Loading...
Minutes - 1996 - Planning & Zoning - 11/18/1996 - Regular EAGLE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1996 Plan Qiiog.¡.:,Commission met in regular session on November 18, 1996. Chairman Bradley presiding. The following members were present: BERT BRADLEY, DONALD BRINTON, RUSSEL MAYER, COLLEEN MAILE, FARRIN FARNWORTH. CONSENT AGENDA: A. Approval of the minutes of the October 21,1996, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. B. Approval of the minutes ofthe November 4, 1996, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. C. Findings of Fact for Annexation with Rezone and Development Agreement (A-1- 96/RZ-2-96)-The Zoning Administrator is requesting Commission approval of the Findings of Fact for an Annexation with Rezone and Development Agreement (A-1-96/RZ-2-96), which was applied for by Ed Hendershot with Hendershot Construction. The 26.82 acre site is located on the south side of the north channel of the Boise River approximately 1/3 mile east of Eagle Road (State Highway 44). The site abuts the east property line of the Island Woods Subdivision. D. Findings of Fact for Preliminary Plat and Rezone for Lakeland Estates Subdivision (PP-2-96/RZ-3-96)-The Zoning Administrator is requesting Commission approval of the Findings of Fact for a 49 lot residential subdivision (Lakeland Estates) on 23.1 acres, with a rezone from A (Agricultural) to R-4 (Residential-four dwelling units per acre maximum). The subdivision and rezone were applied for by Ron Bath representing SDR Development. The site is located South of State Street, adjacent to the east boundary of the Monroc property, west of existing Highway 55 extended. E. Findings of Fact for Conditional Use (CU-9-96)-The Zoning Administrator is requesting Commission approval of the Findings of Fact for a Conditional Use Permit for a temporary gravel extraction operation for the construction of a lake within the proposed Lakeland Estates Subdivision. The Conditional Use Permit was applied for by Ron Bath representing SDR Development. The 23.1-acre site is located approximately 1,000 feet south of State Street, adjacent to the east boundary of the Monroc property. BRADLEY: Is there anything on the Consent Agenda Commissiohwishes to H' \"'\MEETI"""\PI.AM _ZON\HIHm'H8\l"'\PZl11'" ,HIH 1 ? on r .. m #A and D on Consent Agenda. dlyl I CONSENT AGENDA eCOnded by MAILE to approve B, C and E on the ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIED BRINTON: Correction on Item #A - Page 5 - Next to the last line on the page should read "700 of your businesses and residents in the area rely on this". Moved by BRINTON to approve the October 21, 1996 minutes as corrected, and Seconded by MAYER. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIED BRADLEY: Next item is 3. Item#D-Findings of Fact for Preliminary Plat and Rezone for Lakeland Estates Subdivision. BRINTON: Question from Staff on Page 7 of 8, Understanding Conditions of Approval. Excuse me, I have been in error on that it's 3-E. Can we remove 3-E from the Consent Agenda and approve the 3-D. LEGAL COUNSEL: Motion will have to ask for reconsideration. BRADLEY: We need a Motion for reconsideration. Moved by BRINTON for a Motion for Reconsideration of the Consent Agenda and Seconded by MAILE ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIED BRADLEY: Reconsideration is for 3. - E-Findings of Fact for Conditional Use (CU-9-96). BRINTON: My question is on Page 7 of 8 - Item #7 - Conditional Use Permit for gravel pit why are we concerned about a drainage plan when they talk about how they are going to take care of the water? MARK: We have discussed this at the meeting when ttli õþen at the Public Hearing and we took out a portion of standard conditions so the r of coQpitiQ." would comply. Let me refresh my memory. H, 'P.'\MEET'...\PLAN _zo.."""""""""pz""" ,MIK 2 Y: We had a complaint about one of the owners of the property discharging the water. cern was that right now they said they were draining the er in e :exis 0 ty Creek. We wanted to make sure the people in Dry Creek are clear on the fact they were going to make two ponds and drain all of their water into Dry Creek. If I remember right our condition was that they needed to keep all of their drainage water on the property and that was what we took out of there. MARK: I believe that is correct. The portion that we took out said that they shall retain all of the water on site. They were proposing to drain some into that canal. They are required to get approval from the irrigation district or canal company. We left the rest of that in here. If they modify the site at all we would need to look at the drainage plan. I believe #7 covers that. BRINTON: I see what you are saying. How does the rest of the Commission feel about that? Does that mean it should stay or should it come out? DISCUSSION Moved by MAILE to strike #7 on Page 7 of 8 - Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law Case No. CU-9-96. and seconded by FARNWORTH ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIED Moved by BRINTON and Second by MAILE to approve 3.