O I
Boise City Hall, 2nd Floor
150 N. Capitol Boulevard
C 0.Box 500
Boise, Idaho 83701.0500
Phone: 208/3&1-3830
Fax: 208/384-3753
TDDITTY: 800/377-3529
Website: www.cityoloise.org/pds
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Boise City Council
FROM:
Hal Simmons
Planning Director
Boise City Planning and Development Services Department
DATE:
August 30,2006
RE:
CAR06-00033
Capital City Development Corporation
Zoning Ordinance Amendment Section 11-11-06 and 11-11-08
C-5 District
H
g
The following application has been scheduled to be heard by the Boise City Council on Tuesday
September 19, 2006 at 6 0 0 pm.
Capital City Development Corporation (CCDC) requests approval o f a Zoning Ordinance
Amendment to Chapter 11-1 1-06 & 11-1 1-08 regarding standards for portable signs in the C-5
(Central Business) Zoning District (CAR06-00033).
During a public hearing on August 7, 2006, the Boise City Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval of CAR06-00033 based on staffs recommended ordinance amendment
with one modification. Staffs recommendation was modified by the Planning and Zoning
Commission to increase the maximum size of the portable signs to be 7-square feet as opposed to
staffs recommendation of 6-square feet.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary
Minutes f?om August 7, 2006 Planning Commission Public Hearing
Boise City Planning and Zoning Commission Action Letter
Application
Staff Report
Map of the C-5 Zoning District
Pictures of Various Sign in the Downtown Area
Agency Comments
Correspondence f?om the Public
CAR06-00033
Zoning Ordinance Amendment in the C-5 Zone
September 19, 2006
SUMMARY
The current Boise City Zoning Ordinance ~rohibitsportable signs in all zoning districts
e 2006, the capital city~ e v e l o ~ h e Corporation
nt
submitted
including the C-5 zone.. On ~ u n 6,
an application to the City of Boise requesting a zoning ordinance amendment that would allow
portable signs to be located on the sidewalks within the C-5 zoning district.
The C-5 zoning district is located within the City o f Boise's downtown w r e and is primarily
bound by State Street, River Street, 13Ih Street and 4@'Street and is more clearly defined in
attached map. This area is unique in the fact that many of the buildings located within this area
are built adjacent to the property line. This type of building placement does not have the
opportunity to provide signage on the property, leaving the sidewalk as the only available area
for accessory signage.
Staff recommends that the City o f Boise adopt a modified version o f the proposed zoning
ordinance amendment. The modified version of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment
enhances and clarifies the standards for portable signs located within the C-5 zone.
Staff believes that the modified version o f the proposed zoning ordinance amendment recognizes
the uniqueness of the C-5 zoning district, provides standards that will allow merchants within the
C-5 zone to obtain accessory signage to increase their presence within the area, while
complimenting the character of the active downtown area and maintaining the safety of
individuals utilizing the City o f Boise's downtown area.
ACTION BY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval o f the proposed Zoning
Ordinance Amendment on August 7, 2006 with a three to 2 vote in favor of a modified version
of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment.
MAJOR ISSUES
The Planning and Zoning Commission had three main wncerns:
1. We currently have an ordinance that prohibits signs, yet it is not enforceable. Is the
proposed ordinance enforceable?
2. What is the potential number o f signs that could arise in the downtown area? Will there
be a mass of signs that create clutter?
3. Is there a way that we can include the basement users as well?
August 8,2006
Capitol City Development Corporation
Mike Hall
805 W. Idaho, Ste. 403
Boise, ID 83702
Re:
CAR06-00033
Dear Mr. Hall:
This letter is to inform you of the action taken by the Boise City Planning and
Zoning Commission on your request for approval of a Zoning Ordinance
Amendment to Chapter 1 1-1 1-06 & 1 1- 11-08 regarding standards for portable
signs in the C-5 (Central Business) Zoning Districts.
The Boise City Planning and Zoning Commission, at their meeting on
August 7, 2006, recommended to the Mayor and the Boise City Council,
approval of the request based on the attached Reasons for the Decision.
This application will be considered by the Boise City Council to establish a public
hearing date. You will be notified of the established hearing date.
If you have any questions, please contact this department at (208) 384-3830.
Sincerely,
Andrea Tunng
Planning Analyst I1
Boise City Planning and Development Services Department
Attachment
CAR06-00033
Page 2 of 2
Reasons for the Decision
The adoption of the modified version of the zoning ordinance amendment is not
in conflict with the goals, objectives and policies of the Boise City Comprehensive
Plan or the Downtown Boise Plan. Furthermore, the adoption of the modified
version of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment will provide standards that
will increase the presence of the downtown merchants, will compliment the
character of the downtown area and will maintain the public health, safety and
welfare of individuals within the City of Boise.
-
A
Boise City Planning & Development Services
1 5 0 N. Capitol Blvd
Phone 208/384-3830
P 0 Box 5 0 0
=
Fox 384-3753
Boise, Idaho 83701-0500
9
www.cityofbo~seorg/pds
Planning & Zoning Commission
Hearing Minutes of
August 7,2006
Commission Members
Present
Gene FadnessIChairman, Brandy WilsonNice-Chairman, Doug
Cooper, Brian Ellsworth & Amber Van Ocker.
Staff Members Present
Andrea Tuning Carl Miller, Scott Spjute, Vicki Van Vliet & Mary
Watson (Legal).
CAR06-00033/Capitol City Development Corp.
AMEND SECTlONS 1 1-1 1-06 AND 1 1-1 1-08 OF THE BOISE CITY CODE REGARDING
STANDARDS FOR PORTABLE SIGNS IN THE C-5 ZONlNG DISTRICT.
Andrea Tuning presented the staff report with a recommendation o f approval and that the signs
be no larger than 6 sq. ft. Read 3 letters of correspondence into the record: (1) an internal memo
f?om Mike GamerlCode Enforcement; (2) letter from the Bardenay Restaurant in support of the
amendment: and (3) a memo fiom Colliers International in opposition to the amendment.
Mike Hall (Applicant1805 W. IdahoISte. 4031Boise) - We started looking at this issue in 2003.
We had discussed this with various departments of the City and also the Ada County Highway
District and we held an open house in April in which 300 downtown businesses were invited.
We had a few people attend that and we received some comments, all which were positive. One
person mentioned that they didn't particularly like the look of the signs. I'd like to address the
conditions under which this code amendment is being proposed. One premise of this code
amendment is that portable signs, A-frame and T-frame signs, they are not necessarily just going
to go away. They've been prohibited for as long as I've been in Boise. I started working at the
City in 1994 and they were prohibited then and they've been prohibited since. You'll notice that
you see a lot of these signs and they've become an acceptable part of downtown. My
understanding is that even if they are continued to be prohibited, it's not Iikely that prohibition
will be enforced effectively. That's not a criticism of anybody. It's not a criticism o f the City.
It's not a criticism of the Code Enforcement Staff. It's very difficult to enforce sign standards
when the sign standards are not seen as reasonable or fair by the people that have to live by them.
It's a big job to try to enforce that prohibition. What we've found and if we ever hear a
complaint about portable signs, it's not that they're there, it's that they are in the way. They are
in the pedestrian zone of the sidewalk. One thing about downtown is that the sidewalks are a lot
wider than they are outside of downtown. Generally they are at least 12 ft. wide curb to
Boise City Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes of
August 7,2006
Page 2
building. Within that area there is what we call a furnishing zone which is where the trees and
the historic street lights are located and there's a building kontage zone which is just adjacent to
the building. The area between where the tree grade is and the building kontage zone is
typically over 6 ft. wide. Quite often it's about 8 ft. When you have a sidewalk that has not been
improved you still have this width in a lot of cases and you have the area called the furnishing
zone. The way that this code amendment works is that it would allow someone to place a sign
(here) or (here). There are also standards in there that would require that the sign be placed so it
is in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. That was a key concern of ACHD
and we have addressed that through this code amendment. From our ~tirspectivewhat the code
amendment does is it allows the city to more affectively control where the signs are located,
where they are placed on the sidewalk. We think this is vast improvement over what we have
today. It's a lot easier for a City Code Enforcement Officer and for all of us to tell a business
owner to move their sign instead of telling them their sign has to go away or to confiscate their
sign. That's really the premise behind this. One of the issues that staff mentioned was the size.
