Loading...
Minutes - 1997 - Planning & Zoning - 01/21/1997 - Regular EAGLE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 21,1997 I Eagle.Plârm.;åndlonilgQÞmmission met in regular session on January 21, 1997, Chairman Bradley presiding. The following members were present: BERT BRADLEY, DONALD BRINTON, COLLEEN MAILE, FARRIN FARNWORTH. RUSSEL MAYER ABSENT. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL: A. Minutes of December 30, 1996. BRINTON: On Page 4, second paragraph under applicant, the first sentence doesn't make sense to me. Other than that I don't have a problem with the rest of the minutes. Agreed by all of the Commissioners to strike that sentence. Moved by Brinton and Seconded by Farnworth to approve the minutes of the December 30, 1996, meeting as amended. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIED. B. Minutes of January 6, 1997. Moved by Brinton and Seconded by Farnworth to approve the minutes of the January 6, 1997, meeting as presented. ALL AYE: EXCEPT MAILE WHO ABSTAINED: MOTION CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS: A. DR-22-96 New Horizons Sign/Idaho Electric Signs: Debbie Anderson with Idaho Electric Signs, is requesting Design Review approval for a 36 sq.ft., exterior-illuminated monument sign for New Horizons Day care facility. The site is located on the north side of State Street at 1740 E. State St., approximately 900 ft. East of Edgewood Ln. STAFF REPORT: MARK BUTLER: Overview of Staff Report. DEBBIE ANDERSON Idaho Electric Signs H, \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTBS\1997\PZO12197 .MIN 1 . ipally submitted the sign design that is on the left. That is what my client would r to have fabricated but apparently that was considered to be to contemporary. We 't"meets . eriá¡l1at is presented in the Sign Code. The building itself is not 800'Sl'buil un Îalley looking building. We took the stucco from the building ati' ai.corQ4,IIbere is nothing on it but the base and their logo. We did submit a second option and we are willing to go with that option if that is the only one you would consider. BRADLEY: What did Design Review not like about the first sign. ANDERSON: It was to contemporary. GENERAL DISCUSSION ANDERSON: We tried to keep the sign as simple as possible. Keep the corporate logo in tact and still meet the sign criteria. It sits in a landscaped area which more than exceeds what is required by Code. We exceed that already without adding any more landscaping to the area. This adds a great expense to the sign. We are looking at approximately $1,500 in addition to the cost of the sign to do the additional landscaped area. GENERAL DISCUSSION BRINTON: I Move we approve sign #1 as originally submitted with the stucco base and Site Specific Conditions of Approval as shown in the report #3, #4 and #5 being the monument sign no higher than 8' feet, measured between the elevation at the center line of the street closest to the sign and elevation at the top of the sign, the flood lights used to illuminate the monument sign shall be screened or located so they do not shine on the roadway or on to any near by property and interior illumination shall not be permitted and then the Standard Approvals and Seconded by FARNWORTH. ALL AYE: EXCEPT MAILE NAY: MOTION CARRIED B. DR-25-96 New Heights Baptist Church Sign/Pastor Bill Hereford: Pastor Bill Hereford, with the New heights Baptist Church, is requesting Design Review Approval for a new 6-foot high monument sign. The sign is proposed to be located at the southeast corner of Mission Drive and Eagle Road, approximately 1/4 mile north of State Street. Councilman Farnworth recused himself. STAFF REPORT: MARK BUTLER: Overview of Staff~'J'õft. . PASTOR BILL HEREFORD H, \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTBS\1997\PZO12197 .MIN 2 I . .logi~ÎJQt n 'kin two meetings, I did not realize we need to be here for that. The existing sign that we have up is going to be moved because of the expansion of Eagle Road. We wanted to put up a nice sign. We bought the Catholic Church existing facility and hopefully in the future to build a new building and we wanted a sign that would look sharp and meet the design qualifications so we don't have to go back over that and it would be taken care of. GENERAL DISCUSSION MAILE: I Move that we approve the second sign presented to us, the brick sign, with the specification that the reader board portion not exceed 20' in keeping with Eagle City Code, Section 8A-8 and that all other Site Specific Conditions of Approval be adopted including the fact that interior illumination will not be permitted and that flood lights used to illuminate the sign would be screened or located so they do not shine onto the roadway or nearby property and I would also include all of the Standard Conditions of Approval and Seconded by BRINTON. GENERAL DISCUSSION ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIED Councilman Farnworth recused himself from the vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE NEW BUSINESS: A. DR-27 -96 Cactus Creek Casuals Sign/Idaho Electric Signs: Debbie Anderson with Idaho Electric Signs, is requesting a design review approval for a wall sign for Cactus Creek Casuals located in the Bosanka Village Shopping Center. The site is located on the south side of