- #E of the Consent Agenda as corrected. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIED BRADLEY: We have an Amendment to the Agenda from Mark. MARK: I'm requesting that the Commission add an item to the Agenda to the Zoning Administrators Report. That item being a discussion item for the Commission to talk about three portions of the recently approved Sign Ordinance that I have noticed seem to be causing some conflict. If the Commission could talk about that and recommend that some amendments be brought forth to the Commission for Council approval to the Sign Ordinance. LEGAL COUNSEL: For adding it to the Agenda the Zoning Administrator does not need to discuss each item right now. Moved by BRINTON to add it to the Agenda and Sec~ndêdl¡)y M)\ILE H, \..Z\IŒETZHOS\"", _ZON\IIIH""!S\,,,,\pzm." ,MIH 3 : MOTION CARRIED is ~~'ê Public Hearing on Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA-4- Dlsign Review Ordinance, they left out some of the criteria of føte"",wê have to open the Public Hearing to amend this portion PUBLIC HEARING: A. Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA-4-96)- The Eagle City Council is requesting a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to place the "Building Design Objectives" back into the Eagle City Code. Those criteria were inadvertently removed from the Eagle City Code upon adoption of the Design Review Ordinance #276. That ordinance was approved by the City Council on September 3, 1996. MARK: Overview of Staff Report. It is my opinion that the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and it is also my opinion that the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is in compliance with the Eagle City Code. I have made no Staff Recommendation on this item. Overview of background information. BRADLEY: This hearing will pertain only to Design Review items. I will not entertain any kind of comments or testimony as to the Comp Plan as that is not part of our hearing tonight. Don Asbell Andon's Eagle, Idaho I own Andon's down the street. I have a tenant that wants me to move my building 12 feet to add on. The City said no. Seems as though everybody is in a big panic. The City doesn't want to approve anything. The City said I could add up to 20' to anyone of those buildings when it was necessary to do it. The Design Review says I must use matching materials. Which is fine. I have done everything that the City said I had to do. Why does the City not keep their promises. BRADLEY: When was that promise made? Before you finished the entire project? Because as you add to each individual phase there is a criteria for percentage of ground coverage and every time you add to that phase conditions can change. ASBELL: Okay we had enough ground coverage that thly saictwe,çouldadd up to 20% on any of the buildings. That was part of the final projeq~; ThisiWas':where Daunt came ., \PU\IŒETIIIGS\"""'_ZOIO\Mnl1l1'ES\""\PZ11U" ,MIN 4 en we asked for a building permit and all of a sudden no you can't do it. Daunt we have already given him permission up to 20%. ASBELL AND COMMISSIONERS BRADLEY: We are not here to debate whether you can add on to your building. We are here for testimony as to the types of siding which can be used or eliminated. If you problems I suggest you take that up with Zoning Administrator. ASBELL: My opinion is do not exclude Metal Siding. There are products out there that is going to stand up for years down the road and is going to look a lot better than anything you are going to put up. There are a lot of metal sidings out there that need to be looked at. Rick Musick 1445 E. State St. Eagle, Id The issue that I see is what kind of a building can we put up. Putting an unrealistic condition on your property owners. Since 1990 I know that Lyons, the feed store, Wright Brothers, Container Packaging, the Andon building, the mini storage and the golf store were put up with metal siding on them. Are we picking and choosing? The Ordinances are being selectively enforced. Today you get a guarantee on a metal building for longer than 20 years. You are putting a financial burden on the tax payers. Cost me $50,000 more to put up a cider block building. Metal buildings are not a building that looks bad and the ordinance is unreasonable. I would ask you to not put metal buildings in this Ordinance or metal siding. BRADLEY: I think we might have some kind of a misstatement as far as when this Ordinance was rough drafted for public hearing when it says metal buildings. It is not our intent to exclude metal buildings. Joan Lyons 351 Knob Hill Eagle, Id I was in the 1990 Ordinance, it said no metal buildings. There was some flexibility. A year ago I came in on a piece of property, I wanted to build a metal building. No. There was no flexibility. I am asking this Ordinance to have more flexibility. We need to think about our working people in Eagle. Please have more flexibility. R, \'.Z\MEJlTI1IOS\l'LAN_ZOB\K'"""",\1".