The changes that staff has made and that they are recommending, they're logical, they're well
reasoned, they make a lot of sense. In some cases they are not as practical as we think they could
be and that's where that size comes in. We do not want the City to adopt a code that excludes a
lot of businesses and renders their signage illegal. That gets us to the other issue and that is
which businesses would qualify for the sign. Where the staff has landed on this we think is a
pretty good compromise, however there are some businesses out there that are in basement
locations. They even have their only entrance on the street in some cases. The way it's proposed
by staff is that those businesses would not be able to have a sign on the sidewalk. Another issue
is where the sign can be located. We had originally proposed that you have one sign per
entrance. Our thought was that there wouldn't be two entrances on one kontage. If there is it's
going to be a very large business and the entrances are going to be so far away it's not going to
be a problem. 1 think where staff had an issue with this is that it's hard to define what an
entrance is. Sometimes you have two doors that are side-by-side. But I think if you allow a
business to have one sign per kontage and maybe even limit it up to two kontages that might
address some of the needs out there. CCDC has used these signs. A number of our garages have
entrances on 2 streets. The entrances are hard to fmd because we don't put a big sign on the
sidewalk. We have done that but they are not very effective and they are pretty obtrusive. These
small signs work effectively to provide driver direction.
Karren Sander (Downtown Boise Assocationi720 W. IdahoIBoise)
A-kame signs in the
Downtown Boise urban core have been a long-term practice. I thank the Boise Staff for
understanding that this is a part of the vitality of downtown and it really does help the businesses
down here. Currently A-kame signs are used by the majority ofthe retail restaurant and service
locations in the downtown core. We really would like to accommodate up to 8 sq. ft. because
many of the signs do fall within that size perimeter. In a highly competitive environment these
signs are a vital tool to promote the businesses and products of our downtown businesses.
According to the Small Business Administration, and understanding the value of signage,
signage is a critical component of visibility and without properIy designed and placed signage, a
commercial site cannot function at its full economic potential. Signage develops a memory for a
-
Boise City Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes of
August 7,2006
Page 3
location and products or services. It reinforces a memory and extends recall of other advertising
efforts. It attracts new customers by promoting first time or impulse visits. It modifies customer
purchase decisions, for example many of our restaurants will do a special of the day. I would
really like to promote that we do have A-kame signs in the C-5 district. It's important to our
businesses and if we can accommodate the size and our basement locations and some of the
upper flow locations as well it will be highly helpful to many of these small businesses.
Commissioner Fadness
B~PP.
-
For the record we have received a letter from Andrae and Michelle
Andrae Bopp (816 W. BannocWBoise/83702/Chef & Owner of Andrka's Restaurant) - I'm
writing this letter to you as a business owner in downtown Boise who will be negatively
impacted by your proposed change in the Sign Ordinance. In the A u y s t 5th addition of the
ldaho Statesman it was mentioned that businesses that are not at street level may not have any
street signage. Since my business is the lower level of our building. this would have an extreme
negative impact on our business. I feel that this would be discriminatory to businesses that are
not at street level but still need some way to direct traffic to their place of business. I f w e did not
have a sign on the sidewalk people walking by would have no idea that we have a business in the
building that we are in. Our sign that we have does not advertise any specials or sales, just
merely a directional sign with an arrow letting passersby know that they would need to go
downstairs into our business. Our sign is professionally made of metal, very attractive and in no
way detracts kom the building nor is in any way causing pedestrian flow problems in front of
our building. I would like to add that our sign falls somewhat within the guidelines of that 7 sq.
ft. that they are talking about. What 1 would propose is that existing non-street level businesses
be allowed to have signage that would fall within the guidelines adopted through a grandfathertype clause. Since this ordinance would be put in place after non-street level businesses have
already purchased, leased or rented the space that they are in, I feel that this would be only fair
and reasonable. I believe that this allowance would only affect very few businesses in
downtown. The opposite side to this would be those businesses having to close their doors and
leaving the downtown corridor that you are so desperately trying to promote.
Larry Allen (349 N. 3 0 ' ~St.lBoisel83702) - I'm a project director for the American Red Cross of
the Greater Idaho Chapter for disaster relief We are on the 2"* floor above Cafk Ole. We have
not had signs up as of yet but the biggest challenge we face is we are increasing our health and
safety courses. a lot of disaster relief training and the CPR classes. People are having a heck of
time finding us. The signs we would like to put up would be for the evenings when people are
coming to the classes, directional signage. This would be very important to us because it's a
serious situation. We've had half of our classes not show up because they cannot find us. We're
very limited on what else we can do. We've already got one sign on the 81h Street side wh~chis
hard to see and is not Ilt and in the evening is pretty tough to see. This would be a huge help for
us.
Boise City Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes of
August 7, 2006
Page 4
Larry Babich (General Manager of Mai Tai Restaurant1750 W. IdaholBoisel83702) We have
noted that our A-bame does work for us. We often get comments from customers, especially out
of town that will come walking into the restaurant and didn't know we were there except for the
sign that we placed outside. I'm very open minded as far as any kind of amendment to the size
and placement. I did have a question on the proposed amendment and that is 1 think it noted that
the signage has to be directIy in front of the restaurant. Is that true?
-
Perry AlIen (Owner of Basement Gallery1928 W. Main St.lBoisel83703) - I concur with what
everyone has said. I've been in my location for 10 years now. A sign is awesome. l'tn in a
basement also. It helps a great deal to have something at street level to help direct people. In my
particular building which is the Idanha, there's 4 other entities in there and we all have A-frame
slgns of sotne sort or beestanding or mobile. That's 4 businesses and we've never had a problem
with one another nor with our patrons nor with people trying to walk up and down the sidewalk.
It's a shock to me that this even surfaced because I had no idea that it was prohibited and that
they could be removed at any time.
Commissioner Fadness
-
So each of those 4 businesses has their own separate sign out?
Mr. Allen - Yes.
Commissioner Fadness Are you okay with the 6 ft. size recommended by the City's staft?
-
Mr. Allen - That's pretty small when you are talking square footage. 8 ft. is probably a
minimum and in our area alone I would say the majority are at least 8 sq. ft.
Commissioner Fadness
-
So your current signs are 8 fi. or larger?
Mr. Allen Yes. Ours all vary a great deal. lothStreet probably has the largest one which was
also up on the overhead. I believe Bombay may only be 2 or 3 sq. It. but they also attach to it
their menu items so it does expand and become a little larger sign when they attach those items.
-
Commissioner Fadness - Is 6 ft. something you could live with?
Mr. Allen - I'd work with most anything as long as it's not prohibited completely or removed.
I still say the ideal is at least a minimum of 8 sq. ft. Anything smaller than that, if you are trying
to put text on it, it becomes harder and harder to read.
Valerie Hanson (404 S. 8"' St.lBoisel83702) I am on the main level. I've had a sign out on the
hmishing zone since we opened. We were asked by our property management company to
remove our sign and I saw a dramatic difference in business. We do not get the foot traffic
within the building on the main level that we had with our signs out there. We had one sign put
together by another business that is in the basement level that listed more shops inside. That was
removed. It is very important to each of us that we continue as small businesses. I think that the
-
Boise City Planning &Zoning Commission
Minutes of
August 7,2006
Page 5
6 sq. ft. is plenty. 1 just had my logo and an arrow directing people where to go because
otherwise they wouldn't normally see that there is a doorway. As business owners we really
need these signs and I think if we can keep them within the hrnishing zone, it allows enough
space for wheelchairs by people walking their dogs.
Commissioner Fadness Did your property manager cite as a reason to remove the sign was the
violation of this ordinance. was that the reason?