State Street approximately 1/4 mile west of Eagle Road. STAFF REPORT: MARK BUTLER: Overview of Staff Report. GENERAL DISCUSSION MARK MANWEILER Attorney for Guho Corporation H, \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MlNUTBS\1997\PZOl2197 .MIN 3 . ,¡tÇ)ject has three buildings in it. Building A, Band C. In terms of a time line. The ing þermit application for building A was submitted September 19, 1995. The first eJiiiSigh_il¡éa,nppplì~atio as submitted February 20, 1996. That Master Sign Plan apþr(:.)ve~ ¡ Council on April 9, 1996. The building permit for buildings CWassub .,1.996. At about this same time a dispute arose. After the first Master Sign Plan was approved some of the individual tenants came in to get their signage and they were denied permits and did not understand why and the developers understanding was that once the Master Sign Plan was approved it was pretty much a formality that the individual tenants would come in and show that they comply with the Master Sign Plan and they would get their permits. That didn't happen. We came back again with a second Master Sign Plan to make that very clear that the tenants would not have to go through the complete sign approval process. If the Master Sign Plan was approved each individual tenant would only have to submit enough to show that they were in compliance with the Sign Plan and they would get their permits. The Second Master Sign Plan application was submitted May 7, 1996, and that was approved by the City Council on July 23, 1996. Your new Sign Ordinance was adopted September 30, 1996. I think the law is very clear on this point. The developer and these tenants are entitled to have these applications judged by the ordinance that was in effect at the time the applications were made. It is that simple. If Eagle wants to come in with a new sign ordinance and say we are whipping out interior illuminated signs and make everybody taken then down that already have them, they can do that. What they can't do is say some people we are going to let have interior illuminated signs and people we are not. That is not legal. All of these signs and all of the Master Sign Plan complies totally with the ordinance that was in effect at the time the applications were made. At the July 23, 1996, City Council meeting, this is the way it went. The issue was brought up. There was a Motion for Reconsideration of the Bosanka Village Master Sign Plan made. That motion was granted. Councilman Bastian moved to accept the Bosanka Sign Plan as submitted specifically including the internal illumination feature. He made it an expressed part of his Motion, it carried three to one, Councilwoman Merrill indicated she could not in good conscience approve interior lite signs. Now that we have this Master Sign Plan that says all these new tenants have to do is come in and submit their signs so the Design Review can see that they comply with the Master Sign Plan, now when they have these new tenants come in they are being told they are under the new Ordinance. I don't think legally that is correct. It is not fair and it doesn't make any sense to make a developer go to all the trouble to submit a Master Sign Plan and require that as an affirmative part of the old ordinance and then make each individual tenant in a 60 plus tenant development come in and g(:.)i,~hfôugh each process all over again. H, \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTBS\1997\PZO12197 . MIN 4 he recommendations from Design Review do not have a basis here. It doesn't e og cal sense, legal it is not right and this gentleman has been to at least 10 different icH~e~firig~.t g et tm~ Master Sign Approved and trying to get these tenants so havaia sm . come in with their individual subapplications, show that they t. the Master I again there is no argument about these signs they clearly do meet the Master Sign Plan and they clearly do meet the requirements of the ordinance that was in effect at the time of the Master Sign application and approval. We don't think that these are valid grounds because this Ordinance doesn't apply to any of the tenants in this Master Sign Plan. GENERAL DISCUSSION DEBBIE ANDERSON: (Passes around the sign design for the Commissions review) These are internally illuminated. The are illuminated with neon. Basically what we were trying to do when we introduced these in the Master Sign Plan was to make all of the signs consistent within the complex. We didn't want a lot of different size cabinet signs. We wanted the building to look attractive and still meet City Code. GENERAL DISCUSSION LEGAL COUNSEL: At this point I will probably not be able to give you a definitive answer. I do not disagree with the applicant that you have certain rights that vest when you make application and that your application is to be viewed with respect to laws in place at the time of that application. In this case we have a situation where we had an application for a Master Sign Plan that was submitted by one set of laws that were in place and applications for individual signs were made in another application of law enacted by the City. The conflict arises with respect to the Master Sign Plan. Does it preempt or take precedent over the law in effect at the time the individual sign applications were made. When Mark and I talked