\"'"',. ,KIN 5 ¡"Woodbridge e, Id I id Tlis is the first type of meeting I have been to like this. I am c rn s.to fJ~xiÞ.:i'¡ty. My husband intends to start a business of his own and more than likely he will want to put up a small metal building to do this. I would like to see a clear definition of what metal siding would be allowed. I would like to see what stipulations there will be. Bill Ditz 673 W. Fordham Drive Eagle, Id Read a statement into the record which is attached and included in these minutes. Gary Baylock 931 E. State Eagle, Id I am the Treasurer of Evan's Building Center. I will read a letter that we have written. You should have a copy in your packet. (Letter is attached and included in these minutes) Nita Musick 1445 E. State Eagle, Id I am really disturbed about the statement "no metal siding". I am disturbed that we make a blank statement no matter what the zoning. We need to look at the different zoning and the different uses. Bob Weaver 447 Buchanan Eagle, Id I've worked around metal buildings most of my life. When we get to the point that we are not going to put up metal sided buildings we are cutting ourselves short. They can be attractive. There are a lot of different kinds of metal siding you can use. You are cutting out a lot of things that could be included. I believe that it would be a bad thing. ., 'P"\MEET,ftOS'P"""-","'M'Bt1rES',,,,,PUll... ,MIM 6 II ing Drive ht.some p érty 't corner of Eagle and State Street across from the Trolley about seven years ago. I fought with the City Eagle for a year and a half to get a rezone, the County finally got mad and zoned it commercial for me. I go mad and moved to Nampa. City of Eagle lost 26 people. I don't know what I will do with the property. What is going to happen at my house if I want to put up a metal building. What is wrong with metal buildings. You better look at it real hard. Ron Marshall 380 W. State Eagle, Id Several business people in 1979 decided that we wanted to have a downtown Eagle that was unique and different. We had some pretty unique buildings. Unfortunately half of our unique buildings have been lost. Metal siding at that point in time what we envisioned was corrugated metal siding. That was the intent of no metal siding. It was not the intent of the metal siding that is in the market place today. I think we have gotten beyond the scope of what the original intent was. We have gotten so far away from our original intent. There are twelve businesses operating out of metal buildings. There are 15 more business in Andon's complex, that is 27 businesses. How did all of these metal buildings get built in Eagle if they were not allowed. We need to take a good look at Design Review. Just take metal siding clear out and just forget it. If it encompasses the entire city it is not fair. Downtown and Highway 55 are two totally different areas. Don't restrict metal entirely, only make it apply to downtown and let the rest of the people do as they please. They should be, especially in an industrial zone, be able to use whatever they choose and not be so restrictive. Jim MaCauley 2611 W. State Eagle, Id We are the metal building straddling to the West of the Musick Auction Yard. Reading the Ordinance, the wording is what the concern is. The Ordinance says, this chapter applies to all development proposed located within the entire city limits of the City of Eagle. The next page, such development includes but is not limited to new commercial, industrial, institutional, etc. Then you get down to what it really says over on Paragraphs D and Fin item #3 Materials not allowed: Plywood siding, except board and bat patterns, metal siding. No explanations. It is just to specific to include metal sidi~I.~ '. 'hlsensing the intent of what you are looking at is not to ban metal siding but the way tt1~ ordil"l~nce is written to clearly states that metal siding is not approved on any industri~' Òfcåhlmetcial inside the City ., 'P"'lŒETlNOS'P"'"'ß"'MI""""'"",mll' " ,MIN 7 hat is not the position we should take. Why not metal siding. The intent of this to preserve a look and a feel for Eagle, in the downtown sector. I don't think it was (;I¡tênâèâii~O tJê th hd!:jCity of Eagle. It has grown well beyond the original intent rT1jtalsi_~pg i 'tflen it was first instituted. But the language states that it esâU ofthèi~i.H. ofaglaand all that will ever become of Eagle. And I believe that is an incorrect position to take. A metal building saved us 30%. We built a business that employs 17 people and that represents about 72 people who eat and survive because of a business that exists in that metal building. It states in the purpose and goals of Ordinance #276-#1. To recognize the interdependence of land values and ascetics and to provide a method whereas the City may implement this interdependence to the benefit of the Community. 2.