-
Ms. Hanson -Yes. That is the reason they issued a letter on May 12, 2006 asking us to remove
our signs. They gave us until May1 9th at which time we pushed it. We all kind o f left our signs
out there hoping that maybe they forgot. As of June 1"' they enforced it. We were forced to
bring our signs in. All o f the businesses that I've talked to, there is a hair salon, another gifi
shop, a studio, they've also had a decline in their business.
Commissioner Fadness - And you have reason to believe that that's the only reason and if the
ordinance were changed to allow the signs you'd be okay to put the signs back up.
Ms. Hanson - Yes. In speaking with people when they come in, I have to admit right now I'm
not in compliance with the ordinance. I have my sign out there. In talking to people, we would
have never know this cool shop was in here if we didn't see your sign. They are very forward
about this and you can ask the people that come in for a hair cut that are just walking in off the
street. If the salon didn't have their sign out there they wouldn't have known they were there.
Commissioner WiIson - Mr. Babich had asked whether or not the ordinance requires that the
sign be directly in front ofthe business. I'm just wondering if the answer is yes or no.
Mr. Babich - I tried to place the sign where there is the most traffic. Our frontage is basically
the destination for the buses downtown. 1 haven't had much luck with the signs right directly in
front of the building so I've been placing it down at the corner of 8Ih and Idaho streets and have
had better luck there. There's more traffic at the intersection.
Ms. Tuning - The Sign Ordinance, as it ha5 been proposed by staff to the Commission, does
require that the sign be placed directly in front of the building of where the business is located.
All signs on comers would be prohibited because those would be specifically located within the
vision triangle and all signage has been virtually eliminated through the proposed Zoning
Ordinance amendment that we have before you tonight.
Commissioner Fadness This is something that hasn't been enforced until just recently and I'm
not sure what the reason for that is. Now that there are proposed changes to the ordinance,
including the size of the sign and where the sign can be placed, can we anticipate with
confidence that this will be enforced?
-
Boise City Planning &Zoning Commission
Minutes of
August 7,2006
Page 6
Ms. Tuning I'm unable to answer that question. We are forced to rely on our overworked and
understaffed Code Enforcement Staff. Often times they don't enforce items unless it is a specific
call-in complaint basis. Once a call is received they will go out and investigate and issue a case
study and we'll have a resolution based on that. Without those complaints or call-ins we just
don't have Code Enforcement Officers that go out. Much of the time they are forced to walk
down the road with blinders on not enforcing all ofthe codes that the City currently has.
-
Commissioner Wilson Were there any other alternatives that were considered besides just the
temporary A-frame signs, for example maybe placing permanent frames in the furnishing zone
that could be leased out to certain businesses or perhaps amending the Sign Ordinance in the C-5
district to allow signs that jet out from the building a little bit so for example for those who have
basement locations or locations that are interior with other businesses there would be at least
something sticking out from the building advertising the other business. Were there any other
alternatives that you looked at besides just replacing one problem with another for Code
Enforcement?
-
Ms. Tuning - We did take a look at a fast majority of signs. Our current Sign Ordinance does
allow wall and building mounted signs. So those are all allowable under certain conditions under
the current ordinance. We did take a look at the size. We looked at height. We looked at a
number of different things and we actually implemented an option that if there are a number of
businesses or even perhaps there's one business but there's several basement businesses or
upstairs businesses that are interested in on-street signage, we've given them the option that in
lieu of every frontage business having a sign. that we could put up one sign which would be
limited to 6 sq. ft. and the materials that are required by the Zoning Ordinance. But in lieu of all
those multiple signs they could have a directory signage that could identify the business, provide
an error, those types of things. There are some options for those businesses that are located in
the basement or on upper stories.
Commissioner Cooper in our packet some of the most detailed information was actually from
Code Enforcement Staff. We didn't hear from them tonight and 1 see Mike Meloy sitting here.
Would he be interested in telling us anything?
-
Mr. Meloy
-
Indicated he just came to the meeting to listen.
Commissioner Fadness How did staff arrive at 6 ft.? It seems it comes just under what some
people think is more acceptable of 8 ft. 1s staffpretty firm about that?
-
Ms. Tuning - Mike Hall from CCDC and 1 took about a 2-hour jaunt through the downtown
area. We literally took our tape measure and measured various signs that we came across. We
looked at some of the more v~suallyappealing signs that didn't have a lot of text and what was
adequate. When you really look at pictures and when a pictures of when a person stands next to
them an 8 sq. ft. sign is very, very, very large. Originally CCDC had proposed 10 sq. ft. I asked
them to look at something more along the lines of 6 sq. ft. They agreed to compromise at 8 sq.
Boise City Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes of
August 7,2006
Page 7
fl. I really do, based on the pictures, believe that 6 sq. fl. is adequate. We don't want to end up
with clutter. We don't want something that's going to be within the vision triangle. We don't
want something that's going to impede any type of visibility issues. The signs are not intended
for vehicular traffic. They really are for a pedestrian purpose and they are located within a
pedestrian zone. With the 6 sq. fl. we really believe that should be an adequate size.
Commissioner Ellsworth - Could staff comment on the businesses that are on the street level
versus the businesses that are in the basement or above the first level? It seems a bit
discriminatory to me and some of those basement ones might actually need the sign more than
the street-level one. What are the City's thoughts on that? It seems to me this could get
completely out of hand if every business in downtown throws out a 6 sq. fi. A-kame sign. That
would be clutter. 1 saw Collier's letter and I agree with that. There is a fine line here and 1 was
just wondering if staff could comment on that.
Ms. Tuning - There really is a fme line. Mike Hall and I really sat down and had our discussion.
We talked about a lot of these issues on our walk throughout the downtown area. To eliminate
the clutter, we really did look at how we can do that. How can we maintain the viability of the
businesses downtown. One of the ideas that arose from our discussion was typically users that
have a window kontage and that are on ground floor levels, they pay much higher lease rates.
When they negotiate those leases people that are either in the basement or they are internal their
lease rate reflects that and they know that they know that they are not going to have the visibility
that a window street kontage would. We really had to look at that but we did not want to
discriminate against anyone and that's why we did implement in lieu of having multiple signs
that we could have the directory sign. So that option was still available to those individuals if
signage did need to occur, then that was an option that they could take.
Commissioner Ellsworth So that would be in the form of an A-frame directory sign that might
include one tenant in the basement and one tenant above or multiple tenants.
-
Ms. Tuning
-
Or however that civil agreement came about, yes
Commissioner Ellsworth - That would go through the landlord? How would that work?
Ms. Tuning It would be processed specifically as a sign application to us so we would certainly
go out and inspect, take a look at if there are other signs or if we have issued signs for this
building in other areas. If not, then we would probably need to contact those individuals within
that and tell them we had an application for a directory sign. An important fact to know is that
all signs require the written review and approval of the City of Boise, CCDC as well as the Ada
County Highway District to insure compliance.
-
Commissioner Ellsworth - Even the A-frame signs?
Boise City Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes of
August 7,2006
Page 8
Ms. Tuning
Correct. Every sign within the C-5 zone that's proposed with the Zoning
Ordinance amendment would require the written approval of those 3 entities.
-
Commissioner Ellsworth - So the directory sign could be an A-fiarne sign sitting on the street
right next to another sign that's an A-fiame sign.
Ms. Tuning
-
If it's a different building it certainly could.
Mr. Hall One thing that I did not mention fbr the record is this part of the proposed ordinance
that requires written approval &om ACHD. One thing that we see that is a more practical
approach to doing this is ACHD granting some type of agreement so they would not have to
individually approve each sign. We are discussing that with the ACHD Staffand hopefully we'll
have some more information on that by the time this goes to the City Council. The State law
requires ACHD to approve anything in their right-of-way so that will be addressed one way or
another. About the Colliers letter that you received, they are the property manager of Bodo in
the gth Street Marketplace. They try to manage that somewhat like a shopping mall. That's a
good thing in a lot ofways. It doesn't work entirely like a shopping mall because the streets are
public. In a shopping mall the travel ways are private. There's some difficulty there. Obviously
there are some tenants of Bodo that want to be able to use A-fiame signs.