about this, I did not have the application in front of me so when we talked about it I said ordinarily when an application comes in you take a look at the law that is in effect at the time. Even to the extent that it may effect expectations that came about previously. They are coming in with another application. GENERAL DISCUSSION MAILE: Is this one of those instances where we draw up an agreement that says they can have this because they fall under criteria as set forth in their Master Sign Plan, however, when this sign plan ceases to exist the next one does not. Can we build that safeguard into some kind of an agreement? LEGAL COUNSEL: Yes you can. The way I read this is yøu cÇ)u,ø interpret this exactly as Mr. Manweiler has interpreted it, exactly as the City ~~s irif~~ret~i it or as you are H, \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTBS\1997\PZO12197 . MIN 5 e,§ting something in the middle where you would go to the applicant and asked if you meet some middle ground and have an agreement that would clarify the City Code. e:e woul taQI!'sh some vested rights in all signs. an that agreement be approved by this body without B, NTON: Point Ian going to City Council? LEGAL COUNSEL: Yes it can be. There is an appeal provision of the Design Review Code so that the Zoning Administrator, the applicant or a third party can appeal to the City Council. RON MARSHALL 380 W. State Eagle, Idaho About a year ago I started out with Casa Mexico to put another restaurant some place and we wanted to look at Eagle. We met with Mr. Guho and finally came to an agreement. I was out of town when the Council passed that Master Sign Agreement but it was reported word for word what Mr. Manweiler just said. When I came back they asked me if there was going to be any problem getting a sign. I said no the Master Sign Plan is already approved there won't be a problem. The owners of Casa Mexico and Debbie and I met some time in September to pick out a sign, she drew it up and she informed us that after she gets approval it will take 30-40 days to build the sign. No matter when it gets approved we are still waiting 30-40 days. They are going to open next week and we should have had this sign all approved and done a long time ago so they could have a sign when they opened their restaurant. We haven't even got it approved yet even though we have a Master Sign Plan that in my opinion takes precedent and should have been just approved at staff level and be done because that is what the ordinance says. At least the first tenants in any of those three buildings should come in under that Master Sign Plan just as it did across the street at Richard B. Smiths. They were given a Master Sign Plan and each one went through and did it. There was practically nothing they had to do as long as you followed the Master Sign Plan. We have a situation now with Cactus Creek. She can't even get a sign up. She can't even exterior light that or do anything to tell people that she is open. Casa Mexico will stay open until 11 :00 pm at night. If they had said no interior illumination way back when that would be different but they are expecting it, it was planned on. The bottom line is that they have invested $200,000 in that building. $100,000 of it came right out of their pocket and we are playing games with an ordinance when the practical$,~ê~ôfiit is that you are killing business in this town by doing this. H, \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTBS\1997\PZO12197 .MIN 6 rry's Market practically sewed up and I can just see it coming with the new owner lding. We have to go down and go through Eagle City and by the time they get t f g g tÓlil!>e ready to move out of town. It is a good viable tenant that townw &¡1 av~f We have let this sign thing get clear out of hand. All of a en gÓback QfYo dLJÎitiawrong. To keep this town going, especially downtown, we are going to have to quit driving people away and that is the bottom line. Casa Mexico has a corner and so does Cactus Creek. They could be asking to put up four signs or two signs each and all they asked for is one out in front. Under the agreement they could have that 30% not cut down to 18% as the new ordinance says. BRADLEY: It is going to be up to us to decide which set of rules we have to follow. MAILE: I would be interested in doing some type of agreement. BRADLEY: In the long term I think that is in the best interest of everybody. I can see both sides of this. BRINTON: I have some problems with that. If I understand the law correctly. If we approve the Master Sign Plan and the signs they stay approved. If you do a Development Agreement you have the possibility of it going to City Council by appeal from staff or whoever and I'm afraid if it gets to City Council it will get denied and I don't think that is right. LEGAL COUNSEL: Whatever you do can be appealed to Council by the three entities I set out earlier. BUTLER: Personally I don't feel comfortable doing that. I would prefer that a council member, if they want to do it, let them do it as opposed to me doing it. GENERAL DISCUSSION MARK GUHO 393 W. State St. Eagle, Id My confusion revolves around the fact that back when we started the process we were told that we had to have a Master Sign Plan that would promote continuity throughout the project.. So