Minutes - 1997 - Planning & Zoning - 09/15/1997 - Regular
ORiGiNAL
EAGLE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
MINUTES
September 15, 1997
The Planning and Zoning Commission met in regular session on September 15, 1997.
Vice Chairman Brinton presiding.
1.
CALL TO ORDER:
2. ROLL CALL: The following members were present:, DONALD BRINTON,
F ARRIN FARNWORTH, GENEVA TRENT. ABSENT: BERT BRADLEY,
COLLEEN MAILE A quorum is present.
3.
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL:
A. Minutes of September 2, 1997
Moved by Farnworth to approve the minutes of the September 2, 1997, meeting as
presented. Seconded by Trent. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES...
Farnworth moves to rearrange the public hearings to hear 5B before 5A so that the
Commission can hear the rezone before the conditional use. Seconded by Trent.
ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
4.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. DR-19-97 - Bank Club - Reconsideration of Planninl! and Zoninl! Condition on
Parapet Wall: Larrv Schwartz: Larry Schwartz is requesting Commission to
reconsider the condition which was placed on the building of the parapet wall. The
building is located on the northwest comer of State Street and 151 Street at 190 East State
Street.
Brinton introduces the item.
Larry Schwartz representing the Bank Club gives an explanation of his absence at the last
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Mr. Schwartz introduces Ms. Livingston who
will address their concerns regarding the parapet wall.
Jennifer Livingston, P.O. Box 5612 Ketchum, Idaho 83340. Ms. Livingston gives an
overview of their project and the reasoning for not continuing the parapet wall.
Discussion between Commission and Ms. Livingston to provide clarification on a few
points.
Jim Murray, 1099 N. Lopez Eagle, Idaho, Design Review Chairman. Murray gives a
detailed explanation of the Design Review Boards reasoning for their recommendations.
Page I of 8
\\Eaglel\sys\SHARED\P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-9-
15-97 minutes.doc
Comments that in restoration projects it is extremely difficult to put the same brick in the
same plane when it was built fifty years earlier. Thus the Board had recommended to
recess the building back, and accepted the smaller ornamental brick work. The Board did
not feel the extension of the parapet and its ornateness was necessary on the addition
because it was not a comer element. The racking process is extremely labor intensive and
expensive. The Board felt it would be impossible to have the two structures joined in a
manner that would make it look like the original building. Murray goes into further detail
regarding the Boards decision.
General discussion between Commission and Mr. Schwartz. Clarification on the color of
brick being used on the building. The layers of paint will be removed and the bricks will
be refurbished and restored as much as possible. Commissioner Trent expresses her
concern that the original brick not be damaged when the paint is removed. Mr. Schwartz
notes that his contractor is obtaining bids from professionals who will know how to clean
up the brick without damaging it. Mr. Schwartz also addresses Commissioner Trent's
concern about the old and new mortar expanding and contracting at different rates.
Butler gives a brief report. Butler comments on the parking requirements for this item.
Comments that he believes a reconsideration takes a motion and then the Commission has
to open the item back up.
McFadden states that it takes a motion from one of the original motion makers. In this
case in would be either Brinton or Farnworth. Brinton questions whether or not the item
needs to be reopened since it appears on the agenda. McFadden states that because it
appears on the agenda, the Commission can reconsider their decision with the additional
testimony taken tonight.
General discussion between Mr. Schwartz and Commission regarding the parapet wall to
distinguish between the old and new portions of the Bank Club.
Discussion among the Commission. Trent states that she attended the Design Review
Board meeting in which they addressed this item. She feels the parapet may be visually
pleasing but is not practical. Trent notes that the brick would be almost impossible to
match, and feel the old building should be preserved. Farnworth and Mr. Schwartz
discuss possible alternatives to the parapet. Brinton discusses alternatives with Mr.
Schwartz.
Jim Murray comments on the continuing the red brick from the bottom of the racking to
the back portion of the new building. Also comments on the old and new mortar and
current industry standards.
Clarification on Design Review condition regarding the condition that the wall being
either 3" in or out.
Pag.2oCS
\ \Eagle I \sys\SHARED\P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN- ZON\MINUTES\ Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-9-
15-97 minutes.doc
Farnworth moves to reconsider the Planning and Zoning condition on the parapet
wall for DR-19-97 Bank Club, with the condition the wall will be 3" out on the new
building, and the cap continued from the old building to the patio and then the rest
of the design as has been presented to the Commission. Seconded by Trent.
Discussion. Brinton feels the parking decision should be addressed in the motion.
(the Commission previously directed the Zoning Administrator to determine how or
if parking lot needed to be striped.) ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Chairman Brinton announced it is the time and the place for the Public Hearing.