- To encourage the development of private property in harmony with the desired character of the City and in conformance with the guidelines herein provided with due regard to the public and private interests involved. 3.- To provide planning and design guidelines to give specific direction for downtown development while allowing for flexibility that promotes creative market driven development proposals. I believe a growing, healthy community consists of residential, retail, manufacturing, distribution and warehousing. If we approve Ordinance #276 as it is now written we eliminate the businessman's best option and we do not promote creative market driven development proposals. We do not encourage the development of private property and we do not provide for the benefit of this community. The Ordinance reads, enlargement or expansion of existing buildings. I am very afraid of that language the way it is written. I happened to get a permit to enlarge my building. The way this is written I'm not sure how that happened. What happens the next time. It wouldn't surprise me to come and ask for a building permit in year. Would my permit be granted? Probably not. This should not be the position we should take. It was never intended to be the whole City of Eagle. I urge that we do one of two things, that we either strike line item 3 from Section e, Page 10 of 19, Paragraph e-Materials. That we simply strike Item #3 which says "Materials not allowed: Plywood sidings, metal sidings, or if that is not approved then simply move metal siding to the first paragraph under "Materials permitted. MAYER: Would you be opposed to having a different material on the front of the building and still being able to have metal siding on the other three sides? Jim McCauley My position is this. Our business does about 3 million dollars in sells annually. Our net profit is less than 3 Y2%. We are constantly struggling to keep that business alive. My comment is - we built that building to your specification~iilflh~ve to compromise three sides are better than four sides. Give the businessman:~ brealsf Er1Çourage business to come here. Give us the opportunity to make a living itilfaWâý! that we canso we can H,\POZ\HEETIIfGS\PI.AH_""'\HIH11I'ES\""\PZU,"" ,HIN 8 to the community without strapping us with so many regulations that we can't 0 it. If I have to yes, but my first choice is no. 0 leave with them knowing that this item will be scheduled cil meeting. Lee Evans 1260 E. State Street Eagle, Id I built a metal building in 1990. After much controversy I got a permit and I built a metal shop. It is a beautiful shop. Metal now lasts longer than any wood. I am very strongly for the metal buildings. We work on a small margin and if we have to put out several thousand more it would put us out of business. Pauline Hinman 4040 Ranch Drive Eagle, Id I am President of the Eagle Chamber of Commerce. I would like to remind the Chairman and Commissioners of the 4 R's of the Commission. 1- Recruit, 2-Retain, 3-Regenerate and 4-Restore. We now have 100 members of the Chamber and they are all small businesses. What happens to the small businesses when we restrict them. We need to sit back and take a look at what we are doing to the business community. Please help these businesses. Ilene McCauley 2611 State Eagle, Idaho It seems like the only objection I'm hearing to metal buildings is how it looks. I don't know of one businessman who is going to make an ugly building. No one is going to make something that looks awful. We need to have trust that our businesses are going to make attractive buildings. We need to cut some slack in Eagle. Janis Foote 10381 Maymie Road Eagle, Id When this Ordinance was passed it was 20 years ago. We are 20 years behind the times. Everything changes. Houses are now are metal siding. lIobôây builds in brick or wood. Everyone builds in metal siding. H, \'.Z\MEHT'HGS\'LM_ZON\"'","",\""\PZIII'" ,"no 9 : Most of the discussion has been on the metal siding portion of the ordinance. T re are other piece parts of this Ordinance that is being proposed tonight beside the 'Ow yó~fe~l!,pboûft roofs, eaves, canopies, are you in agreement in what is in odeón 'H, ~b04~ colors. All we have heard tonight is negative on the metal builâin. n~. hêacdnobody say anything about the eaves, canopies, colors, so we have to assume that everything is alright there? How do you feel about the rest of it. DISCUSSION Douglas Foote 10381 Maymie Rd. Eagle, Id I went over this and basically when you take care of the metal siding you take care of the rest of it. You allow roofs and metal trim. You are conflicting in your own Ordinance. We need to get rid of the metal siding. Ron Marshall 380 W. State Eagle, Id The entire problem exists because someone on the Council in 1990 took it out of the downtown core. If it only covered the downtown core we wouldn't even be here. People who build in the downtown core have one way or another build as approved. My suggestion to you is to make this Design Review Ordinance