-
Commissioner Fadness - We did receive a letter fiom Rachel Vanderland of Colliers who is in
opposition to the ordinance and Kevin Settles who is in favor ofthe ordinance.
Karren Sanders - Staff had mentioned that this is signage that is not for vehicular traffic to see.
As we become a more pedestrian environment downtown this is absolutely for a pedestrian
environment. The current signage on many o f the sides of these buildings is either blocked by
trees andlor the signs are horizontal so you cannot see any of the signage alongside a street face.
These A-kame signs are critical for way fmding and directional signage even more so than just
naming the business. We recommend that the 8 sq. fi. be accommodated or looked into because
there are some since quality signs that are a little larger than the 6 sq. fl. example and 1 would
hate to think ofthe expense of a small business to have to recreate a quality sign again. I think it
would be worth looking into for some of these signs that are already in existence that exceed the
6 sq. fl. that staff is recommending.
COMMISSIONER ELLSWORTH MOVED TO APPROVE CAR06-33.
COMMISSIONER COOPER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Commissioner Ellsworth - I'm not sure it's perfect or entirely enforceable but I'm willing to go
ahead and give it try. I guess we can see how it works. I'm a little worried we'll end up with a
lot of signs down there. a lot of clutter. I was thinking about the idea of maybe raising the 6 sq.
ft. to 7 sq. fl. as a compromise and I'm willing to hear other commissioners' point of view on
that as well since we did hear t?om the public that maybe 6 is too small. I was also considering
Boise City Planning &Zoning Commission
Minutes of
August 7,2006
Page 9
adopting some language that allowed anybody to put a sign out there, but 1 think after the
explanation, I'm willing to leave the language alone on that one.
Commissioner Van Ocker I'm wondering if the maker of the motion is considering the revised
modified version that staffhas presented?
-
Mr. Ellsworth- Correct.
Commissioner Van Ocker - This is a tough one. 1 think we have to he really careful about how
we are going to adopt this because I think the businesses we are talking about, with the exception
of the Red Cross, the businesses we are dealing with for the most part restaurants, bars, gii?
shops, service oriented type uses. 1 think when you consider those it can be very difficult for
them to run their business without the use of these signs. Now the 2"*,3'* floor story office
buildings I don't have as much of a concern about because people visiting those uses, it's a
destination point. They already know where they are going. I'm a little uncomfortable saying
it's anybody's game because I think we could get into a mess where all of a sudden everybody
thinks it's h n to throw a sign out on the sidewalk. Maybe this will all work itself out and only
the people that really need that advertisement do that. I'm also not comfortable in just sending a
revision to our ordinance on to City Council that we haven't really thought all the way through.
1 would really like to have some additional information on just the number of tenants that we
have in certain buildings that would potentially be wanting to participate in this because 1 think
that we are going to have certain buildings that are going to really want to participate. The sth
Street Marketplace is the perfect example. You've got half that facility below grade. A lot of
people are going to want to throw signs out onto the street but then you're going to have other
buildings in our city that will have only a couple. I don't know if it's worthy of a little bit more
investigation on some ofthese buildings that are really going to need this and how we place them
in the streetscape or if we're just micromanaging this too much and we just need to move on.
Commissioner Wilson - I'm also uncomfortable with what's being proposed here and that's one
of the reasons I asked the question I did about what kinds of signs can they have now, did we
consider alternatives where maybe we direct some sort of permanent frame in the furnishing area
that then people could use by permit based on some system that we could come up with so we
can control the number of signs. It just seems like what we are doing here is replacing one thing
that we haven't been able to enforce with something else that we can enforce. I just don't think
that's a wise move on the city's part. The way that this ordinance is written, for me it kind o f
conflicts with the spirit of our billboard ordinance. In the billboard ordinance in the city we've
limited the number of billboards that we are going to have and anytime someone wants to place a
new one they have to take another one down. But what we are doing with this sign ordinance
we're saying that if anyone wants to put a sign out on the s~dewalkit's okay. To me that just
increases the clutter downtown and it's going to be more difficult to control and I just don't feel
like this is really a solution. 1 think this is just admitting we have a problem that we haven't been
able to solve. I won't be supporting the motion. I think we're opening up a larger can worms
then what we are taking care of
Boise City Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes of
August 7,2006
Page 10
commissioner Cooper - I disagree with the statement that this is similar to billboards which are
permanent structures and are quite large. I live and work in the downtown area. I'm on the
streets all the time and 6ankly never noticed, until 1 got this package, that there was a problem
with temporary signs. Now that I see that it brings up all these issues that are potential problems
I must admit I'm really struggling with it. Since I'm on the street so much I know that the
particular block that Andrea's is on is for some reason is a block that you just don't walk down
very much. If his sign is taken away I think it's a problem, but yet 1 can imagine that a larger
building that has many tenants will suddenly have 10 or 12 signs out 6ont and be legal and I also
think that's a problem. 1 think there are some good things here. Allowing the A-frame signs
which are currently not allowed, I allowed that the signs should be in front of the business that
they are located in otherwise everybody would he clustered right on the comer where it would be
the most dangerous. 1 think I agree with Commissioner Wilson that I think this hasn't been
thought about enough. I think there's some holes in it that need to be considered more carefully.
Commissioner Wilson I think signage like the Andrea's sign that's permanent, that's metal,
that's directional is really helpful and is a really good thing. I'm just really concerned about
cluttering it up the A-kame signs. Everybody says they will keep it where it's supposed to he,
but things heing as they are I know they will move around a lot. I kind of see a distinction
between just temporary signs that are moved in and out all the time and something that's a little
more substantial.
-
Commissioner Fadness - I would caution the Commissioners on maybe seeing goblins here
where none exist. 1 don't see with the passage of this ordinance every business rushing out to
put out an A-6ame sign. Most of them that do put them up didn't know they were illegal and so
other businesses who may want to have put them up would not have realized they were illegal. I
find it hard to believe there's going to be this mad rush of businesses putting out signs on the
sidewalk. 1 would also note that the ordinance specifies where they can go so that they are not in
the pedestrian walkway, that they are in a certain place either right in fiont of the door where the
planters are. I find that the signs that I've seen are attractive and helpful. 1 do stop when I see
that there's a different daily special. I think it encourages business too. I find it hard to believe
that overnight there will be this tremendous clutter of signs and from what I've been able to see,
the business community has been very responsible about the quality of the signs and not heing in
the way of pedestrians.
Commissioner Cooper - There probably isn't much likelihood that there will suddenly he a huge
infestation of signs because ofthis. The upstairs tenants in most buildings tend to offoffice type
businesses which wouldn't have signs like this. Usually the ones that need that ground floor
fiontage are the ones that are going to want signs. There are several restaurants that are in
basement locations that need some kind of identification,
Boise City Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes of
August 7,2006
Page 11
Commissioner Wilson I agree with that. That's what makes it difficult because I just keep
coming back to the point that I just don't think that this has been really thought through. I think
we need more because there are still some problems here.
-
MOTION TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE WITH A CHANGE TO ALLOW 6 SQ. FT.
CARRIED WITH COMMISSIONERS WlLSON AND VAN OCKER VOTED AGAINST.
COMMISSIONER FADNESS BROKE THE TIE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
Boise City Hall, 2nd Floor
150 N. Copitol Boulevoid
Phone: 208:364-3E30
Fox: 206/384-3753
T D D m Y : 800i377-3529
Website: www.cityofboise.org/pds
Zoning Ordinance Amendment Application
This box for office use only
@-DL-00033
File #:
Cross Referenced File(s):
f?--6
Zone(s):
Are Pre-Application materials attached?
Yes
No
This application is a request to amend the following section(s) of the Zoning Ordinance:
CA in// c ,f
</,I
Applicant Information
Applicant: ~ A P I - L
Applicant's Address:
Property Owner
ccrt
-
805
N . A
Property Owner's Address:
Contact Person
1.