B. RZ-5-97 Rezone - Reid Merrill: Reid Merrill is requesting a rezone from A
(agricultural) to L-O (limited office). The proposed 8-acre site is located on the back
portion of the parcel at 1125 E. State Street, approximately Yl-mile east of Eagle Road
and approximately 800-feet south of State Street. This item was continued from the
August 18, 1997 meeting.
Brinton introduces the item.
Butler notes that he has received the ACHD staff report, and the property has been
annexed into the Sewer District.
Reid Merrill, 9823 W. Secretariat Boise, Idaho gives a brief overview of the application.
Butler, applicant has applied for an LO zone under the current Comprehensive Plan, but if
the Council approves the proposed zoning ordinance this property will then be zoned
MU. If the Commission wishes to approve this item, staff recommends approval of an
MU zone if the City Council approves the zoning ordinance that allows for the MU zone,
and if Council does not approve the zoning ordinance then recommendation is for
approval of the LO zone.
Brinton expresses concern that the application was submitted under the existing zoning
and that it should be approved under those terms.
John McFadden, clarifies that what is currently before the City Council would rezone this
property as MU. So at this term there is a city initiated application pending before
Council that would make it MD. The Commission does not have to make a
recommendation that this be rezoned MU. The recommendation should be that the
property should be LO if it is not rezoned MU.
Brinton closes the public hearing.
Farnworth feels the Commission should approve this application, and this would be an
asset to the City of Eagle.
Farnworth moves to approve RZ-5-97 - Reid Merrill rezone from Agriculture to
Page 3 of 8
\\Eaglel\sys\SHARED\P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-9-
15-97 minutes.doc
Mixed Use if the existing rezone before Council is approved, and if it is not then
revert it to LO. Seconded by Trent. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
A. CU-4-97 Conditional Use - Reid Merrill: Reid Merrill is requesting a conditional use
permit to construct a 47,800 sq. ft. indoor recreational center. The proposed 8-acre site is
located on the back portion of the parcel at 1125 E. State Street, approximately Y2-mile
east of Eagle Road and approximately 800-feet south of State Street. This item was
continued from the August 18, 1997 meeting.
Brinton introduces the item.
Reid Merrill, 9823 W. Secretariat Boise, Idaho. Mr. Merrill gives an overview of his
project and the elements which it will contain.
The Zoning Administrator, recommends approval with the standard conditions of
approval and five site specific conditions. Butler discusses light pollution and how the
Commission may wish to address it in regards to this application. Brinton asks the
current spacing of lighting down State Street. Butler states that it is 50 to 75 feet.
Farnworth questions the purpose of all of the lighting. Butler and Farnworth discuss the
lighting options.
Discussion between Commission and Reid Merrill. Reid Merrill discusses the proposed
sidewalk and its placement. Merrill also comments on his progress towards reaching an
agreement with the Drainage District No.2.
Brinton closes the public hearing.
Discussion among Commission. Farnworth feels all of the necessary issues have been
addressed and would like to approve this application. General discussion regarding the
lighting issue.
Farnworth moves to approve CU-4-97 for Reid Merrill for the construction of with
standard and site specific recommendations and the additional condition that
lighting be consistent and be approved by the City Engineer. Seconded by Trent.
ALL AYE.. . MOTION CARRIES.
6.
NEW BUSINESS:
A. DR- 7-97 - Promotional Billboard Sien for Downtown Eae:le - Todd Taylor: Todd
Taylor, with Young Electric Sign Company, is requesting design review approval for a
Chamber of Commerce billboard sign to promote downtown Eagle. The sign is proposed
to be located on the property at 1871 McGrath Road (property abuts the south side ofthe
alternate route), approximately 1000-feet east of the intersection of State Highway 44
(alternate route) and East State Street (extension of Edgewood Lane).
Brinton introduces the item.
Page 4 of 8
\\Eaglel\sys\SHARED\P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-9-
15-97 minutes.doc
Bill Dietz, 673 W. Fordam Dr. Eagle, Idaho, Chairman of Economic Development for
Chamber of Commerce. Dietz summaries the history of this project and provides an
overview of this application. Goes into detail regarding the process the Chamber of
Commerce has gone through to come up with the proposed sign. Notes that perhaps the
off site signage aspect of this sign is the most difficult for any of the bodies (Board,
Commission, Council) to approve. At a meeting last week, the Economic Development
Committee decided perhaps a sign which is sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce,
needed a new partner. That partner could be the City of Eagle, then perhaps the sign
would be more appropriate. Chamber of Commerce has not made a motion to withdraw
their request, they would like to see their project through to the end. But would like to
work from now until they meet with the Council, hopefully next week, on some specific
language on a proposal to make it a City driven sign. Dietz notes that they do have
design issues of a 14x48 sign, it is located out on the bypass but they do recognize that it
falls outside of all of all of the sign criteria. Chamber is currently addressing the
landscape requirements made by Butler (per City ordinance).