we complied with that request. And I think we did it with quite a bit of effort. We have come to this point now and what happens 6 months from now or a year from now when another ordinance comes about, where does mY.ii~êntêr stand in a situation like that? Am I going to go back and change all of my signs? e ~hQlepJJrpose of the Master Sign Plan was to promote continuity so the Center woul ni~, uniform and keep the H, \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTBS\1997\PZO12197 . MIN 7 ',MP. As far as a meeting ground, what did you have in mind? DwE": [: . exi,lfing Ordinances the way they are today even our illuminated has' a te 'odi,fn which they are grand fathered and at that time they will . . Iw~ll; n($tan tJåty,Qu are trying to do with your center and the point is well taken. I agree with that theory that there needs to be some continuity in the whole thing. However, I think the way part of our existing Ordinance is written today, or the way we understand it, if it changes hands or lessees or ownership that those grandfather rights could go away much quicker and then the next tenant coming in would be bound by existing Ordinances. I would like to see if there is some ground where that could be worked out. GENERAL DISCUSSION ANDERSON: I think that Eagle has opened its arms to retail and commercial growth only to strangle it by narrow vision. Business identification is so crucial, especially to young, new developing business. I think there has to be some sort of a compromise with interior illuminated signs. I would say as a compromise what if the agreement was that regardless of how many times these tenants change hands within this development what if he agreed that at the end of that ten year period all illuminated signs at that time would have to conform to whatever ordinance is in effect at that time. You have so much commercial and retail growth in this area and flood lit signs are just not going to work. GUHO: I would agree with that whole hardily. Pull the plug in ten years. GENERAL DISCUSSION GUHO: You are not asking me to have all my tenants replace their signs in ten years. I would agree to pull the plug on them, cut the lights, but is an existing tenant is there with a sign I would like them to keep that sign. If a new tenant would come in then I would agree to comply to the sign ordinance that is in effect at that time. GENERAL DISCUSSION PAM DILLION The White Orchid I choose not to put a sign up even though I was approvfIJ to çJQysoþecause pf this very issue that is going on right now. Which is will we make tt1~m Ùh~'ug;'it~~will b~ make'them H, \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTBS\1997\PZOl2197 . MIN 8 it, what is the time limit, when shall we do it? I spent a great deal of time speaking other business people in Eagle. Signage is a big issue. What I can tell you is the fact t Aliens chõoses to ve illuminated signs in our City and fight the City for it 0 iously<fnea,t<b t illuminated sign causes you to have more business. As a . esSuPßfsonft:l.i.:.co ;0 that shopping area is very important to me and that is why I signed a five year lease to be there. I would hope that in the position you hold that you would understand where we as businesses stand and we need those signs and we need to work on getting businesses into Eagle. I would adhere to whatever Mark decided. But I would hope that you are fair and reasonable. FARNWORTH: I think this agreement is something that would probably help. If we went back with the Master Plan with you it would throw out our ten year program of removing all interior lit signs. With the agreement with you then that would put us in a position to where we could have the other business conform to this within the ten year period. GENERAL DISCUSSION BRINTON: A question for John. Does that need to be in a Development Agreement or can that be done in a Motion tonight. LEGAL COUNSEL: You could actually make that a condition. The applicant would agree to remove illumination in all signs at year 10 if required by the City Ordinance at that time and comply with the City Ordinance in effect at that time. All grandfather that existed at that time would also expire. That any vesting that appears to have attached to that Master Sign Plan would go away. GENERAL DISCUSSION GUHO: If I am understanding it correctly, an existing sign that is up and running at the end of the ten year period will be unplugged but will still remain. Then assuming that we have the exact City Code in place that we have right now, if a new tenant comes in for a sign then their sign will be reviewed solely under the Design Review Code that is in place. GENERAL DISCUSSION GUHO: So if we are in agreement then, what we are saying in summary is we can go ahead with the signage that is stipulated in the Master Sign Plan for the next ten years. At the end of ten years it will definitely be unplugged and if there is a change of ownership at that point in time it will be subject to all new City Ordinances MANWEILER: What they are saying is that in ten yearsflÎ'Mâsfer Sign Plan evaporates and you must comply with the then existing Code whateil~r it .tS, H, \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTBS\1997\PZO12197 .MIN 9 L DISCUSSION B N:. fac,rthat we have two applications before us tonight that are in t Bosa ing!!:!