2022-07-21
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 6:00 PM
MINUTES
ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE
PRESENT ABSENT
Commissioner Patrick Grace Commissioner Nathan Wheeler
Commissioner Nick Grove Commissioner Mandi Stoddard
Commissioner Andrew Seal
Commissioner Maria Lorcher
Commissioner Steven Yearsley
ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted
CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] Approved
Motion to approve made by Commissioner Grove, Seconded by Commissioner Lorcher.
Voting Yea: Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Grove, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner
Lorcher, Commissioner Yearsley
1. Approve Minutes from the June 30, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting
ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\]
ACTION ITEMS
2. Public Hearing for Lavender Place Subdivision (H-2022-0036) by Breckon Land
Design, Located at 2160 E. Lake Hazel Rd. Continued to August 4, 2022
A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of four (4) single-family attached
building lots and 26 single-family townhome lots on approximately 3.79 acres
of land in the R-40 zoning district.
B. Request: Conditional Use Permit to construct the requested 26 townhome
lots within the R-40 zoning district.
Motion to continue to August 4, 2022 made by Commissioner Grove, Seconded by
Commissioner Lorcher.
Voting Yea: Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Grove, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner
Lorcher, Commissioner Yearsley
3. Public Hearing for Slatestone Subdivision (H-2022-0039) by T-O Engineers,
Located at 2707 S Stoddard Rd. Continued to August 18, 2022
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5.04 acres of land with a request for the
R-8 zoning district
B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 15 single-family building lots and 4
common lots on 4.85 acres in the requested R-8 zoning district.
Motion to continue to August 18, 2022 made by Commissioner Grove, Seconded by
Commissioner Lorcher.
Voting Yea: Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Grove, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner
Lorcher, Commissioner Yearsley
4. Public Hearing for Meridian Academy Play Field (H-2022-0031) by The Land
Group, Inc., Located at 2311 E. Lanark St. Recommended Approval to City
Council – Scheduled August 23, 2022
A. Request: Rezone of 13.8 acres of land from the I-L to the C-G zoning district
to allow a sports field expansion.
Motion to recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Lorcher, Seconded by
Commissioner Grace.
Voting Yea: Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Grove, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner
Lorcher, Commissioner Yearsley
5. Public Hearing for Hickory Warehouse (H-2022-0040) by Cushing Terrell,
Located at 1135 N. Hickory Ave. Approved
A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow mechanical equipment emissions,
shipping and/or delivery or other outdoor activity areas within 300 feet from
an abutting residential district in the I-L zoning district..
Motion to approve made by Commissioner Lorcher, Seconded by Commissioner Grace.
Voting Yea: Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Grove, Commissioner Lorcher, Commissioner
Yearsley
Abstaining: Commissioner Seal
6. Public Hearing for Ten Mile Public Storage (H-2022-0016) by Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc., Located at at 4065 N. Ten Mile Rd. Recommended Approval to
City Council – Scheduled August 23, 2022
A. Request: Annexation of 5.797 acres of land with the I-L zone district, and
request for elimination of required 25 ft. residential landscape buffer, to allow
two self-storage buildings, by Kimley-Horn.
Motion to recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Lorcher, Seconded by
Commissioner Grove.
Voting Yea: Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Grove, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner
Lorcher, Commissioner Yearsley
ADJOURNMENT 7:35 p.m.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 21, 2022.
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of July 21, 2022, was called
to order at 6:01 p.m. by Chairman Andrew Seal.
Members Present: Chairman Andrew Seal, Commissioner Steven Yearsley,
Commissioner Patrick Grace, Commissioner Nick Grove and Commissioner Maria
Lorcher.
Members Absent: Commissioner Nate Wheeler and Commissioner Mandi Stoddard.
Others Present: Chris Johnson, Kurt Starman, Joe Dodson, Alan Tiefenbach and Dean
Willis.
ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE
Nate Wheeler X Maria Lorcher
Mandi Stoddard X Nick Grove
_X Steven Yearsley X Patrick Grace
X Andrew Seal - Chairman
Seal: Good evening. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for July
21 st, 2022, and at this time I would like to call the meeting to order. The Commissioners
who are present for this evening's meeting are at City Hall and on Zoom. We also have
staff from city attorney and clerk's offices, as well as the City Planning Department. If you
are joining us on Zoom this evening we can see that you are here. You may observe the
meeting. However, your ability to be seen on screen and talk will be muted. During the
public testimony portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and, then, be able to
comment. Please note that we cannot take questions until the public testimony portion.
If you have a process question during the meeting, please, e-mail
cityclerk@meridiancity.org and they will reply as quickly as possible. If you simply want
to watch the meeting we encourage you to watch the streaming channel on the city's
YouTube channel. You can access that at meridiancity.org/live. With that let's begin with
the roll call. Mr. Clerk.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Seal: All right. Thanks very much. First item on the agenda is the adoption of the -- of
the agenda. This evening Lavender Place Subdivision, H-2022-0036, and Slatestone
Subdivision, H-2022-0039, will be opened for the sole purpose of continuing to a regularly
-- regularly scheduled meeting. They will open -- be opened for that purpose alone. So,
if there is anybody here tonight to testify for those particular applications, we will not be
taking public testimony on that this evening. We will also be swapping Items No. 4 and
No. 5 on the agenda. Could I get a motion to adopt the agenda as amended?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 21,2022
Page 2 of 35
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Yes, go ahead.
Grove: Is that the right items that we are switching? To be clear. We are switching five
and six; right?
Seal: Yeah. Let me look. We are swapping five and six. My notes are wrong. Thank
you. So, with that can I get a motion to adopt the agenda as amended?
Grove: So moved.
Lorcher: Second.
Seal: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor? Opposed?
Okay. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
1. Approve Minutes from the June 30, 2022 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
Seal: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have one item on the
Consent Agenda. We need to approve the minutes of the June 30th, 2022, Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting. Can I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as
presented?
Grove: So moved.
Lorcher: Second.
Seal: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All in favor say aye.
Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Seal: At this time I would like to briefly explain the public hearing process. We will open
each item individually and begin with the staff report. Staff will report their findings on
how the item adheres to the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code. After
staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward and present their case
and respond to staff comments. They will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant
is finished we will open the floor to public testimony. Each person will be called on only
once during the public testimony. The clerk will call the names individually of those who
have signed into our website in advance to testify. You will, then, be unmuted on Zoom
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 21,2022
Page 3 of 35
or you can come to the microphone in Chambers. Please state your name and address
for the record and you will have three minutes to address the Commission. If you have
previously sent pictures or presentations for the meeting they will be displayed on the
screen and you or the clerk will run the presentation. If you have established that you are
speaking on behalf of a larger group, like an HOA, where others from that group will allow
you to speak on their behalf, you will have up to ten minutes. After all those who have
signed in in advance have spoken, we will invite any others who may wish to testify. If
you wish to speak on the topic you may come forward in Chambers or if on Zoom, please,
press the raise hand button on the Zoom app. Or if you are only listening on a phone,
please, press star nine and wait for your name to be called. If you are listening on multiple
-- multiple devices, such as a computer and a phone, please, be sure to mute those extra
devices, so we do not experience feedback and we can hear you very clearly. When you
are finished, if the Commission does not have any questions for you, you will return to
your seat in Chambers or be muted on Zoom -- Zoom and no longer have the ability to
speak. And, please, remember we will not call on you a second time. After all testimony
has been heard by the applicant, we will -- after all testimony has been heard, the
applicant will be given another ten minutes to come back and respond. When the
applicant is finished responding to questions and concerns, we will close the public
hearing and the Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and, hopefully, be
able to make final decisions or recommendations to City Council as needed.
ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
ACTION ITEMS
2. Public Hearing for Lavender Place Subdivision (H-2022-0036) by
Breckon Land Design, Located at 2160 E. Lake Hazel Rd.
A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of four (4) single-family
attached building lots and 26 single-family townhome lots on
approximately 3.79 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district.