go back where the original designer envisioned and that is the downtown core only. Let the rest of it be free market, free enterprise and let people build whatever they please. MAILE: I think that if you instruct the public to keep comments exclusively to roofs, eaves and canopies and colors if anybody has anything they want to say specifically about those issues I would really like to hear what the public has to say. Rick Musick 1445 E. State Eagle, Id Our company colors are green and white. It would be very attractive if my building is green and white. The Ordinance says it is their wishes that we blend in with the neighbors. It would make me standout. MAYER: What is your feeling about metal siding on threel;§ideswitha different material on the face. H , I p<z\JŒBTIOGSI PLAN - ZOHI"'wrESI' ", IPZIl" " ,"," 10 n:~II~y p'~çeqfb . essll.~nd what I sell to look very professional. I personally would e ()ppos~cf!I~Qi~h~ et~ It would add to the cost of my structure. I want to look very ssidôal ånd ' iiihåv Q~~y.~çustomers. Appropriate or certain types of structure on the front and metal in the back, I could probably live with that. ,sick Jim McCauley 2611 W. State Eagle, Idaho I don't have any objections. When you are using a metal sided building you only have a certain number of colors you can choose anyway. As long as I have a choice in a certain range. BRINTON: When we are talking about the materials the roofs, eaves and canopies and we are talking about the colors we are not just talking about metal buildings we are talking about all buildings within that particular section that it would apply to. I want people to fully understand. Ilene McCauley I get concerned when they say encouraged. How far does that go. I get frustrated that we do not have our freedom to choose what we think is attractive and nice. How much latitude does that give. BRADLEY: I don't think there is really an answer to that question. I think that the people who are elected and appointed to the Commissions that govern this do their best to satisfy the majority of the people and granted they are not going to make everybody happy. This is a difficult question to answer. The Design Review Committee would have that latitude. It would decide whether or not it is an acceptable color. As long as it is not objectionable. However, anything can be appealed. If one is not happy with the decision of the Design Review it can be appealed to the Planning and Zoning Commission and then appealed to the City Council. BRADLEY: The Public Portion is closed. LEGAL COUNSEL: A letter was submitted by Mike Vance and if we could just submit that into the record. It does not have to be read. BRADLEY: Could you read it. MARK: Reads Mike Vance's letter. The letter is attached included in these minutes. H, \'0%\""""""\"""'_","\"""""'\""\0%1110" ,"'" 11 e:y: Public portion of this hearing is closed. LE!~I!w tolla ody for coming tonight. We do like to hear your concerns. had å c . r hat is good with in certain parameters. We had to much fI 'bility!i;åt~neti w q$/Iead to inconsistency. We have turned down several requests for metal buildings. The compromise we heard from the Chamber of Commerce was very well crafted and very smart and I liked it. It does not allow so much flexibility to allow confusion. 'like the notion simply saying that metal siding subject to review is allowed on no more than three sides of a metal building. I hope that we can make everybody happy by saying that metal buildings are okay as long as the parts that face the street are dressed up a little bit. I am really concerned about the problem people face when they wish to expand their buildings. That is something that we are not being asked to look at tonight. 'think that maybe this is something that we need to revisit. We don't want our business people to feel like their hands are bound and they can't grow. BRINTON: I appreciate the testimony that has been given tonight. I think there is a place for metal buildings within the City of Eagle. I don't think it is in the downtown development area, the transitional area or the entryway into Eagle. Do we restrict metal buildings just to the M 1 zone or do we just restrict it to where it can not be within those three design areas' spoke about. I like what Mike Vance had to say. 'think there is a way to use metal siding attractively using some landscaping and etc. 'would hesitate to say that we would have to have something other than metal siding on the front. All those Design Reviews would have to come before the Planning & Zoning for their final approval before it goes on to City Council. So we will have some input into that. To actually restrict any metal sided buildings in the City limits or the future City limits would be a big mistake for the City of Eagle. My recommendation would be that we not restrict metal buildings in all of Eagle but we restrict them to the downtown design, the transitional and the community entry district. But leave it open for some flexibility in the other areas. 