~enter it would be my recommendation that we consider for 0 prQ,val:!a r ndation tonight to consider and combine both Items #6A and 6B because they both pertain to the same thing and I think it would save time. GENERAL DISCUSSION BRINTON: Before a motion is made I would like to get on the record for clarification purposes, I am located in Bosanka Village. I am in a position in Bosanka Village where a sign will do me no good that is why I did not recuse myself tonight from any discussion and comment on the signs. We are on the back side of the Village. BRADLEY: John would that be construed as a conflict where he is located in Bosanka Village? LEGAL COUNSEL: In this case no. He has no interest in a sign. MAILE: Regarding DR-27-96 and DR-28-96, I Move that we approve proposals for signage on the basis that Applicants' properties are impacted by a Master Sign Plan and that the Master Sign Plan shall control these properties until 10 years from the date of the enactment of the new Sign Ordinance #276 as passed on September 5, 1996, with Standard Conditions of Approval and not Site Specific Conditions. The Master Sign Plan will expire at the end of that ten year period and the Master Sign Plan controls Bosanka Village and Seconded by BRINTON. BUTLER: Point of clarification. I think it would be worth while to state on Standard Condition #6 that you are waiving that requirement with regard to signage. Standard Condition #6 says any change by the applicant for planned use of the property will cause the ordinances at the time to kick in. I think you want to make it clear that you are waiving that requirement with regard to signs. MAILE: I will amend the Motion to waive Standard Requirement #6, that any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property shall require compliance with all rules, regulations and ordinances in force at the time in regard with signs and the Second agrees. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIED B. DR-28-96 Casa Mexico Sign/Idaho Electric Signs: Debbie Anderson, with Idaho Electric Signs, is requesting a design review approvål:f(!:ifâwall sign for Casa Mexico located in the Bosanka Village Shopping Center. The sit_J is loca,tedon the south side of State Street approximately 1/4 mile west of Eagle Road¡. . H, \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTBS\1997\PZO12197 . MIN 10 iri'êh qf F.. t fó~W conditional use application for Idaho Transportation artinent råvèl u. ing and hot plant operation (CU-11-96) The Zoning A. . inistr~tori$ reqyesti ssion approval of the Findings of Fact for the conditional use application submitted by Idaho Transportation Department. The site is located north of Hill Road in the newly acquired right of way, approximately 1/4 mile west of Horseshoe Bend Rd. with the 6A motion. BUTLER: Overview of meeting and Staff Report. Staff recommends approval. BRINTON: I Move that we approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on case number CU-11-96 as presented and Seconded by FARNWORTH. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIED ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: Council recommend the Land Group and they recommend approval. I believe they followed the Commissions recommendation. They had the sign modifications, remember that ordinance for the monument sign, they recommended approval just like the Commission recommended approval. They had the variance that came in from Ada County off from Trout Road. The applicant is requesting to be 50' away from the flood way line as opposed to 100' required by Ada County. Staff recommended denial. The Commission recommend approval. The Council recommended denial and it will be forwarded to Ada County. BRINTON: I noticed that they did a moratorium. Did they see the cellular applications yet. BUTLER: No they didn't. The next meeting they will see the Ada County Transmittal and they won't see the other ones for another couple of weeks. FARNWORTH: I don't want the Design Review Committee to feel that we are turning down everything that is coming to us. We want them to keep being active. We appreciate that information coming to us. I certainly want that message to go back to them so they don't feel that. BUTLER: All of the Design Review Committee Members terms had expired and the Mayor appointed four new members. Two existing members are staying on. Two members that were on will still be on, Mike Vance and Franz Witte. Jim,ilmoffay. is on and Rob Pederson is on. The Mayor is going to get another person on. H, \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTBS\1997\PZO12197 .MIN 11 oing to be looking at the McDonalds site on the 23rd. A fH~Uâêit to ow that they are happy with P&Z, what P&Z is doing. One e CoUncil is questing to change the authority for approval of Design '.ew frøooiP 1.1/ It sounds like the majority of the others are not really interested in that and they have asked John to draft some language so that a Council Member can pull something up. GENERAL DISCUSSION MOVED BY MAILE AND SECONDED BY FARNWORTH TO ADJOURN. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIED RESPECTFULLY SUBMITIED &~~~ EAGLE CITY CLERK A TRANSCRIBABLE RECORD OF THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL H, \P&Z\MBBTINGS\PLAN_ZON\MlNUTBS\1997\PZO12197 .MIN 12