B. Request: Conditional Use Permit to construct the requested 26
townhome lots within the R-40 zoning district
Seal: So, at this time I would like to open hearing item H-2022-0036, Lavender Place
Subdivision, for continuance and my understanding is they would like to have this
continued to August 4th. Is that correct?
Johnson: Mr. Chair, that's correct.
Seal: Okay. If anybody would like to take a stab at that.
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 21,2022
Page 4 of 35
Grove: I move to continue file number H-2022-0036, Lavender Place Subdivision, to the
hearing date of August 4th.
Lorcher: Second.
Seal: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue file number H-2022-0036 to the
date of August 4th, 2022. All those in favor? Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
3. Public Hearing for Slatestone Subdivision (H-2022-0039) by T-O
Engineers, Located at 2707 S Stoddard Rd.
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5.04 acres of land with a request
for the R-8 zoning district
B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 15 single-family building lots
and 4 common lots on 4.85 acres in the requested R-8 zoning district
Seal: Next I would like to open up file number H-2022-0039, Silverstone Subdivision, for
continuance. My understanding is they would like to continue this to the date of August
18th.
Grove: That was Slatestone; correct?
Seal: That was Slatestone Subdivision. Yeah. Did I say it different? Sorry about that.
So, I will take a motion on that.
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead.
Grove: I move to continue file number H-2022-0039, Slatestone Subdivision, to the
hearing date of August 18th.
Lorcher: Second.
Seal: It's been moved and seconded to continue Silverstone Subdivision, H-2022-0039,
to the date of August 18th, 2022. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
4. Public Hearing for Meridian Academy Play Field (H-2022-0031) by The
Land Group, Inc., Located at 2311 E. Lanark St.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 21,2022
Page 5 of 35
A. Request: Rezone of 13.8 acres of land from the I-L to the C-G zoning
district to allow a sports field expansion
Seal: All right. Next we will open the file for -- file H-2022-0031 for Meridian Academy
Playfield. We will begin with the staff report.
Tiefenbach: Greetings, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Alan Tiefenbach,
planner with the City of Meridian. So, this is a rezoning. The site consists of 13.8 acres,
zoned I-L. It's located north of East Franklin Road between North Locust Grove and North
Eagle Road. Quick history. In 1992 a conditional use permit was approved to allow an
educational facility. An alternative high school with playfield and a district maintenance
facility have been subsequently constructed on the property. Directly adjacent and
northwest of the property is a four and a half acre lot also owned by the same applicant
and this also contains an additional maintenance facility. This is a proposal to rezone
roughly half of this property from I-L to C-G to allow expansion, which would be the
construction of a playfield and an existing educational facility on the left. Fortunately,
north is not up --well, north is up here and that's why you are seeing it sideways, because
I don't operate well not looking at north up. So, on the left is the site plan that they
provided to me. Sorry, again, about the labels being sideways. On the right is the exhibit
for the rezoning. So, again, the applicant wants to construct a new playfield. Basically a
grass softball field. Since the time of the original annexation and the conditional use
permit, the I-L zoning has been changed. So, originally, it allowed educational institutions
by conditional use, sometime after that original approval that was written out, so that you
can no longer do educational institutions by primary use or by conditional use in industrial.
However, there -- there is the option -- because this was already approved through a
conditional use permit, the applicant did have the option of modifying the condition. The
code allows you to do that. It's already approved. You can modify it. They don't want to
do that, however. And the reason why is -- if you can see my pointer, this is the existing
school here. Here is an existing district maintenance facility and -- and I keep
emphasizing district, because this maintenance facility is not something that's customary
-- customarily incidental just to this school. This is a primary use district facility for the
whole school district. The reason why that's a problem is that -- or the reason why this is
different is if that was just a little shop for the school we could say it was associated with
the school. It would be allowed in this -- in the C-G zone district. But in this case because
it's a separate use it's actually only allowed in I-L and that is the reason why -- if you look
on the right you will see this exhibit and what they want to do is they want to carve out
this area right here and that's going to be C-G and, then, all the rest of it is going to remain
I-L. Again, that's because they want to -- they -- they want to make it a clean break, so
they are going to do their sports field on the east side and, then, they are going to keep
everything as it is on the west side. Access to the existing school occurs from East Lanark
Street, which is an industrial collector. There is nothing here right now. Right now there
is a master street map and it shows that this will be the future alignment of an industrial
collector. However, it's -- it's a little undecided about what the exact alignment of it is.
ACHD does not have the final design. I don't think they have the -- the -- the estimate
about when it's going to be built. We talked to ACHD about whether or not they wanted
to keep that collector and I might add that the master street map also shows a potential
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 21,2022
Page 6 of 35
collector running north-south. ACHD's response is that they no longer want that north-
south collector, but they do still want to be this -- see this east-west collector at sometime
built. Because the applicant is only doing a sports field as part of this application, planting
grass really doesn't require a building permit. Staff has talked to the applicant about this.
The applicant is amenable to having a development agreement which would say that prior
to building permit, whenever that occurs, that the applicant would dedicate 54 feet of right
of way and to construct East Lanark Street as a 40 foot wide collector with curb, gutter,
and sidewalk. This is what ACHD asked for and the applicant is amenable to that. In
addition, there was a couple of additional things that staff recommended be added to the
development agreement. You can require a development --there is not one now, but you
can require a development agreement as part of a rezoning. The -- the school is right
across the street from existing residential. It has been there for a while, but they are
bringing a sports field now directly fronting Franklin. I talked to the applicant about this
and this is not really like a standalone sports arena where they are going to have
organized little league or something like that. This is a sports field just associated with
this school -- with the events of the school. That said, we still were a little concerned
about lights or any kind of activities happening and the people that -- or the residents
across street being impacted by that, so we recommended that they restrict outdoor
sports activities and the lighting to between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and the applicant
is amenable to that and the other thing is that the comprehensive -- the future land use
map designates this property as civic and the applicant is actually rezoning it to C-G. So,
that doesn't exactly jive with the Comprehensive Plan. However, staff has recommended
that there be a development agreement restriction that says this can only be used for an
institutional facility. If they want to do anything other than a school they will have to come
back in and do a development agreement modification. I understand that the applicant is
also amenable to that. So, really, all we are doing -- my long winded explanation is that
we are clipping out a little piece of C-G, so that they can put some grass in. With that I
will stand for questions.
Seal: All right. Thank you very much. Would the applicant like to come forward? Good
evening. If you can state your name and address for the record and the floor is yours.
Adams: Good evening. Matthew Adams. 462 East Shore Drive, Eagle, Idaho. And I do
have a presentation. Do you have a -- sorry. So, thank you, Chairman, Commissioners.
Everything Alan said we agree with. We are in agreement with the staff report. We are
agreeable to the development agreement conditions that he listed. What I want to show
you is what this playfield -- it's not a sports field, it's a playfield. When that roadway gets
constructed they don't want to take the kids across a road for PE or activities. That's their
only outdoor space. So, once that's constructed they need a play field on the same side
and so that's really -- we are setting ourselves up so they can continue to maintain and
operate that facility without going back for a CUP every single time and I guess because
of the rewrite to the I-L zone this is an important update for the school district. This is the
same map that Alan showed you. All right. So, future character, just in case we don't
know what that playfield might look like, these are examples of what that could look like.
So, it's open play field, seating, potentially some hardcore -- like foursquare, tetherball or
basketball, for the students of the school itself. No lighting and no planned athletics. Now,
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 21,2022
Page 7 of 35
West Ada does have a long history of partnering with youth leagues for practices and
things like that and I would assume those would occur on this site, but with no lighting
they would certainly be limited to accommodate the development agreement conditions
and so, really, we are here to say we have no objections to the conditions of the
development agreement. We are really pleased with the work that Alan did and the fact
that any roadway construction would be dependent on a building permit application. We
are in full agreement with that. Mostly because the ACHD does not know where that road
needs to align, so there would be -- it would be very challenging to try to construct that
and our request is a recommendation for approval of the rezone being sent to Council.