The Zoning Administrator gives a staff report. Butler gives back ground on this project.
Eagle's Downtown Development Committee recommended six point of entry signs and
their locations. The location of the proposed sign is close to one of the recommended
locations. The final language in the ordinance was ultimately to provide an entry
statement with a sign that is simple in design, with landscaping. Butler feels that to say
that there is a code which says you cannot do this sign based upon size or location would
be wrong because the city left it open for interpretation. The staff report makes
comparisons with the size of the sign, and takes into consideration what is allowed for a
business in town Staff felt this (application) was far and above what would be allowed
for a single business. Staff did feel it was too large. The billboard portion is well over
600 square feet, it is twenty five feet in height. Butler realizes that businesses desire large
signs, but feels a smaller sign could still be seen. Feels the size is larger than may be
needed. Relates the size of this sign with several signs entering Las Vegas located a
couple hundred feet from the edge of Interstate 15 where people are traveling 70 miles
per hour.
Butler displays overheads of the sign and scale representations of people and a semi truck
beside the sign to help establish a visual perspective of the size of the sign for the
Commission. Butler addresses the issue of it being an off premise sign because it
advertises 3 businesses. Points out that off premise signs are illegal per Eagle City Code.
Butler discusses the process the Chamber of Commerce is using to decide which business
will be displayed on the billboard. Again, this off premise sign would be illegal
according to the Eagle City Code. Butler discusses the possible problem with business
owners wishing to place an off premises sign, similar to the one proposed by Chamber of
Commerce. If these individuals are not members of the Chamber of Commerce and do
not have the opportunity to advertise on their sign, it could be construed as favoritism if
one group is authorized by the City to place off site signage and another is denied
especially when it is currently, clearly illegal per Eagle City Code. City staff could
Page 5 of 8
\ \Eagle 1 \sys\SHARED\P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN - ZON\MINUTES\ Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-9-
15-97 minutes.doc
encounter a great deal of grief if the sign is allowed, since it is a violation of code.
Butler comments on possible options to the problem, other cities have developed an off
premise sign corridor, with certain criteria. Staff recommends denial based upon their
idea that the size is far in excess of what would be needed and what is currently allowed
in businesses in town, and upon the fact that it is an off premise sign and is prohibited per
Code. Staff felt there are other signs which could be designed to meet the intent of the
code and needs of the business community.
Discussion amongst the Commission. Trent feels that for those who are familiar with the
area the sign may not seem necessary, but if you have someone who is unfamiliar with
the area the sign would be needed. If there is a semi between you and sign you would
need a very large sign. Trent feels an entry sign would help Eagle.
Farnworth feels Eagle needs something out there. He feels the Commission should be
consistent with what the City Code says, regardless of whether or not the Code needs to
be changed is not the issue. The issue is follow the Code as it exist now. If the Design
Review Board has stated that it is not according to the Design Review Code then the
Commission should honor that. Farnworth questions whether or not there has been a
slump in business sales, after the initial drop from traffic downtown. Comments that
three businesses that did go out of business really had little to do with the bypass. He
likes the "Visit Old Historic Eagle" portion of the sign, but dislikes the three businesses
having the opportunity to advertise over other businesses in the community. Farnworth
questions whether or not the City should be involved. Perhaps they (the City) should
finance a portion of it since they were the ones who created the situation which allowed
the bypass to go in. The City needs to take responsibility for some of the decisions which
have been made and will be made in the future. The sign seems to be too large. If they
place one on Edgewood do they need to place one on Eagle Road and on Ballantyne Road
also, since you have people coming from all directions. You will have more and more
people coming in to put up billboard signs. Farnworth does not like the direction this
could take, because if you approve one you have to approve the others.
Brinton notes that he had been close to this project as it has been developed. Feels there
is a problem with the off premise signs, and would feel much more comfortable if it was
sponsored by Eagle City and the Chamber of Commerce. If you had this, perhaps the
sign wouldn't need to be as large as proposed in this application. In regards to the three
sponsors, if they are needed for the financing of the sign, the advertisement signs need to
be large enough so that can be seen. If the sign is merely to direct people to Historic
downtown and it is sponsored by Eagle City and Eagle Chamber of Commerce the sign
would perhaps not need to be as large. Brinton is reluctant to release something to City
Council where it is the Commissions responsibility to make a decision. Normally he
would suggest Chamber come back to the Commission after they have approached the
City with the sponsorship issue. Brinton also notes that in order for the sign to be
effective it needs to be up before the holiday season so it can help bring business to
Eagle. Brinton would also like to address the fact that he knows the only reason Chamber
Page6of 8
\\Eaglel\sys\SHARED\P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-9-
15-97 minutes.doc
is getting the price on that particular sign, is that the sign company intends to come back
and would like to put a sign on the opposite side. He feels this may cause major
problems.