.
~=ZVEZEZM~.~~
o U T (;CDC)
~ O I
Phone:
J
W.
r~Ath2
STE.
403
zip:
-
384 - 4 2 6 -#
83702-
Phone:
r/.A
(if different from above):
.
Zip:
MIKE
ffbLC
,
CC
DC
Phone:
3 8 4 -4264
Section of Code you a r e proposing to amend:
11-11-06
Ad1)
//-/I -08
.
(-nk ~ f 6 R€&~L+RoNs)
d
4
L3.
!I
J~
Y
?""$
i..?.
OEVEL(JT
--6
'it
6/04
CMI
0 6 00032
bcnv".
Zoning Ordinance Amendment Application
2.
2
Proposed text changes
SeE
pmb.c+tEa
.
-
3.
Narrative describing justification for change:
SEE A ~ C H E D LETTS%
JUN I? 6s::7
&
&
*
L 4 U D - l
Signature Applicant/Representative
5 30/06
Date
J
1
'
May 30,2006
~ c o t Spjute
t
Boise City Planning and Development Services
I50 N . Capitol Blvd.
Boise, ID 83701
Subject:
Application to Amend the Boise Zoning Ordinance, Sections 11-1 1-06
and 11-1 1-08,lo Provide Standards for Portable Signs in the C-5 District
Dear Scott,
Enclosed is our application to amend the Boise Zoning Ordinance, Sections 11-1 1-06
and 11-1 1-08 to provide standards for portable signs in the C-5 zoning district. The
current code prohibits the placement of any signs in the public street right-of-way.
CCDC has co!laborated with the Downtown Boise Association (DBA) to draft an
amendment to the code that will allow for the use of movable A-frame and T-frame
signs on sidewalks in the C-5 zoning district in Downtown. The proposed code
amendment refers to these movable signs as "portable signs" and includes standards
for placement, number, and design.
Justification for Code Amendment
The code amendment is justified based on conditions related to Boise City's
enforcement practices and what CCDC and the stakeholders of this issue consider to
be acceptable signage in Downtown.
Boise City has not vigorously enforced the current prohibition on signs in the street rightof-way in Downtown. The City's approach to enforcement is understandable under the
circumstances. On the premise that Boise City will not fully enforce a strict prohibition,
we feel much can be gained by having effective standards for portables signs and: in
particular; standards that control where on the sidewalk portable signs are placed.
Portable signs provide downtown retailers a tool for identifying their businesses and
the senrices they provide. The downtown retailers are generally located in buildings
that abut the sidewalk, leaving only the sidewalk (the public right-of-way) for
placement of a sign ofthis type. U7hen designed and used appropriately, we consider
sidewalk signs to be an acceptable feature of a vibrant d o w n t o ~ n .
phone. 208-384-3261
fax. 208-381-1267
wrvv:.ccdcboise.com
There have been instances ofportable sidewalk signs creating a nuisance and a
hazard. It is in the public interest and a requirement by the Americans with
@EeEnwrs--,
s2 1 F j
w
,
.L.=*_.I
-.*
Disabilities Act to provide an ample, unobstructed passageway for pedestrians and others. The
proposed code amendment addresses these potential nuisances and hazards, allows downtown
sidewalks to func~ioneffectively, and is consistent with our understanding of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
A-frame and T-frame signs have been treated in the code as temporary signs with a restriction on the
length of time for which these signs may be used. We refer to these signs as "portable signs"
because w-c fccl it is best to allou; the signs on a regular basis. We anticipate that many businesses
will continue to limit their use to less than six months of the year while some will benefit, and their
customers may benefit, by using them throughout most of the year. It is our opinion that
enforcement ofthe standards will be more effective if there is no time restriction.
Stakeholder Involvement
CCDC has worked on this tiode a~nendrnentintcmittently since 2003. In Septernher 2003, we
drafted a version of the amendment and attempted to have it adopted as part of a sign code
amendment the City Staff were writing ar that time. At that time and since, we have involved the
DBA: the Boise City Clerk and her staff, Boise Planning and Code Enforcement staff, and the Ada
County Highway District (most recently the ACHD legal staff). In recent weeks we have worked
closcly with the DBA to draft the current version. On April 13,2006 CCDC and DBA held an
informational open house to which over 300 downtown businesses were invited. Five people
attended that lnecting and we received comments from at least four individuals by phone or email.
Out of those efforts, one individual expressed some concern for sanctioning thc ilsc ofportable signs.
All other comments generally support the proposed code amendment.
One of the comments to come out of the public meeting concerned the possible need to provide
directory signage for multiple businesses within a building when some of the businesses may not
have frontage on the sidewalk. The Pionccr Building in Old Boise and gth Street Marketplace are at
least two examples where directory signage. of this type could apply. We feel the proposed standards
accommodate directory signage, while providing Boise Cit). staffthe discretion to deny signage that
does not meet the stated intent of the proposed ordinance to exclude "off-premise"signage.
Another topic of discussion among stakeholders concerns the issue of whether to require a pennit for
portable signs. The proposed code places portable signs in the same section as other signs requiring
permits and is thus written such that a permit will be required for portable signs.
'The challenge of providing the Highway District the opportunity to review portable signs in the street
right-of-waq is not pet entirely resolved. State law dictates the need for ACHD approval of signs in
the right-of-way and the proposed code provides for ACHD appro\ral. However, we want to d~scuss
with .4CHD a process for Highway District review that is efficient and effective for both the sign
applicant and ACHD.
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
To conclude: CCDC and DBA feel this code amendment provides for signage that is appropriate
while providing Boise City a relatively effective means of controlling the negative impacts of
portable signs on Downtown sidewalks.
Thank you for your time and consideration
Sincerely,
Mike Hall
Planning Manager
mhall:8,ccdcboise.c~
CC: K2ren Sander. Downtown Boise Association
Tsrr proposed as an ameizd~nentto ihe Doire C'odc
:A
c~~idcrliized
Section 11-1 1-06 PROHIBITED SIGNS
The follou-ins types of s i p s are prohibited in all districts:
1. Public Area Signs: Except as provided in 11-11-0S.J (Portable Signs in the C-5
DistrictL S signs placed on any street right-of-way, curb, sidewalk. post, pole,
electroller. hydrant, bridge or tree: except official public. notices posted by a public
officer.
Section 11-1 1-08 REGULATION OF SIGN TYPES
J.
PORTABLE SIGNS IN THE C-5 DISTRICT. Portable signs are defined as A-frame. Tframe, and similar fiee-standino movable signs placed on public sidewalks for promotion of
business and products. This ordinance is intended to allow for the use of accessorv sirmaze
and shall not be construed to allow signs of an off-premise, non-accessorv nature. No such
portable sign may be placed in the street right of way without approval of the Ada County
Hiqhbvay District. Portable signs in the C-5 district shall complv with the following
standards:
1. S i m Placement:
a. Sijm placement is limited to that part of the sidewalk in front of the business to which
the sign identifies and shall not obstruct pedestrian traffic, create pedestrian-vehicular
conflicts, or create a tripping hazard.
b. Signs shall be placed to provide a minimum five foot (5') continuous clear zone for
il~.dc.~rian;on the sldcwslk h~.r\vc.cnrhc h u ~ l d ~ nsnd
r ros,l\vsv and in all a.;ncxs :on&
iv11h:~l?pl~;shlcrcquircmcntj of the .Zrn~T~:al~j
with L)~.ah~l~r~c.
.Zc1
c. For sidewalks fullv improved accordinp to urban renewal plans and having a
nlinimum width of 12' from building to curb, portable sims may be located in the
building frontage zone or fumishine zone and shall not be located in the pedestrian zone.
d.
S i m ~placement shall not impede the safe exitinq of cars from parkinq lots and
e. In anv area of the sidewalk abutting accessible on-street parkine, no s i w shall be
placed within 5' of the face of curb abutting the accessible parkine stall.