Thank you.
Seal: Thank you very much. Is there any questions for the applicant or staff?
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead.
Grove: Mr. Adams, question with the grading. From the top, which would be the south
side, I guess, of Franklin -- the north side of Franklin, which would be the south side of
this project, down to where the school is, is -- I mean I'm not real great at elevations, but
it looks like a significant amount. What does that look like and how does that impact this
project?
Adams: Chairman and Commissioner Grove, great question. You are a hundred percent
right. So, we show on this drawing there is a -- we would do -- so, this application is for
the rezone. We are going to come in after this with a CZC and work with staff to do a
play field. To do that we would need to do a street buffer. The required street buffer. We
would need to do a buffer to the existing residential and there is -- there is also those high
-- the -- the overhead power lines. So, we would need to stay level as we come away
from Franklin and, then, we need to dive it down pretty quick. We have been talking to
the district like do they want the students to have to come up some sort of a stair ramp or
do we take the field way down? I'm not sure we know yet. It's -- it's greater than a 30
foot drop from Franklin down to that school, so there will -- there will be some major earth
moving activity on this field. We don't have that solution determined quite yet.
Grace: Thank you.
Adams: You are welcome.
Seal: Commissioner Grace, go ahead.
Grace: Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Adams, I noticed in the staff report there
didn't appear to be any change in parking. Initially I thought it was an athletic field and
that was going to be a major concern of mine, but I guess I would just ask do you see any
issue with parking? Is there -- is there adequate parking for the intended use?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 21,2022
Page 8 of 35
Adams: Chairman, Commissioner Grace, thank you. So, right now--so correct. Playfield
intended for school use. Clearly youth sports are going to come use this for practices
and things; right? Now, that is currently occurring on the baseball field, which is to the
north of the property, and I think, Alan, your map probably showed that better. Well,
actually, this map shows it. So, on the left side of the screen you can see the baseball
field; right? That is there. The -- the turf is horrible over there. They are doing their best,
but they have no irrigation. You know, they got gophers. Terrible things. So, there are
some very brave coaches that do practices on that and because it's outside of school
hours the parking has not been a concern to where West Ada has ever had to take any
action. There is only 140 students at this facility, so there is very limited staff during the
day and, then, the maintenance office is empty after hours as well and there is a
significant amount of parking there as well. So, we do not anticipate under -- having
unorganized type use that there be any kind of parking impact.
Seal: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Adams: Thank you. Appreciate it.
Seal: And, Mr. Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify?
Johnson: Mr. Chair, we did not.
Seal: Anybody in chambers like to come up and testify? Have anybody online? I don't
know if we even have anybody -- I don't see anybody raising their hand. All right. With
that, have nothing -- I was going to say it doesn't sound like there is anything to rebut or
speak to, so we will -- we will continue on with it. If somebody would like to give me a
motion to close the public hearing portion for file number H-2022-0031, Meridian Play
Academy Field.
Lorcher: So moved.
Grace: Second.
Seal: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for file number H-2022-
0031. All -- all those in favor say aye. Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Seal: All right. This one seems to be pretty straightforward. If there is any -- anybody
would like to discuss it or make a motion, please, feel free.
Lorcher: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 21,2022
Page 9 of 35
Lorcher: Anytime we can add green space to our city I think is a good thing. I'm prepared
to make a motion, unless anybody else has something to say.
Seal: Feel free. Thank you.
Lorcher: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move and
recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2022-0031 as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of July 21 st, 2022, with no modifications.
Seal: All right. It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. H-2022-0031 . No
modifications. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. Thank
you very much.
Johnson: Mr. Chair, sorry, I didn't catch who seconded that.
Grace: I can second it.
Johnson: Okay.
Seal: I thought Commissioner Grace did second it, so --
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
6. Public Hearing for Ten Mile Public Storage (H-2022-0016) by Kimley-
Horn and Associates, Inc., Located at 4065 N. Ten Mile Rd.
A. Request: Annexation of 5.797 acres of land with the I-L zone district,
and request for elimination of required 25 ft. residential landscape
buffer, to allow two self-storage buildings, by Kimley-Horn.
Seal: All right. And we will now move to Agenda Item No. 6, which is Ten Mile Public
Storage, and we will begin with the staff report.
Tiefenbach: Let me get this cued up. Sorry. Are you looking at that? You are not seeing
that, are you?
Seal: We are not, no.
Tiefenbach: Okay. Hang on a second. Try it again. Sometimes I'm Zoom challenged.
Seal: Now we see it.
Tiefenbach: All right. Good. Thank you. Okay. This is an annexation and a zoning to
I-L. The site consists of 5.8 acres, zoned RUT in the county, located at 4065 North Ten
Mile, which is between Ustick and West McMillan Road. There is no history on the project,
obviously, because it's not in the city, but if you look at the map on the right you will see
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 21,2022
Page 10 of 35
that this is almost adjacent to the existing self storage. The comprehensive land use map
for this designates this as mixed-use nonresidential, which would be this kind of use. If
you -- to the south and west is the city's wastewater treatment facility. I prepared this,
because it's -- this is complicated, but very simple and it's easier I think to demonstrate
with graphics than it is to try to explain this to you. So, the subject property is an elongated
parcel presently containing a single family residence and that's what you see here. It is
north of an existing self storage facility. So, this right now is in the city and this is zoned
-- zoned I-L. It's called the Citadel -- Citadel For Storage Ten Mile. Between the existing
self storage, which is here, and the subject property, which is a little tricky to see, is a flag
lot that's owned by the city. So, this big square here is part of it and, then, there is this
little sliver right here. Hopefully you can see that. The flagpole type serves as access.
The city owns it. It serves as access to this piece here. It gives a farmer that's in this
area access and it also serves as access to the wastewater treatment plant. In
September of 2021 the applicant requested a pre-app with the city to discuss expanding
their existing self storage, which, again, is down here. Same owner owns both properties.
As we talked about it, because of this flagpole lot, it was complicated trying to figure out
how are we going to make this work, because we wanted to make sure we provided
connectivity and the city had some reservations with people crossing over their -- their
property and how difficult that would be. After a series of meetings the solution that
arrived was that they were going to reconfigure this access through a property boundary
adjustment. So, basically, just a shifting of property lines and that's what I'm showing on
this graphic. So, again, what you see down here is the existing flagpole parcel. What I
have shown here in the red, if you can imagine is what we are doing is we are basically
doing a little parcel boundary adjustment to move it -- same width, still 25 feet wide, but
we are basically taking it from here and moving it up to here. Now, that's going to serve
a few purposes. This is the graphic here, again, that I have annotated to try to describe
this. The first thing that it will do is it will make this a cohesive development. They can
fence the whole thing in. They can put their two buildings here. It's all within the same
development. It will still provide access for the city. Public Works has been working with
us on this, so the Public Works director is okay with this. She's been on board. It will still
provide access to all of the people that are presently giving access. But the more
important thing is -- the thing that we really have -- because we wanted to make sure
happened, is that the properties to the north are in the county. Now, how long will they
be in the county? We don't know. But Ten Mile is an arterial road and as you probably
know our code says that if you are taking access from an arterial road, what we want you
to do is eventually try to reduce the amount of direct accesses off of that road, particularly
if you can reconfigure access internally. In this particular case those northern properties,
if we align the road like it is now, now we just created access for those if they -- or at least
-- at least a secondary access for those if they redevelop in the future. So, what would
happen is now where this existing driveway is here, this will share with the existing. So,
it's all still going to be one driveway with the existing self storage. The access that is
occurring right now for the road --for the existing house will be closed and this new access
road will be created to the south. Again, all of it's going to be done by -- administratively
by a parcel boundary adjustment and the city would, then, again take the same amount
of land, just different location. One thing that was a little complicated was that both the
subject property and the adjacent city property are not in unincorporated -- or -- or sorry
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 21,2022
Page 11 of 35
-- are not in the city right now. So, the city property is not in the city. We talked about
that. The city at this point doesn't want to annex it. However, of course, the applicant
does. Now, that poses a problem, because when you are doing a parcel boundary
adjustment you can't -- can't do a parcel boundary adjustment for two properties, one of
them is in the city and one of them isn't. It was a bit of a perplexing dilemma, but the city
attorney had a great idea and what that was was that we would make a condition of
approval that they would have to do this parcel boundary adjustment before the
annexation ordinance was recorded. So, if the Council were to approve it, then, before
they actually recorded it they would go through -- they would be -- the applicant would go
through -- they would do this parcel boundary adjustment to see exactly what we have --
I have just shown you and, then, once that was done, then, they would record the
annexation agreement. That would work. One of the conditions of approval that you see
in your staff report is that the applicant is going to be on the hook to do all that surveying
stuff. This is all being driven by the applicant at this point and one of the reasons why the
city doesn't want to annex is there is still a lot of property discussions going on with some
property that we own over to the west, which I don't want to get into, but there is still a lot
of discussions that there might be some property stuff going on -- not this applicant,
another applicant, so we are not sure yet what that alignment is going to look like.