Mr. Dietz provides clarification on Brinton's last statement. After speaking with Todd
Taylor last week, Mr. Dietz specifically asked that if this sign were never to get an
approval on the other side would they be force economically to fold up your tent and
cease negotiations. Mr. Taylor responded that they would still go forward with the sign,
they would not change the rent structure in the lease proposal, they would tilt the sign
slightly that it has still just as much visibility from westbound traffic, but it would clearly
be a one sided sign forever. Dietz notes that this statement has not been put in writing
from Young Electric Sign Company.
Brinton feels that based on the facts presented to the Commission, the only thing that can
be done is denial. Perhaps they should move forward with denial and the reasons why
while also recognizing the need for a sign of this type.
Farnworth questions if Chamber of Commerce has considered placing the sign on the
north side of the road, perhaps the sign would not need to be as large. Also notes that the
process could be moved along faster if the application is denied, then the applicant could
appeal to Council, rather than requesting the applicant touch base with the City of Eagle
regarding sponsorship and then return to the Commission. Farnworth feels that in this
case needs to be taken to Council because they were the ones who approved the final
ordinances regarding signage.
Farnworth moves to deny DR- 7-97 Promotional Billboard Sign for Downtown Eagle
because of the condition as presented by Staff, the sign does not meet the City Code
in size, and off premise signage. Seconded by Trent. ALL AYE...MOTION
CARRIES.
B. DR-15-97 - Indoor Recreational Center - Reid Merrill: Reid Merrill is requesting
design review approval for a 47,800 sq. ft. indoor recreational center to be located on the
back portion ofthe parcel at 1125 E. State Street. The 8-acre site is approximately 12-
mile east of Eagle Road and approximately 800-feet south of State Street. This item was
continuedfrom the September 18, 1997 meeting.
Brinton introduces the item.
Reid Merrill, 9823 W. Secretariat Boise, Idaho. They have met all of the requirements of
the Design Review Board. Merrill discusses how he has addressed the requirements of
the Design Review Board.
Butler provides a staff report. Gives an overview of Staffs recommendations. Butler
recommends approval with Design Review conditions and Staff conditions.
Trent moves to approve DR-15-97 subject to the Design Review Board conditions
Page7of 8
\ \Eagle I \sys\SHARED\P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN- ZON\MINUTES\ Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-9-
15-97 minutes.doc
and Staff standard conditions and site specific conditions. Seconded by Farnworth.
Discussion. ALL A YE...MOTION CARRIES.
7.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT:
Butler notes that Colleen Maile has submitted a letter of resignation. Butler believes that
Mayor Yzaguirre will try to find someone to represent the Area of Impact.
Comments that there is a Joint meeting between Council and the Commission scheduled
for September 16, 1997 at 7:00 p.m.
Butler also notes that city staff would like to discontinue calling each Commissioner as
soon as their packets are ready to be picked up. Packets will always be ready by 4:30
p.m. the Wednesday before the Commission meeting.
Farnworth directs a question to the City Attorney regarding the Sewer District. McFadden
notes that city could make annexation conditional or enter into a joint powers agreement
with the Sewer District, so that neither entity can complete their annexation process
without the other entity having completed their annexation process. So that the Sewer
District won't include into annex unless it is in the City, and City won't annex unless it in
the Sewer District. The difficulty is that the city has grown significantly faster than the
Sewer District, in terms of area. There is also still a lot of area that is eligible for septic
tanks that would not otherwise be in the Sewer District. Further discussion between
Commission, Butler, and McFadden.
8. ADJOURNMENT:
Moved by Farnworth. Seconded by Trent to adjourn. ALL AYE...MOTION
CARRIES...
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED: ,_tltmuolit-,
~ 0 F J;; /'. "",
,d"\. .{~.."
\ c'" '.~"""."'o. ~"Þ>'..
~ .."",~~...
hJl (~q ....- k . /,o..'OR~,. \' ~
-' \ ~,~."" 'f$>.."
SHARON K. SMITH ~ '(ft.;; , _.~- ;,t; ~
CITY CLERK/TREASURER '~~'.. \\~:,~EA.L¿::i i
~ to. ~..c,~, , "".¡' ::
~,Q ,'). ci'~')~:.'1-\-;i.,?¡." :"\ ,;.'
"',',,4.. If".,,:(~," " J',',' "
'~, '-(,.." " "".¡.~
.,'J;:""','~ì~'~' ..~
"-.... '..1.': '-'~1......,
'~",,"""."
APPROVED:
C;¿t ~
DON BRINTON
VICE CHAIRMAN
Page 8 of 8
\\Eagle1\sys\SHARED\P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-9-
15-97 minutes.doc