2. Number of S ~ m s :No more than one porrable w m 1s alloaed per business entrance
-
Boise City Planning & Development Services
150 N. Capitol Blvd
Phone 208/384-3830
P 0 Box 5 0 0
Fox 384-3753
Bo~se,Idaho 83701-0500
www.cityofboise org/pds
Planning Division Staff Report
File Number
CAR06-00033 / Ordinance Amendment Section 11-11-06 and 11- 1 1-08.
Applicant
Capital City Development Corporation (CCDC)
Public Hearing Date
August 7, 2006
Heard by
Boise City Planning and Zoning Commission
Planning Analyst
Andrea N. Tuning
Planning Supervisor
Scott Spjute
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Current Ordinance
Ordinance Amendment Proposed by CCDC
Background and Analysis
Reasons for the Decision
Recommended Ordinance Amendment
Attachments
1 - Zoning Ordinance Amendment Application
2 - Applicant's Letter
3 - Map Identi-g
the Boundary of the C-5 Zone
4 - Exhibit A -Sign placement on a sidewalk that has been improved to the adopted
downtown urban renewal standards
Attachment 5 - Exhibit B - Sign placement on a sidewalk that has not been improved to the
adopted downtown urban renewal standards
Attachment 6 - Public Correspondence
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
-
CAR06-00033
Planning & Zoning Commission / August 7, 2006
2of6
2
Executive Summary
Description of Applicant's Request:
Capital City Development Corporation (CCDC) requests approval o f a Zoning Ordinance
Amendment to Chapter 11- 1 1-06 & 1 1-1 1-08 regarding standards for portable signs in the C-5
(Central Business) Zoning District.
Staffs Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of CAR06-00033 with conditions.
Zoning Ordinance
Current Zoning Ordinance
Section 11-11-06 Prohibited Signs
The following types of signs are prohibited in all districts:
***
B.
Public Area Signs: Signs placed on any street right-of-way, curb, sidewalk post. pole, electroller,
hydrant, bridge or tree, except official public notices posted by a public officer.
*+*
Ordinance Amendment Pro~osedby CCDC
Section 11-11-06 Prohibited Signs
The following types of signs are prohibited in all districts:
+**
B.
Public Area Signs: Except as provided in 11-1 1-08.5(Portable Signs in the C-5 District), signs
placed on any street right-of-way, curb, sidewalk, post, pole, electroller, hydrant, bridge or tree,
except official public notices posted by a public officer.
***
Section 11-11-08 Prohibited Signs
J.
***
Portable signs in the C-5 District. Portable signs are defined as A-kame, T-frame, and
similar free-standing, movable signs placed on public sidewalk for promotion of business
and products. This ordinance is intended to allow for the use o f accessory signage and
shall not be construed to allow signs of an off-premise, non-accessory nature. No such
portable sign may be placed in the street right-of-way without approval of the Ada
County Highway District. Portable signs in the C-5 district shall comply with the
following standards:
I . Sign Placement:
a. Sign placement is limited to that part of the sidewalk in front of the
business to which the sign identifies and shall not obstruct pedestrian
traffic. create pedestrian-vehicular conflicts, or create a tripping hazard.
b. Signs shall be placed to provide a minimum of five (5) feet of
continuous clear zone for pedestrians on the sidewalk between the
CAR06-00033
Planning & Zoning Commission I August 7. 2006
3of6
c.
d.
e.
2
building and roadway and in all aspects comply with applicable
requirement of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
For sidewalks fully improved according to urban renewal plans and
having a minimum width of 12' from building to curb, portable signs
may be located in the building ffontage zone or furnishing zone and
shall not be located in the pedestrian zone.
Sign placement shall not impede the safe exiting of cars from parking
lots and garages.
In any area of the sidewalk abutting accessible on-street parking, no sign
shall be placed within 5' of the face of curb abutting the accessible
parking stall.
of Signs: No more than one portable sign is allowed per business
2. Number
entrance.
3. Sign Design: Portable signs shall be constructed to be durable and stable under
adverse weather conditions. The background area of the copy portion of the signs
shall not exceed a size of ten square feet (10 sf).
Background and Analysis
The current Boise City Zoning Ordinance prohibits portable signs in all zoning districts
including the C-5 zone. On June 6, 2006, the Capital City Development Corporation submitted
an application to the City of Boise requesting a zoning ordinance amendment that would allow
portable signs to be located on the sidewalks within the C-5 zoning district.
The C-5 zoning district is located within the City of Boise's downtown core and is primarily
bound by State Street, River Street, 13' Street and 4' Street and is more clearly defmed in
Attachment #3. This area is unique in the fact that many ofthe buildings located within this area
are built adjacent to the property line. This type of building placement does not have the
opportunity to provide signage on the property, leaving the sidewalk as the only available area
for accessory siyage.
On July 21, 2006, staKmet with a representative from CCDC and had the opportunity to address
a number of issues associated with the newly proposed zoning ordinance amendment. Staff
recommends that the City of Boise adopt a modified version of the proposed zoning ordinance
amendment. The modified version of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment is located on
page 4 of this report and has enhanced and clarified the standards for portable signs located
within the C-5 zone. These standards include the number, the placement as well as the design of
the portable signage that would be permitted within the C-5 zone.
CAR06-00033
Planning & Zoning Commission / August 7,2006
4of6
2
The modified version of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment:
Clarifies which businesses are eligible to obtain a portable sign,
o Businesses that are located on the ground floor of a building located within the C5 zone and have street kontage.
o Uses that are located on the basement floor of a building, upper floors of a
building and uses that do not have street fiontage may be issued signage as a part
of a directory sign for multiple uses in a single building in lieu of individual
portable signs.
More clearly describes where signs can be placed,
o Specifies that signage must be located directly in front of the business
o Can not be located within the vision triangle of a street or driveway
Includes exhibits,
Reduces the overall size of the sign fiom 10 square feet to 6 square feet,
Prnhibits the use of illuminated signs,
Clarifies that sign may be two sided,
Requires the successful review and written approval of the City of Boise, CCDC and the
Ada County Highway District.
Staff believes that the modified version of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment recognizes
the uniqueness ofthe C-5 zoning district, provides standards that will allow merchants within the
C-5 zone to obtain accessory signage to increase their presence within the area, while
complimenting the character of the active downtown area and maintaining the safety of
individuals utilizing the City of Boise's downtown area.
Reason For The Decision
The adoption of the modified version ofthe zoning ordinance amendment is not in conflict with
the goals, objectives and policies ofthe Boise City Comprehensive Plan or /he Downtown Boise
Plan. Furthermore, the adoption of the modified version of the proposed zoning ordinance
amendment will provide standards that will increase the presence of the downtown merchants,
will compliment the character of the downtown area and will maintain the public health, safety
and welfare of individuals within the City of Boise.
Recommended Ordinance Amendment
The following types of signs are prohibited in all districts:
***
B.
Public Area Signs: Except as prnvided in 11-1 1-08.J (Portable Signs in the C-5 District),
signs placed on any street right-of-way, curb, sidewalk, post, pole, electrnller, hydrant,
bridge or tree, except official public notices posted by a public officer.
***
CAR06-00033
Planning &Zoning Commission I August 7,2006
5of6
Section 11-1 1-08 Prohibited Signs
J.
2
***
Portable Signs in the C-5 District. Portable signs are defined as A-frame, T-frame, and
similar free-standing, movable signs that are placed on the public sidewalk for the promotion
of a business andlor product. This ordinance is intended to allow for the use of accessory
signage for businesses within the C-5 zone. No such portable sign may be placed in the
public right-of-way without written approval of the City of Boise, the Capital City
Development Corporation and the Ada County Highway District. Portable signs in the C-5
district shall comply with all of the following standards:
4. Sign Placement:
a. Sign placement is limited to the portion of the sidewalk that is located
directly in front of the business to which the sign promotes and can not
be place in front of another business.
b. Sign placement on sidewalks that are fully improved according to the
adopted downtown urban renewal plan and have a minimum width of
twelve (12) feet 6om the face of the building to the back of the curb,
may be located in the building frontage zone or the fiunishing zone and
shall not be located in the pedestrian zone. (see Exhibit A)
c. Sign placement on sidewalks that have limited improvements and are
not improved to the adopted downtown urban renewal standards may be
located near the curb line and shall not be located in the pedestrian zone.