However -- so, the applicant is going to be on the hook to do all the surveying, to make
sure that it's surveyed correctly. The applicant -- the conditions of approval say that the
applicant will have to build this road to I believe 20 feet wide with gravel and the Public
Works put as much as specified standards in there if you want to read it. There were two
other things that -- that staff wanted to see. There is still properties that are going to be
directly to the north. Under our current code the way that it works if you are directly
adjacent to a residential property you have to put in a 25 foot residential buffer. Well, this
doesn't really work, because they are not really more adjacent to properties to the north,
because we have got this piece of land in between them and the -- the new mini storage.
Staff still thought that you probably should have some kind of mitigation, just because of
the possible visibility and that people have to look at this. So, we are recommending as
a condition of approval a reduced buffer. So, basically, a five foot buffer. That's what you
have to put on a parking lot. Five foot landscape with trees. I think it's one every 30 feet
or something like that with shrubs. The other thing is if you -- if you look at the elevations
they weren't super thrilled about this. Now, that said, the existing facility basically looks
like this -- and if you go out there and you look this is exactly what you see, but just
because that was there, then, doesn't mean that -- that we want to continue doing that.
So, we thought there should be some kind of minimal level of design. We didn't want to
make it super difficult for him, but we do want to make sure that there was -- there was a
good design level. So, the other condition of approval that you see in the staff report is
that there is at least two different materials, there has to be some modulation and some
undulation and some accent materials on the east facing building, which would be the
one on Ten Mile, as well as the north facing building, which would be the one that's going
to be visible to all the people that right now are residential to the north. Hopefully I
explained that whole thing, which is really simple, but not, and I will stand for any
questions.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 21,2022
Page 12 of 35
Seal: Thank you very much. At this time would the applicant like to come forward? Good
evening. If you want to give us your name and address for the record and the floor is
yours.
Anderson: Good evening, Chairman, Members of the Commission, staff and residents.
Aaron Anderson representing Public Storage. I'm not touching anything. Great. All right.
Well, I wanted to start out by saying thank you to the Commission for taking the time to
hear our case tonight and a special thank you to staff, particularly Alan for all the hard
work that he's put in on this project. You know, first some quick team introduction. So,
on our applicant team we have our entitlement expert, which is Nicolette Womack. She's
here with me tonight in the gallery. Our project architect is Stephanie Massee and our
civil engineers are Brandon McDougald and Connor Candrian and, then, that person, that
face up in the top left corner, is me, which is apparently what I look like without facial hair.
So, now a quick introduction to Public Storage. So, our company was founded back in
1972. So, we have 50 years in business as of this year. So, if you believe Wikipedia we
are the founders of the modern self storage industry as you know it today. We are the
largest owner-operator of self storage in the world with locations domestically, as well as
I believe in five European countries. We have nearly 3,000 locations in our portfolio and
you can imagine that number grows every month and we grow our business in the
following ways, through acquisition where we buy functioning properties and rebrand
them in our image. Third-party management and new development. The third-party
management piece would be the smallest chunk of that pie chart. We are also one of the
few, if not the only self storage operators, with a full in-house development team, which
includes acquisitions, developers like me, architects and civil engineers, all under the
Public Storage umbrella. We operate in 39 out of 50 states and at present we have six
locations in the state of Idaho. Three of those are in the City of Meridian. So, it's important
to highlight that the proposal that's before you guys tonight is considered an expansion,
so it's not going to -- once complete it's not going to add to that total of three, it's just going
to make that third property larger than it is today. So, I don't want to rehash too much of
what Alan went into, because his presentation was fantastic, but you may see some of
the same kind of slides here. By taking a look at the project we can see the five acre
property, which we purchased in October of last year, so we closed escrow and we own
this -- this piece of land located along North Ten Mile Road. It's currently developed with
the single family home, which has been recently vacated by the former owner. Today this
property sits within the jurisdiction of Ada county as you know. Directly south is one of
our newest facilities, which was acquired in 2021 , and you can clearly see that to the
south of that red line in the aerial. So, a quick timeline here. We started our formal
process with staff back in October of last year. Following the pre-app we ended up
redesigning this facility as a single story building. Our original proposal was a three story
building. It was huge. So, we held the neighborhood meeting in February where we did
present the single story option. Those who showed up, which some may be here tonight,
seemed largely supportive of that single story design, which remains fundamentally the
same as it did back then tonight. Since we reduced the scale of the building going from
three stories to one we felt it prudent to go through another pre-app with staff to give them
a chance to weigh in on that new design. Following that meeting we made a formal
application and ultimately ending up here before you tonight. So, for the context you can
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 21,2022
Page 13 of 35
see how this parcel fits into the city's future land use map. Wait. I'm sorry. Looking at
the zoning map you can see this site currently sits in Ada county, zoned RUT. The entire
block is essentially surrounded by City of Meridian, so it makes sense to absorb this
particular parcel into your jurisdiction and this is one step towards filling in the missing
puzzle pieces, so to speak. So, for the context to see how this parcel fits into the city's
future land use map, it remains consistent with the current uses, because we have an
operating storage facility directly to the south and another one adjacent to that and this is
consistent with the city's long-term vision for this particular area. So, looking more closely
you can see, you know, what the present state of the property looks like and how it relates
to our existing facility. That black dashed line, of course, represents that access road that
Alan went into great detail about. Here is the site plan. This was the original proposal
with the access road bifurcating the two properties and, then, the updated proposal, which
we are presenting tonight, which is where we are pulling that property line down south,
so we have one contiguous parcel. This -- this configuration has many benefits for the
city and for Public Storage. Alan highlighted many of them, but I will go through the list
here. So, number one it eliminates a curb cut from Ten Mile. It also allows for future
access to the northern -- as those northern parcels develop. It provides a path for public
utilities that will benefit our project, as well as future and current uses. It allows for
uninterrupted access to the farmer, who currently leases that farmland to the west and,
again, it creates that contiguous boundary, which really makes this a true expansion of
our existing facility. So, it's worth noting --Alan mentioned a bit of this, but I will go through
the list again. That Public Storage has agreed to shoulder the cost burden for all this
work. That includes the legal descriptions and survey, that curb cut removal and
relocation. Providing all the paving required to meet ACHD standards and the grading of
the access drive and the construction work that will take place along that entire length of
road all the way to that western property line boundary. I mean, again, we are also going
to bring in a water main as a part of our project. We are going to tap that off of Ten Mile
and ultimately we are going to leave that in that access road, so future uses that develop
to the north can grab utilities and not have to tap in the Ten Mile right of way again. So,
here is a quick look again at the current building elevations. This is a single story design.
