,. ... -
i
~AGEa~~
-- ----~
~~
~~ P~
~~ P~rr
~~ ~~
8x64 MATRIX
10"/1 1"CHARACTERS
SINGLE LINE LED
MESSAGE CENTER
~~
^~
^~ ~~~
0
-- i~• 1'-loll
~;
~1~ SIDE
VIEW
DOUBLE FACE INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED PYLON
SCALE 3/8" = 1'-0"
MAIN ID CABINET: FABRICATED FROM SHEET METAL, PRIMED & PAINTED STUCCO FINISH (BenjMoore # )
2" x 3" MOLDINGS PRIMED & PAINTED DARK GREEN (DuPont #GS ).
FACE: 3/76" WHITE PLEX
DECORATION: COPY IS REVERSED IN GREEN TRANSLUCENT VINYL (230-)WITH BURGUNDY UNDER /OVER LINES (230-49)
BORDER LEFT WHITE.
ILLUMINATION: 800 MA FLUORESCENT LAMPS, UL LISTED.
MESSAGE CENTER: (DOUBLE FACE) L2100 LED-COMM AMBER MESSAGE CENTER, 1 LINE 10" / 11"CHARACTERS, 8x64 MATRIX.
TENANT CABINET: FABRICATED FROM SHEET METAL, 1"MOLDINGS, PRIMED & PAINTED STUCCO FINISH (BenjMoore # )
FACE: 3/16" WHITE PLEX.
DECORATION: TRANSLUCENT VINYL, VARIOUS COLORS.
ILLUMINATION:- 800 MA FLUORESCENT LAMPS, UL LISTED.
POLE COVER & BASE: FABRICATED FROM SHEET METAL, PRIMED & PAINTED STUCCO FINISH (BenjMoore # ).
SUPPORT; EXISTING 8" STEEL POLE. REVISION 3/19/99
REVISION 2/17/99
LED MESSAGE CENTER ADDED.
MAIN ID CABINET RE-SIZED FROM
4'-6" x 9'-0" TO 4'-0" x 8'-0",
CLADDING ADJUSTED, END-CAPS
ADDED TO MESSAGE CENTER,
ATM CABINET ENLARGED TO
REVISION 2/18/99 ACCOMMODATE TENANT PANELS
SHEET METAL BASE ADDED,
POLE COVER SIMPLIFIED, REVISION 4/1/99
CO O
DRAWN BY: (~~Ue SKETCH #7250
SALES REP; D.A. FILE; Steve C;\JOBS\IDAHOIND.PLT
MAIN ID PY N W REVERSED
IN DK, GREEN BACKGROUND.
®~ IIDAH®~~e~t-°®~ IIGOf
cowrzlGHr ~ t 9e9
,~I"'s AN °"`Da"SHED DPAWI"'DESIGN sUBMRIED CUSTOMER: IDAHO INDEPENDENT BANK THFCOLOaSDFPICTEDIN7H19DaA`MNGAaETO
FOR VOUR PERSO~uL USC IN CONNECnoN WRH A ASSISI YOU IN VISUALILNG OUR PfEOPOSAL AND
PROJEO~ BEING PUNNED FoR you av IDAHO Etecmlc LOCATION; MERIDIAN nnAV NoT NwTCH AcTUa. COLORS usED oN THE
SIGNS INC. AND IS NOi TO BE REPRODUC[D. COPIED OR
..,~.~~..... ,.~ ,.....,.~~ ~~,..~,. m. ~..~,. ,.,..~...~ ................~ FINISHED DISPIAV
6~1 8 0 61I
CABINET & MESSAGE CENTER
L 6'-0" TENANT CABINET _ I
r