(see Exhibit B)
d. Sign placement shall provide a minimum of five (5) feet of a continuous
clear zone for pedestrians located between the building and roadway and
shall comply with all aspects of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) Guidelines and shall not obstruct pedestrian traffic, create
pedestrian-vehicular conflicts or create a safety hazard.
e. Portable signs abutting an accessible on-street parking space shall not be
placed within 5 (five) feet of the back of curb abutting the accessible
parking stall.
f Regardless of height or size, under no circumstance shall a sign be
placed within the vision triangle of a street or driveway.
5. Number of Signs: Businesses that are located on the ground floor of a building
located within the C-5 zone and have street 6ontage are allowed a maximum of
one (1) portable sign. The uses that are located on the basement floor of a
building, upper floors of a building or do not have street frontage may be issued
signage as a part of a directory sign for multiple uses in a single building in lieu of
individual portable signs.
6. Sign Design: Portable signs shall be constructed of stable and durable materials
that will hold up under adverse weather conditions. The background area of the
CAR06-00033
Planning & Zoning Commission 1 August 7,2006
60f6
2
sign shall not exceed a size of six (6) square feet. A sign may be single sided or
double sided. Illuminated signs shall be prohibited.
EXHIBIT B
Business located at upper level; size is less than 6 sf.
Portable Signs / July 2006
Business at basement level; total sign area on one
side is 7.5 square feet.
Portable Signs I July 2006
Sign is 8 square feet.
Portable Signs I July 2006
'
Q R t K l BRINKS AT 4
Sign is 9 square feet not including the frame.
Business is at basement level.
Portable Signs I July 2006
Sign is approximately 8 square feet; sign copy is less
than 8 square feet.
Portable Signs I July 2006
STATE OF IDAHO
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
BOISE REGIONAL OFFICE
1445 North Orchard Street-Boise ID 83706-2239*(208) 373-0550
E c ~i ~
AUG - 9 2006
DEVELOP ME^^
SERVICES
DEQ Response to Request for Environmental Comment
Date:
Agency Requesting
Comments:
Date Request Received:
Application No:
Description:
Applicant:
August 2, 2006
Boise City Planning and Development
7/27/2006
CAR06-00033
Capital City Development Corporation Zoning Ordinance
Amendment Chapter 11-11-06 & 11-11-08
Boise City Planning and Development
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your Legal Notice of Public Hearing Letter
It is not apparent from the information provided, that there are issues within our regulatory
authority. At this time, we do not have any comments; however, we do request that this
project consider the State and Federal rules and regulations for air, water, waste and the
overall environment. If there is additional information to be reviewed please let us know.
We appreciate the opportunity to review the application, if you have additional questions or
concerns, please contact me at (208) 373-0550.
Sincerely,
.J
. .
Regional ~dmlnlstrator
Boise Regional Office
TSF:fw:
CC:
G:\Tiffany\Cornrnent Letterdo6 08.01 Letter 727.doc
File 24. Reading File
.
1 ~ h d r e a .~~ u n i n- Ordinance
g
Amendment, downtown signage
~~~
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
~~
~
~
~-
p
~
~
~
~~~
~
Michael Garner
Andrea Tuning; Michael Meloy, Sarah Schafer. SCOTT SPJUTE
8/1/2006 10:16:07 AM
Ordinance Amendment, downtown signage
First, thanks for including the suggestions Code Enforcement forwarded ...we appreciate it very much
I have reviewed the Staff Report [CAR06-000331 this morning and I have a few comments for you folks
to consider.
A. 11-11-08 [J] - Prohibited Signs doesn't address banner signs - specifically, the advertising signs
vendors place on walls or the "patio gates" ...e.g., Old Chicago advertising 3 pitchers of beer and nacho
plate for $3.99, Tuesdays during the month of August
I know that banner signs are "movable signs, " but where they are not , "placed on the public sidewalk,"
we allow the aforementioned exception[s] to appear - I think we should expand the definition of portable
signs to address all signage not permanently emplaced AND permitted
B. 11-11-08 [4] Sign Placement - does not address signs within the patio areas. Where the patio areas
are physically on the sidewalk, they do not serve as throughfare for pedestrians ...a clever vendor could
argue that our ordinance does not prohibit any type of signage in these patio areas and is therefore a
zone where any type of sign whatsoever can be emplaced.
Lastly, I think that we would be remiss if we didn't change the definition to reference other code sections
that provide specific direction for window signage, and specifically prohibit any building face signage
without a permit
No cracks, no crumbs, no mice.
Michael Garner
Code Enforcement Officer
-
.
~
1
Page 1-
July 17; 2006
To:
Andrea Tuning
From:
Mike Meloy
Code Enforcement Manager
Subject:
CARO6-00033
Amendment to the City Temporary Sign Ordinance
My recommendation to denial of the amendment.
1. My first concern is the light that our enforcement of the sign ordinance is put. -4
few years back, Code Enforcement saw that the then current Temporary Sign
Ordinance was unenforceable. An amendment to the City Code was submitted
and approved. Code Enforcement understood the scope of any effort to enforce
the new law and felt that it should not be down piecemeal.
a. In November 2005, the Downtown Business Association was noticed of
our intent to enforcement against unlawful temporary signs. At the
request of the Downtown Business Association, we only addressed signs
that blocked the sidewalks and temporarily allowed temporary signs to be
placed in the "Furnishing Zone" of the sidewalk. Code Enforcement
conducted a sweep of downtown and Notices of Violation for any sign
blocking free passage on the sidewalk.
b. Since that time, Code Enforcement continually gets complaints about
Temporary Signs blocking the sidewalks. These are addressed on a caseby-case basis.
c. A continual issue involves complaints from persons with disabilities not
being able to freely traverse the sidewalk and/or ramps at intersections.
d. There is also a concern that a clear, straight 5' minimum sidewalk width is
not being maintained. It is also noted that many sidewalk cause
pedestrians to zig zag onto the Furnishing Zone to avoid intrusions into the
sidewalk.
e. Code Enforcement addressed temporary signs in other areas besides
downtown in February. Sweeps were made of the Gateway Streets and
over 800 properties were identified with having one or more unlawful
signs. Letters were sent to all of the offending properties. On a second
report of an unlawful sign on one of the offending properties, a Final
IX.I.~KN.IL
MTL.~OIWNDIJM
BOISE
CODE
FSFOKCEL~ESTDIVISION
Page 2
Notice of Violation has sent. . b y further incidents of an unlaurful sign
mill result in a Criminal Citation.
f
During the summer months, Code Enforcement has been dealing unlau&l
signs on a complainant basis. This is going to changing priorities to more
life safety issues, such as dry grass and weeds. In the fall, Code
Enforcement will again put more efforts into the sign issues.
2. The issue with giving special privileges' to the Downtowm area brings up an issue
over why not business owners outside of the downtown area have the same rights.
3. As all of downtown buildmgs abut the public right of way, the temporary signs
would therefore be "off-premise" signs using ACHD right of way.
a. I would suggest that a standardized "wall-sign" be considered instead of a
temporary sign in the public right of way.
b. Any sign in the ACHD right of way should require a licensing agreement.
However, by allowing this in the downtown area, then why would it not be
legal for temporary sign placement in other ACHD right of way?