As Alan stated, we started with architectural features to match what we currently have
existing to the south and we are totally open to making adjustments to meet the
conditions. The building will be fully enclosed, climate controlled, and no doors will be
visible to the general public. This thing is completely enclosed. So, those typical roll up
doors that -- you are not going to see them on this kind of facility. So, in closing, we have
reviewed the staff report and the conditions and we accept them as presented and with
that we are requesting the Commission vote to recommend approval to the City Council
of our project tonight. We are here to answer any questions you may have and thank you
very much for your time.
Seal: All right. Thank you very much. Do we have any questions for the applicant or
staff at this time?
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 21,2022
Page 14 of 35
Grove: Always have questions.
Seal: That's okay. That's why we are here.
Grove: Mr. Anderson, question for you. With the architectural elements on the east side
and the north side, would -- I believe is what Alan had said. Would you be open to
continuing that on the west side as well?
Anderson: Yeah. Oh, absolutely. Sure. Yeah.
Grove: Thank you.
Seal: Commissioner Grace, go ahead.
Grace: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Anderson, with regard to the access road that will be now on
the north side of the newly developed property, is there intended any access to the facility
from that access road?
Anderson: Absolutely not. No. So, the whole intent was to -- you know, we -- we had
conversation with ACHD and with Alan and, you know, limiting access points along Ten
Mile is the goal. So, there is a current -- there is an existing access point to that road as
it exists today and, you know, this is not the greatest shaped parcel. You know, as a
developer getting this kind of geometry it's not ideal. So, there had to be an access point
to serve this. I think it's a benefit that Public Storage is developing this piece, because
we have two access points that already -- are already there. If we pull that parcel down
we can use those two access points to get throughout the property. The new part, the
old part, and not need any new curb cuts along Ten Mile. So, we will be able to serve
that whole facility from the two access points we have and, yeah, it works -- it works great
operationally for us.
Grace: And, then, just to confirm, I think I heard what you say. So, there is no -- people
don't drive up and there is no doors in maybe the traditional way I'm thinking about storage
facilities, it's all interior?
Anderson: Correct. Yeah. This is sort of that modern facility where, you know, the -- the
drive-up use, which is what's out there today, this is all fully enclosed. There will be a
couple of lobby doors. People pull up, they grab a cart, they put their stuff on the cart and
they wheel it inside. All those roll-up doors are still there, they are just hidden behind the
exterior walls.
Grace: Okay.
Seal: Any further questions? All right. Mr. Clerk, do we have anybody signed up for
public testimony?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 21,2022
Page 15 of 35
Johnson: Mr. Chair, some people signed in, but nobody marked that they wanted to
testify.
Seal: Anybody in Chambers want to come up and testify? Anybody online raising their
hand? I don't think so. No. Yes, sir. Come on up. Good evening. Please give us your
name and address for the record and just speak right into the microphone there and the
floor is yours.
Wiskus: Yes. I'm John Wiskus and I live at --
Seal: Yep. Either one.
Wiskus: Okay. All right. I'm John Wiskus and I live at 4255 North Ten Mile Road and
I'm supportive of the project, but I'm not up to speed on all the details as this continues to
move forward. But a couple of questions I -- I wanted to just throw out. One would be
there is an existing drainage that Nampa-Meridian Irrigation has there that's contiguous
to the city's access road. What -- what's the disposition of that? That would be one
question. On the north side of the proposed road and -- and I'm not sure it -- it's a 20 foot
access road that's going to get basically put on the north side of the property and I'm
thinking about the access. I know the farmer goes up and down that -- his access
requirements. There is a little bit of a jog there. The farmer's probably a short-term user
of that road, but thinking about that and wondering if -- if a 20 foot fence on that is going
to allow access, particularly when you get to the jog and trying to understand the five foot
setback. So, as I think about my neighbor, who abuts this, is that fence on the north side
of that city access road going to be right on the property line or is it going to be set back
and, then, you will have the 20 foot access road and, then, a five foot landscape buffer.
Trying to just get the feel for that. The details are kind of hard to see on that -- that
drawing. And I guess -- now, that -- that's kind of -- trying to understand the access road
and the irrigation issues that are going on there now. There is like a water line that's
going to go down that, which is great for future development, so -- just some questions,
so --
Seal: Okay.
Wiskus: Don't necessarily need answers here, but take them offline, too.
Seal: We will try and get them -- we will try and get them answered this evening for you.
Wiskus: Okay. From tonight -- now, this will go to City Council for final approval; correct?
Seal: Correct.
Wiskus: Okay. All right.
Seal: Okay. Thank you very much. Anybody else like to come up and testify? No? All
right. Alan, would you like to --
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 21,2022
Page 16 of 35
Tiefenbach: I can answer-- Alan Tiefenbach. I can answer at least a couple of them. As
far as the drainage, yeah, there was a question about that. There is a ditch that is running
in between -- where the existing access road is now there is a ditch. They are going to
pipe it. We already had that discussion. As far as the five foot setback, the -- the five
foot setback is a landscape buffer. There is going to be a requirement for a buffer. That
buffer would be on the --the landscape buffer would be on the outside --the direct outside
of the building, because the -- the road strip will be city property. So, on the inside of the
city property will -- directly adjacent to the building would be the landscaping. Public
Works -- sorry. Popping. Public Works is requiring a fence along the -- the -- is requiring
a fence along the road and they also want a gate on either side, because they don't want
the wrong people using it. I have the feeling that Connor is going to be able to do a better
-- answering maneuverability for a farmer. I -- I don't know. I don't know if you know
about the jog and tractors or --
Seal: Thank you, Alan. Aaron, go ahead.
Anderson: Yeah. Sure. Can I go back to the --just to reference the site plan, Alan. Just
so we are all looking --
Tiefenbach: Yeah. Sorry, let me -- I'm sorry. I called you Connor. My apologies, Aaron.
Give me a second here and I will get you back up.
Anderson: He is the engineer, so he is the --
Tiefenbach: Yeah.
Seal: It is -- it's a 25 foot easement, but, then, there is a road within the easement or is
that the way that that's designed or is the 25 foot --
Anderson: Well, it's 25 overall; right? Because so as the -- as the road exists today it's
25 feet. So, it's a like for like; right? If we are getting 25, we are giving up 25 on the north
side. So, the road functions today. Now, a large part of that 25 feet is taken up by that
irrigation ditch. So, the farmer does not have 20 feet of total width -- or 25 feet of total
width to drive. So, this area north -- and I'm just trying to make sure I understand the
question correctly. Is it that the turning radius for the tractor may not be able to function?
Well, I will put it to you like this. We believe that the road at 20 feet is -- is plenty wide,
even with the jogs. But what we could do is demonstrate through a diagram; right? So,
we can have our civil engineer go back to the office, run a simulation where that tractor
goes down the road and if for any reason we see it not being able to make the turn
movements, then, we can make adjustments. As far as the fence location, I mean, yeah,
it will be right on the property line, but the road is intended to be gravel. It's only a
temporary solution. So, there is going to be no curbs, gutters. In the future when that
develops and -- and development does move north I'm sure it will look a whole lot
different; right? Somebody is going to have it. They are going to put gutters in. They are
going to put asphalt down. This is just sort of a temporary solution to kind of fix the muddy
condition that's out there today and make it traversable by the farmer and only the farmer,
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 21,2022
Page 17 of 35
because that gate on the Ten Mile site is going to prevent anybody from accessing that
road. So, it's really just a one way road for that tractor. It's not going to be two way traffic
and you are not going to have traffic jams on that -- that gravel road, so --
Seal: Thanks for the explanation and if there is anybody else that would like to testify?
Sir, if you want to come on up.
Madison: My name is Danny Madison. I'm at 4115 North Ten Mile. I'm the property just
north of -- of this development here. So, the only thing I wanted to -- similar to John's,
you know, sort of just a comment and possibly a question. Is in the staff report it states
that there is a 20 foot wide access road and, then, it has some requirements on what it
would be constructed of and, then, it says on page 12, section J, it says the north and
south sides of the new access -- access road shall be fenced and a gate should be
installed. So, the question was if you are looking at the -- what they refer to, which is --
let's see, what is it? 11 -- UDC 11-38-7, which is the fence guideline from Meridian, it has
a few examples of what the fence, you know, might be, but I was curious if -- if we could
get any illustration that shows what that fence might look -- look like or if it's going to be
closed or open picket style and the height, too.