'would be against saying that there has got to be just three sided metal buildings. I think there is an option of having some metal with some landscaping and some modifications to the front of the building that can still be attractive. There is not a businessman here that would put a building together that is not attractive and inviting. As far as the colors go , guess we will let that stand. What I wanted to see get is the process that a person has to go through, which is Design Review then it comes to Planning and Zoning and then the final appeal is the City Council. MAILE: The process from Design Review to Planning and Zoning and City Council is a new process. BRADLEY: Personally I am not opposed to metal build'ittgs. There are types of metal siding that are great. Wood is getting more and more expensiMe qU of the time. 'think there are places for them. We are going to try and do ~~at iSsbest for the overall public. H, \P<oZ\IŒETIBOS\PLAII_ZOR\HI""""'\""\PZ111'" ,",. 12 ~. just against types of siding. As far as colors go, I would have to go with the n Review Committee and their discretion. It is not uncommon to have these types td¿tiôn ulr atelýigoal is to retain businesses and to chase them away. R::QuêstiØ'n thê:CølIu:n~nity Entry Development Area is that State Street? I'm not sure I would be against having three sided metal buildings on State Street if the face was a different material. I think there is a place for metal buildings in Eagle. You could put in there that we encourage people to put a different material on the side facing the street. I think they should be allowed in the entry areas if they have a different face on the front. FARNWORTH: I agree, to many regulations. Where did this all come from? I question why we continue putting more ordinances and rules and more restrictions on everyone. I am not opposed to metal buildings. Which side do you put the metal side on and which side do you put the wood side on. My concern is what if someone wants to sell the building. What happens to the new owner. It is very important that we put wording in there just don't assume that we can say Grandfather Clauses. I think flexibility is very important on this. DISCUSSION BRADLEY: When you are talking about Grandfather Rights as far as sidings, the buildings do you know of anything that makes it expire if it exchanges hands or changes use? LEGAL COUNSEL: The provisions of nonconforming use under your Zoning Code apply. Nonconforming use stays with the property. It can be sold so long as the use of the property stays the same you can continue that nonconforming use meaning that if the zoning code changes and states that you can't have metal siding and you have a metal sided building as long as the use stays the same. FARNWORTH: We need to change this to allow people the flexibility. BRADLEY: We can go back and open this whole thing up if that is your wishes and desires. DISCUSSION BRINTON: I move to modify Paragraph e. as shown on 3 OF 19, Subsection 3 - which now states-Materials not allowed: Plywood sidings (except board-and-bat pattern), metal sidings. We will change that to - M.~'riâl's: Not Allowed: Plywood sidings (except board-and-bat pattern), metal sidingii~~ prpbibited in the:.portipn of any building facing the road this includes sections witllihtl1ø'roQft,cade whichmay ", \P"\IŒETI"'\PLAN_""\MI"""'S\""\PZlllO" ,MIM 13 ItRlndicular to the road but within the face of the building oriented towards the . A waiver of this section may be allowed where Applicant shows the metal is iteêtûrà'1 with surrounding buildings; is architecturally compatible othêr n i~bs in the City; and is attractively landscaped, designed a ,.situâte.d..to tl'Q.$,"rk utilitarian look intended to be prevented by this paragraph. Add modify Paragraph 5 - Materials will be subject to review - to read instead of that - Metal siding shall be prohibited in the DDA, TDA, CEDA. In the remaining area of the City metal siding shall be anodized and shall include special design treatments to enhance its appearance. These treatments may include brick or masonry wainscot treatments allowing exterior walls and accent colored metals and Seconded by MAILE. DISCUSSION MAYER: I have a question. What that paragraph says is that there will be no metal buildings on Eagle Road? BRINTON: No it does not say that. It says that there will be no metal buildings in Downtown Development Area, the Tra_nsitional Development Area, the Community Entry Development Area. MAYER: Eagle Road is a Community Entry Area BRINTON: You have to look at the map that is shown and associated with Ordinance #276 which outlines what those areas are. Which includes part of Eagle Road and part of State Street. Anything outside of that area along State Street would be excluded. MARK: Describes the map. Mark gives a copy of the map to Meyer. DISCUSSION CONTINUES BRINTON: I would like to modify the Motion. I said under Paragraph 5 that metal siding