4. Again, I am against this Temporary Sign Ordinance for downtown. However, if it
should be granted, I wish the following be taken into consideration:
a. KO sign should ever block any portion of the sidewalk. .4ll sidewalks
should be straight without zigzag (see attached). Having recently visited
downtown Portland, OR, I was stuck with the absence of Temporary Signs
of any kind. Yet. downtown Portland has a vibrant downtown seven days
a week (see attached).
b. I do not see the Clear Vision Triangle being addressed.
c. I noted that the number of signs is based on the number of doors to an
establishment. What about a building with nlultiple tenants, each with at
least one door. Does that mean that every business gets a sign, and if not,
why?
d. All approved signs must be of uniform design with consideration give to
the esthetic values of the area.
e. Not all approved signs may be larger than six sf and ADA compatible.
f. All signs in ACHD must be licensed and under their enforcement.
5 . I sit on the Police Department "Bar Committee." where downtown issues are
frequently discussed. One thing recognized by the Police is "choke points'' along
sidewalks. On Friday and Saturday nights, these choke points are prone to
aggressive and combative behavior as the alcohol consumption increases. Further
cluttering the sideuralks only increase this activity.
IY.IFIIML
L:~~IOFL+N.~NUI~M
BOISE
CODE
ENFORCE\IF.N.T
DIVISION
Page 3
6. CCDC has an interesting document on their website with the recommended plans
for downtown Boise that touts wide sidewalks. The further cluttering of the
streets seems to go against their own recommendations!
7. In just over three years, Boise will be hosting the Special Olympics. It would be
sad if we did not have clear sidewalks for those with disabilities!
%?e
baso&e ~q$e,um
Q-
A N D
C U L T U R A L
C E N T E R
April 1 I . 2006
Mike Hall
Planning Manager, CCDC
805 W. Idaho St., Ste. 303
Boise, Idaho 83702
Dear MI-.Hall,
Thank you i01. the inforination you sent to our business concerning the following topics:
1) Notice of CCDC Proposal to Modify Streetscape Standards for Selected
Streets.
r can see the usefulness of changing the Design Standard to concrete with bricks
and encourage the continuity of utilizing trees and historic street lights in the
bricked areas. I see that the Basque Block is indicated as "Special" on the street
character map and we would like to continue to maintain the streetscape design
created for this unique area of the city.
2) Downtown Boise Parking District Expansion.
I have no comment regarding the proposed expansion.
3) Proposed Amendment to the Boise City Sign Code
The Basque Museum & Cultural Center is in favor of the proposed amendment to
the Boise Code; lvith the addition of the p r c ~ s e dSerrion !!-I 1-08.5. Cor
business can benefit from a portable sign that pedestrians and cars c q easily see
tolocate the Basque hluseunl. ' W e have read the description for placement,
number. and sign design and feel that we can comply with all issues in the
proposed amendment.
Again, thank you for malting us aware of these issues and the potential impact they will
have on our business.
Sincel-ely,
JUN C 8 .?T:'j
-
Execurive Director
CWFI 0
6 QQ03r
DEVELBPWIENI~
SERVICES
-
6 1 i GROVE STREET
'
301SE, IDAHO
83702
a
208-343-2571
a
FAX
209-336-4801
a
MAIL@BA~QUEMU~LUM.COM
Ten:
rrg:i!
-
,nha/?g!'*ril~ho~
v.mirim>,
k~~t~~/cr@~i,~iii!rarrr~~iboiie.o~~
hlilre I-bll
CCDC
PO Box 987
Boisc. ID 83701
RE:
TCarln Sandcr
DOW~NI'OUN
1301sr,,XSSOCI:YI'ION
720 \V Idaho Street
Boise, 10 83702
Signage Amendment for Sanduich/A-Frame Signs
File Number CAROG-00033
BOISE
755 West F o n t Street.Suire 300
P O . Box 7148.83707- 2 4 8
Rome. ldahn 83702
Telephone: 208.345.9000
Farrmlc:108.343.3114
SUNVALLEY
1ooWrsr ~ l v r r sSrreet. 5 u t e 301
PO Box501
Ketrhunl. Ida170 83340
Telephane:208 726.1918
F a r r m le: 108726.1990
I am xvdti~gtn advise ynu that mc arc not in favor with the proposcd imendmcnr to rhc current sipage otdnance
that would allow A-Frame signs in the C-5 Central Buslners %onkg Diirr~ct
Among many reasons, wc bchcvc that tlus cl~angcin code IS: 1) not n cr,st effccti~csolution for thc c ~ t ydue to the
required maintenance and management; 2) over 1 short prriod of tunr i r wotild not grnemte customers mtended;
and 3) it crcates an enormous hah~lityproblem. The clty'r manpower involved w ~ t hcnsuring that the signage is a
cluahv product and displayed with set parameters would be s ~ p f i c a n tcspccully
,
unde~standingthat ouce one
tcnant places signagc out, othcrs w~llfollow until the sidcweUc is littered with signage (lonlung much like n Texan
14ec Market). Thc signs would quickly loose their value once the s i d r u d h were flooded < ~such
h adrertismg,
disappearing into the sea of advertising, and constant longevity on the sidelvalk. Even ~ m mwc
, siruggle with
sandu.ich boards bemg placed along sidewalks, curbs, chillned tr, trces nr lamppnsrs and other easement arras
wh1c11 subscqueutl? get knoclced down, nloved or 00rrxwise relocdted witlun pedestrian nght-of-wa:~creatlng a
s~gntilcanthazard and liahilip rxprnses
,
.
l e n a n ~ l~ave
s
the opportunity tn display signage m windows or cxtennr elevatinns, upnn 1.andlord and city
approvals. Landlords wnrk dhgendy loxvnrds approvmg signage that a consistent wlth the image that they chnose
tn pnrtray for their building and/or diatiict. Purrhermole, the curb appeal of n propercy can be alfecled wv~tl~
sandwich boards chained to blke racks or strewn up and down the adjoining sidewalk. 'This 1s uot the image we
wish to convey to the community There are m a y othcr avenues 'Tenants can pursue url~xchare more cost
effecuve and attracts cuatorners, keeping the buulding(s) and/or distrlct in the first class image that we are all
worhng towards portraying to the comnoruty 2nd ire fully supporr by Landlords.
WP SIIPPOR the current c ~ t ycode on i\-FrameiSandu.1~11Signs. Undershnding our posltion above, we will not be
participating in thc forum this evening as u.e do not desire to appear unfriendly and tarnish our unage wit11 our
tenants who are parslonatc nbour t h s subject nnd we look towa~dsthe D n h , CCDC and 111~cily lor t h e i ~mutual
understanding and support.
Should yo~lIIBFC any additional qneruons, please d o not hesitate to contact me at 208.48'1.61 70 or v1a emad at
Racl~cl.randerla:~n(il!co~ersiclaho.net.
Sincerely,
cc:
'Tom Silfcrmann
,
y ~;;:,::';:,:t:"',
.,..
,...
~~,,,m,,:,
_
Callers Parag",,. LLC
An lndeps~ide#~r.Lacally
Owned Member o l c o l l ~ e r ili~rcwnar~o~,al
Cornmrrrnl ~ e i ~l r r r c eoilker chrougl~ourr h e ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ c a ~ . ~ u~r ao rp c ., P~~~nrCd~, ~~m~Ced ~ r l c r
August 7,2006
Boise City
Planning and Zoning Commission
RE: File # CAR06-00033
Dear Commissioners
I am writing in support of the use of sidewalk signs in the Central Business Zoning
District. In this highly competitive business area, a sidewalk sign is a vital tool that lets
the public know what is going on inside the establishment. This is information that can
not be transmitted through other signage or may not be readable if posted in a window.
At our restaurants, the sidewalk signs are used to promote our special menu items. We
change the sign twice a day so it is always current. It is amazing how many customers
read the sign before they decide to venture in. Please do not take this valuable tool away
from us.
Sincerely,
fls&Q+-Kevin Settles, President
Bardenay and Calle Verde
Idaho Lodging and Restaurant Association
Settles Krick, Inc., 610 Grove Boise, Idaho 83702
EO. Box 1558 Boise, Idaho 83701-1558
tel: 208-426-0538 fax: 208-426-8168 www.bardenay.com