Seal: Okay.
Madison: That's it.
Seal: All right. Thanks very much, sir. Alan, do you want to try and --
Tiefenbach: I have to double check real quick the staff report and let me see if it gives a
-- Aaron might be able to answer quicker than me. I'm looking to see if the staff report
actually -- if Public Works required -- I think they required a specific common fence. I'm
double checking.
Anderson: Okay. I do not know your code as well as you, Alan. I'm sorry.
Tiefenbach: But code is what Public Works said to do.
Anderson: Well, you know, the question is this is going to remain at Ada county. So, is
there a different fence standard for Ada county that we could adhere to? I mean it seems
like a question that we could certainly answer post-hearing, but I'm not sure if I would be
able to tell you.
Seal: So, it's my understanding that there will be a fence on both sides of the road.
Anderson: Correct. Yeah. And our property we are going to -- the building sort of acts
as a natural barrier; right? We are going to back right up to that landscape buffer and,
then, where it's open -- I mean the nature of storage is we want to keep people's stuff
safe. So, the fence really helps us secure the property and sort of serves the purpose of
putting the fence on both sides of the road. It's the north side I think that's still in question.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 21,2022
Page 18 of 35
Seal: Okay.
Anderson: But we are open to putting in whatever is allowed that sort of satisfies the
concerns. Public Storage is.
Tiefenbach: It just says fencing. I mean generally six foot, but I don't know the
requirements.
Anderson: Sure. Like a six foot wrought iron fence. That would be my best first guess,
but we would have to confirm that with Ada county.
Seal: Okay.
Starman: Mr. Chairman, I would just add, I don't think it's going to be a -- a code
requirement. This is going to be a -- a condition in the development agreement and it's
what the Department of Public Works will require from the city. It won't be an Ada county
requirement, it's going to be a city requirement via the development agreement. So, you
know, between now and the time the City Council considers this, if we want to provide
more clarity on the type of fencing or height of fencing we can do so, but it will be a
contractual obligation, not a code requirement.
Seal: Thank you.
Tiefenbach: Not sure if the -- if the -- the neighbor had a preference, if they are right
directly next door about what kind of fencing they would prefer to see there.
Seal: Sir -- sir, if you want to come back -- go ahead and come back up. Generally don't
do that, but come on up. And -- and, again, the question was if there is, you know, some
sort of reference to this. I mean --
Madison: Yeah.
Seal: Chain link. Wrought iron.
Madison: Sure. I have no desire to see the road or anything like that. So, as -- as tall
and closed as anyone, you know, agreeing to would be --would be okay. There is another
neighbor west of my property that was here initially and then -- and then left. So, I could
kind of loop him in and suggest that he shows up and just -- you know. Because I don't
know what his preference is. I can't speak on his -- but my preference -- and -- and didn't
you hear Larry mention before he left that he wanted a taller fence if possible. Yeah.
So --
Seal: Okay.
Madison: Just depends on what's allowed and what's -- what's doable; right?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 21,2022
Page 19 of 35
Seal: Alan, go ahead.
Tiefenbach: My only comment on that would be right now there is a require -- requirement
for a five foot wide perimeter landscape strip with the trees and shrubs. The trees would
still work, but it wouldn't make sense to put shrubs in if we are going to have a six foot
fence there. But if we were going to just go with a solid fence I might suggest, then, we
keep with the trees, but I don't see the need for shrubs if you are not going to see them.
Madison: You are referring to the south?
Tiefenbach: Well, they are -- they are required -- the requirement of the -- requirement is
-- is that along the outside of that building, Building B or Building A, they have to put in a
five foot wide landscape strip, which would have one per 35 and some shrubs; right? If
we were putting up a fence all the people to the north are no longer seeing those shrubs.
They are only seeing the trees. So, I'm not sure -- it's certainly up to the purview of the
Planning Commission, but I don't know how super helpful it would be to put a bunch of
shrubs behind a fence.
Madison: Well, I don't have a preference on what the south fence should be, but the north
side, which is on my property, is the only one I'm concerned with.
Tiefenbach: That's what I mean. If I -- I mean on the -- on the --
Madison: Okay.
Tiefenbach: -- the build -- the -- the building --
Madison: Yeah.
Tiefenbach: -- the building is -- because the building is going to be on their property. So
-- so the building on the outside of that building would have to have a five foot landscape
strip with trees and shrubs. But if there is going to be a fence in front of that, between
you and them, you are not seeing the shrubs. Might just be a better idea -- whether or
not there is any use for the landscape strip. I don't know.
Seal: Yeah. And I mean knowing that this is kind of farm access, the -- the least amount
of stuff that you can put on either side of that is going to help farm equipment. I -- I mean
I'm an old farm boy myself, so I can see, you know, if you are trying to get in there with a
one ton baler or something that's going to be a little tricky.
Tiefenbach: Putting in a fence may not make that -- that wasn't -- that solid fence wasn't
a requirement. I originally was thinking they were going to be doing chain link fencing,
which is why I was more concerned about the landscaping. But if they are going to do
the architecture on the buildings, I don't know what the purpose is, then, of having the
fence put into -- sorry. I don't know what the purpose is of having the landscape strip if
we are going to put a solid fence in front of it.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 21,2022
Page 20 of 35
Seal: I would agree with that, too. And that's -- I -- I mean I -- if -- if there is a preference
to anything I would recommend -- you can e-mail about this particular case to, you know,
clerk(@meridiancity.org and, then, just note what you are -- you know, what it is that you
are e-mailing about and they will make sure to forward that onto the city planning staff as
well and make it part of the public record.
Madison: All right. Thank you.
Seal: Yeah. Thank you very much.
Grace: Mr. Chairman?
Seal: Go ahead.
Grace: The latest -- I'm sorry. You can come on up, because you might answer the
question.
Anderson: I don't mean to interrupt. I just wanted to interject before we close the public
hearing. To make sure I'm clear, you know, Public Storage -- you know, we are going to
work -- we can work with the neighbors between now and City Council and really resolve
this and by the time we are ready for the City Council staff report we can have that baked
into the -- into the report. That would be our goal, so -- after tonight we are giving them
our contact info and -- thank you.
Seal: Thank you. Mr. Grace, go ahead.
Grace: Yeah. Mr. Anderson, I was just going to ask -- the latest discussion raised a
question in my mind about the gate on the Ten Mile side of this parcel of land. Is that
something that the farmer is going to have to open and does that mean that farming
equipment is out there on Ten Mile Road while he does that?
Seal: I was going to say I can -- I can field that one, because I have seen it happen. Yes,
there is -- right now they -- there is actually a gate that they have to open to get into that
facility. Currently it -- it does sit back a little ways from the road, but there are -- there is
farm equipment that has to turn into there, so -- I mean we are still kind of a farming
community, but the answer to that is yes.
Grace: Yeah.
Seal: Now, whether or not they keep it locked, they keep it open, closed, or whatever,
that's completely up to them. But there will be a gate installed, so -- Alan, go ahead.
Tiefenbach: Public Works' condition of approval says to offset the gate 50 feet from Ten
Mile Road right of way.
Seal: There you go. Perfect.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 21,2022
Page 21 of 35
Grace: I just want to make sure the farmer is safe, so --
Seal: Yeah. That's a good question, so -- and, like I said, I mean I have actually seen
equipment on Ten Mile going into that, so -- all right. Is there anybody else that would
like to testify? Nobody online raising their hand? Would the applicant like to come back
up and -- signifying no. So, with that if somebody would like to give a motion to close the
public hearing for file number H-2022-0016.
Grace: So moved.
Lorcher: Second.