shall be prohibited in the DDA, TDA, CEDA and I am going to put in that "as established by Ordinance #276 which is approved by City Council on September 3, 1996, and the attached map which is Exhibit A-I, and use that as the fact for limiting the area as it exists today. BRADLEY: Does the Second agree with that? MAILE: Yes I do, the Second agrees. DISCUSSION H. \"Z\IŒETINOS\PLAN_ZOH\M""""'lu"\mll'" ,"'N 14 : We have an outstanding Motion and a Second on the floor that has not been ered yet. TOM: I ge 3 of 19 - Section 1- Paragraph e - Subsection 3: rialslnot all idings (except board-and-bat pattern), metal siding is prohibited on the portion of any building facing a road. This includes sections within the front facade that maybe perpendicular to the road but within the face of the building oriented towards the road. A waiver of this section may be allowed where applicant shows the metal is architecturally compatible with surrounding buildings; is architecturally compatible with other nonmetal buildings in the City; and is attractively landscaped, designed and situated to eliminate the stark utilitarian look intended to be prevented by this paragraph. Then Section 5 would be modified to read: Metal siding shall be prohibited in the DDA, TDA, CEDA as shown on Exhibit A-1 of Ordinance #276 as approved by Eagle City Council on September 3, 1996. In the remaining area of the City metal sidings shall be anodized and shall include special design treatments to enhance its appearance. These treatments may include brick or masonry wainscot treatments along exterior walls and accent colored metals. ALL IN FAVOR: BRINTON, MAILE AND BRADLEY ALL OPPOSED: MAYER AND FARNWORTH MOTION CARRIED THREE TO TWO OLD BUSINESS: NONE NEW BUSINESS: NONE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT MARK: There are three issues that recently have come up on the Signs in the Ordinance recently adopted covering signs. The way our Code is written Councilor Commission can recommend an amendment to the Code and what I'm asking the Commission to do tonight is to recommend an amendment to the Code. I have made a draft of the proposed amendments for your review. B. Definitions on Page 1 of draft - MONUMENT SIGN. Our current definition of Monument Sign is a freestanding sign with a solid base. If someone comes in with a sign that does not have a solid base but may still have very nice attractive supports on each side and still may have a distance of a couple of feet between groungilleverand the bottom portion of the sign; I don't know if we want to prohibit this type of si~[1. W~.9t I~avedone is make a recommendation that we say: "or with supports that are d~ign'egIto t)ei~tructurally similar ", \m\llE>;rI"""\Pt"."_Z"'\HINU1'ES\""\PZll"" ,HIM 15 construction, and which incorporate architectural features which compliment the truction. Pole type supports are not permitted." issiên to recommend an amendment to this so we have more sUandilwe can do a little more with the signs. DISCUSSION C. General Guidelines: Fuel island canopies shall be permitted a maximum of two signs. The signs shall be attached to or painted on the canopy face and shall be a maximum of 8-square feet each. If two signs are proposed, the signs shall be located on opposite sides of the canopy and shall be oriented to face oncoming traffic. We have a problem here. The way the Code is written now there is no allowance for a sign on the canopy. DISCUSSION BRINTON: I think there needs to be some type of language in there as to what we are looking for on that sign. It needs to be the product. I wouldn't want it to just any old sign. I wouldn't want it to be a reader board sign. Last item. E. Monument and Detached Street Signs - 4. Each individual free-standing business shall be limited to two signs, including the monument or detached street sign. The second sign shall not exceed eight square feet (8 sq.ft.). This is half the size of a stop sign. Our intent was to control the amount of signage on a building and I think this goes against our Code. It is very restrictive. This might need to be stricken from the Code. DISCUSSION BRINTON: I can see where we need to modify this. But I don't want to completely restrict it. Maybe the existing Code restricts it enough. MARK: What about if we add - Each individual free standing business shall be limited to two signs including the monument or detached street sign except a fuel island canopy sign can be permitted. DISCUSSION MARK: That generally sounds good and if the mâke a Motion for the H' ""\MEET""""""" _",",H1""""""""I1"" ,MIM 16 ¡<:lea of those amendments then I will move forward with it and bring it to you in a rso. ecjnded by MAYER. DISCUSSION ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIED Moved by MAILE and Seconded by MAYER to adjourn. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIED A TRANSCRIBABLE RECORD OF THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL ., IP""""'¡t<GS'P"""_'OHIMUn11'ES""'I""U" ,M," 17