Seal: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing portion for file number
H-2022-0016. All in favor, please, say aye. Any opposed? Okay.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Seal: With that who would like to go first?
Lorcher: I will, Mr. Chair.
Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead.
Lorcher: So, both the applicant and city said that this road is a temporary solution to other
things that may happen going towards the north and so I actually support what Alan said.
The -- the applicant should have his fence, because they want their security, but to add
some unnecessary landscaping when it's all just going to change in the near future
anyway seems like an extraordinary expense to go to, especially if you are going to have
a fence on the north portion of it and the south portion of it and the neighbors on the other
side don't even enjoy that part of it. Most likely it's going to be developed within the next
five to ten years and all that is going to be changed and once you put a tree in sometimes
it's really hard to get a tree out. So, I would definitely -- so, I don't know if it's in the
approval portion of it, but I would support having no landscaping buffer, just the 25 foot
road. Or if you have to make it 25 feet and whomever is responsible just to make sure
the weeds are down and I would assume Public Works would have a high interest in that.
Tiefenbach: Staff doesn't have any opposition to that. We were actually doing it for the
benefit of the neighbor that's here tonight.
Seal: Okay. Yeah. And I -- I'm on the same page as you. I mean if we have got fence
on both sides and, essentially, we want to make sure that that farm equipment can get
through there without any issues, I would say that, you know, having the least amount in
there as possible would be good, you know, to say the least, so -- especially if the fence
can be something other than chain link or something like that to cut down dust or anything
that's going to drift over into the northern parcels and stuff like that, so -- I can't imagine
that there is going to be a lot of traffic on there, but at the same time, you know, I mean if
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 21,2022
Page 22 of 35
they are planting, weeding, or something like that and you get a lot of trucks that are going
to be up and down that road for a small period of time. Same with hay or anything else,
so -- anything we can do to help cut down on that piece of it would probably be good. So,
if anybody wants to throw that in with their motion that would be great. Anything else?
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Go right ahead.
Grove: The only thing that I think I would want to have added would be the --the additional
architectural standard on the west, just in case, you know, it's visible from whatever
happens with that city parcel in the future that we don't have to have an eyesore there. I
know it has no purpose right now, but just long term. So, that would be the only piece
that I would want to have added in. I think this actually cleans up some of the Ten Mile
piece --what you were talking about with the farm equipment and now having the setback
a little bit different, I think this actually solves multiple current and long-term issues. So,
it looks good to me.
Seal: Anybody else? Always take a motion.
Grace: Mr. Chairman, I was going to defer to Commissioner Lorcher based on her --
maybe amendment. But I do support it.
Seal: Okay.
Grace: I couldn't say it, but I support it.
Seal: Okay. Good. So, Commissioner Lorcher, you want to take a stab at a motion,
so --
Lorcher: I'm almost there. Commissioner Grove, what did you say about the -- what did
you say? Architectural --
Grace: Extend the architectural elements around to the west side, in addition to the north
and east side.
Lorcher: Of the property?
Grove: Correct. So, it's in -- it's already in the condition of approval from staff to do the
east and north.
Lorcher: Okay. I think I'm ready.
Seal: Feel free. Thank you.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 21,2022
Page 23 of 35
Lorcher: All right. After considering all staff and applicant and public testimony, I move
to recommend approval of City Council file number H-2022-0016 as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of July 21 st, 2022, with the following modifications: No
landscaping buffer, since the road is temporary and graveled. And extend the
architectural elements to the west side of the property.
Seal: Real quick. The no landscaping buffer only pertains to the north side of the gravel
road; correct?
Lorcher: Correct.
Seal: Okay.
Lorcher: Do I need to say it again?
Seal: I don't think so. As long as you agree with that.
Lorcher: Okay.
Seal: Do I have a second?
Grove: Second.
Seal: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve file number H-2022-0016 for Ten
Mile Public Storage with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye.
Any opposed? All right. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
5. Public Hearing for Hickory Warehouse (H-2022-0040) by Cushing
Terrell, Located at 1135 N. Hickory Ave.
A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow mechanical equipment
emissions, shipping and/or delivery or other outdoor activity areas
within 300 feet from an abutting residential district in the I-L zoning
district.
Seal: All right. And the next item that we have -- thank you all very much. Next item that
we have is file number H-2022-0040 for Hickory Warehouse and I will need to recuse
myself, because my employer owns the building, and I will turn it over to Commissioner
Grove.
Grove: All right. So, we will go ahead and continue with the staff report for file number
H-2022-0040 for Hickory Warehouse
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 21,2022
Page 24 of 35
Tiefenbach: Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair, Members of the Commission. This is an
application for a conditional use permit. The site consists of ten acres of land, zoned I-L
-- this must be I-L night I just thought about. Located at 1135 North Hickory Avenue at
the northwest corner of East -- East State Street and North Hickory Avenue, right across
the street from the Scentsy campus. So, there is a boundary adjustment to combine four
lots into one that happened that included a vacation of an -- of easements that ran on
either side of the internal lines. Then there was a certificate of zoning compliance for a
207,00 square foot multi-tenant building. There was also a conditional use permit
approved in 2021 to approve an indoor recreation facility. This is the approved site plan.
This is a conditional use permit to allow mechanical equipment emissions, shipping, and/
or delivery or other outdoor activities within 300 feet from abutting residential district. So,
in 2022 the applicant requested final inspections on this completed CZC. During the
inspection staff discovered that the building architecture differed from the approved CZC
elevations. That's something that we are going to deal with separately, not part of this.
However, we also noticed that there was a large mechanical dust collector on the west
side of the building that was not reflected on the CZC site plan. It was shown on the
mechanical plans, but when staff reviews CZCs we don't look at mechanical plans. We
don't look at them -- really building permits either. So, that's how it got built. While
discussing the discrepancies between some of the issues with the architecture that was
built and what was actually done, staff also discovered that there was an error in the CZC
approval. Loading bays are not allowed to be pointing with -- are not allowed to be within
300 feet of residential. It talks about outdoor activity. Staff at the time, which I will vouch
was me, did not interpret indoor like those indoor kind of loading pods as outdoor activity.
However, I was wrong and that does mean outdoor activity. So, again, I will cop to my
mistake, which is why we are doing this CUP. Later determined, yep, Alan made a
mistake, so now I'm trying to fix this and they are working with us -- very effectively to do
this. The applicant submitted a narrative, which said that there was a noise study that
was done with the mechanical equipment running full bore. You can see that here. So,
on the top left there is that mechanical equipment. Bottom left is what you are looking at
with the little loading pods where you back the trucks in and, then, the east there that's
just a picture of what you are seeing in between the apartments and the building, which
clearly is less than 300 feet. The applicant submitted a narrative, said they ran a noise
-- noise study while they were running this equipment and it registered at 62 decibels from
the property line. Just to give you that in context, City of Meridian Park says that if you
are having amplified equipment in the parks it has to be less than 62 decibels from the
property line. Sixty decibels is roughly the sound of a normal conversation. That's -- and
the apartments are -- I think I -- I figured they are about 30 feet beyond that. The applicant
is going to install eight foot high steel columns, which you see on this -- on the bottom
here. You can still see the equipment. They are also putting in a metal acoustic decking,
which I'm assuming helps to reduce probably the vibrations, but the applicant can
probably correct me. Applicant notes business hours are 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Staff
definitely supports this. It supports the mechanical enclosure. We do think it will help,
but if you look, again, here you will see there is a -- so, this -- this -- what you see here is
a city pathway. You do have trees there, but you can see they are not super thick and
they don't really do anything to not see the loading bays that I allowed, so staff is
recommending that the applicant put in a combination of eight foot high opaque fencing
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 21,2022
Page 25 of 35
and additional evergreen landscaping, including trees and shrubs. This is worded kind of
specifically, so this will be installed in the vicinity of the pathway along the western building
elevation and northwest property corner sufficient to provide visual screening of the
equipment and loading bays. Fencing and landscaping may have breaks and be
clustered in groups to maximize screening efficiency and produced a more natural
appearance. So -- so, what -- what that was all doing was saying the applicant, if they
want to, can put a fence all along the property line, which could be costly. We would still
want to have at least one break there for the pathway or they could break it up to make it
most efficient just so that the apartments and all that sort of offset screening of those
doors. Again -- and we are trying to work with the applicant, so they can do the whole
thing or they can break it up and put in some natural plantings just to try to soften that
down a little more. With that I will take any questions.
Lorcher: Mr. Chair, can I ask a question? Mr. Vice-Chair, may I ask a question?
Grove: Let's wait until after the applicant.
Lorcher: After the applicant.
Hersel: My name is Josh Hersel with Cushing Terrell. 800 West Main Street, Ste. 800,
Boise, Idaho. As Alan mentioned it's already constructed, a building that was allowed in
an industrial zone. We met all the CZC requirements at the time. Just to note a little bit,
when the owner purchased this property it was C-G next to him and this would have been
allowed with the C-G zone, but it got rezoned to residential after they had purchased this
project. So, that changed during the time of when they purchased it and when they built
the building. We are in full agreement. The owner is in full agreement with the staff report
and recommendations. Willing to either do a fence, landscape buffer. We are going to
do the enclosure on the dust collector. We have had it balanced again and we keep
monitoring -- the testing of the noise to make sure it does not get over to the property line
as well and that is on the property line, that's not to the residence. We didn't walk on their
property to test the noise decibels. So, stand for any questions. But we agree with the
staff report. Owner agrees with fencing or landscaping along the west side as well and
the screen wall around the dust collector will be installed very soon.
Seal: All right. Thank you. And, Commissioner Lorcher, you had a question.
Lorcher: I do. I'm looking at this picture here where I see the -- the loading bays and,
then, the apartments to the left-hand side and, then, the -- the trees, which are immature
right now, which will eventually mature and get bigger. Where are you suggesting a fence
based on this picture? On the -- on the concrete and asphalt of the warehouse or on the
grassy area by the bike path?
Tiefenbach: Alan Tiefenbach. The -- the language reads a little more vague, because
we didn't give them a specificity reason why, is because we wanted to make sure the
landscape architect could make sure the trees weren't going to die if they put a fence in,
because, then, it would be on the north side -- or on the other side of the fence. But,
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 21,2022
Page 26 of 35
basically, it would be in the vicinity of that landscape strip on the inside part of the
pathway. So, we want people that are walking down the pathways to also not be looking
at an entire building full of loading bays and mechanical screening.
Lorcher: All right. So --
Tiefenbach: It would be in that landscape strip that you are looking at. Somewhere like
right about -- so, if you see more where that tree is --
Lorcher: Yes.
Tiefenbach: I'm sorry. The tree. Where you are seeing that truck --
Lorcher: Yes.
Tiefenbach: It would be somewhere placed within that landscaping strip. Again, it's sort
of at their discretion to make sure that they get the most natural appearance and be able
to preserve the landscaping.
Lorcher: Has anybody asked the tenants?
Tiefenbach: Of the apartment complex?
Lorcher: Yeah.
Tiefenbach: I have not asked the tenants of the apartment complex.
Hersel: And the owners were notified. They -- nobody showed up to the neighborhood
meeting or anything. Our preference -- and I'm speaking for the ownership side -- would
be to put it close to the pathway as possible, just to help secure their piece, too, so that
people from the apartments are already having them walk their dogs over on the grass
and leaving dog stuff. So, their preference would be to be more close to the pathway to
help screen that from the apartments next door.
Lorcher: So, you are suggesting that the -- so, the white truck and the -- the --
Hersel: Yeah. So --
Lorcher: Then the trees, then a fence --
Hersel: And a fence and --
Lorcher: Then the -- then the path and, then, they would have kind of their grassy
landscape by the apartment?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 21,2022
Page 27 of 35
Hersel: Yes. And to be truthfully honest, we will have to work with ACHD, because there
is a drainage easement through there and there is a canal through there. So, we have to
make sure that we can build the fence on top of that. We can do evergreens and other
stuff to help screen it as well, but there is other stuff that runs underneath that pathway
right there, too, that we have no control over, because it's an easement through for a
drainage and canal.
Tiefenbach: That's why we didn't want to say only fence. We wanted to make sure they
had some options to work with.
Lorcher: So, I'm assuming if you are looking at a fence you are looking at a solid vinyl
fence, as opposed to chain -- chain link or --
Hersel: It could be chain link with slats. Alan actually didn't recommend vinyl, just
because they are ugly. So, it might be a chain link with a black slat in it.
Lorcher: Chain link fence with black slats is not ugly?
Hersel: He didn't specify what the fence would be. So, it's options. It could be
evergreens. It could be heavier landscape.
Lorcher: Can I ask another one? Sorry.
Grove: Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead.
Lorcher: How long have you been operating this business as it is right now?
Hersel: So, there is only currently one tenant in the building. It's Sawtooth Concepts.
They are a cabinet shop and they are on the very north end where the dust collector is
that you can see and they have been in there for four or five months now. I would have
to double check and we have not heard any complaints from the neighbors.
Lorcher: And we don't know that -- the occupancy of those apartments; right?
Hersel: We don't. There are two other tenants that are getting ready to move into this
space and, as Alan mentioned, one is K1 Speed. It's an indoor go kart track that's already
been approved by your Commission through a different CUP and, then, there is another
warehouse user that is only going to maybe bring one or two trucks in a week.
Lorcher: Okay. Thank you.
Hersel: And, technically, the way you read the code is that if you are unloading trucks --
not if you are backed up to a dock door. So, if you have an enclosed semi that's backed
up to the dock door, that's not 300 -- that doesn't have to meet the 300 feet. It's if you
have a forklift outside unloading a flatbed and that's the 300 feet. So, that's kind of the
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 21,2022
Page 28 of 35
kicker on this is if there are dock shelters, which they are going to install when each tenant
comes, you meet the current code for the offset to residential.
Tiefenbach: Alan Tiefenbach --
Hersel: The way I read it.
Tiefenbach: That was my interpretation, but my interpretation was not deemed to be the
correct one by somebody with a whole lot more experience than me.
Grove: Commissioner Grace.
Grace: Mr. Chairman, just going off some of the questions that were asked, what's the
primary purpose of the fence? Is it -- is it a visual barrier or -- or a noise barrier?
Tiefenbach: I don't think it would do -- I don't think it would do much for noise. I mean
some would make the argument that landscaping does help somewhat. It's more visual
for the people in the apartments, for people walking on the pathways, that they are not
seeing trucks parked in -- again, the code says you are not supposed to have that pointed
at apartments, so it's more visual.
Grace: Okay. Thank you. And I ask because it may be moot at this point, but I mean
what's the fence going to do for people on the third floor of the apartment? But we are
past -- that ship has sailed probably.
Tiefenbach: Unfortunately, the loading bays have already been approved and I can't
recommend a 30 foot high fence.
Grace: Okay. Just --just wondering. Thank you.
Tiefenbach: So, I'm trying to protect the pathways as best as I can.
Grove: I have a question for you real quick. So, in Alan's report he has stated that the
requirement for the fence is that it does not have to go all around the entire property.
What is your intention with that?
Hersel: So, I can't speak fully on, because I'm the architect of it. I can't speak for the
owner and spend their money, but they want to comply. You know, they are a huge
landowner. Lots of campus, you know, everything and it's -- it's not a Scentsy project.
It's not that. It's complete different ownership than Scentsy. But they want to comply with
the code. They want to be good stewards of the city. So, most likely they would be willing
to put the fence all the way down if it needed to be, more from a security standpoint and
to keep people off from wandering into the loading dock area from the residence, just
because they don't want people walking their dogs and everything else with truck traffic
right next to it. But I can't speak a hundred percent to the extent that they are willing to
do, so --
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 21,2022
Page 29 of 35
Grove: So, I guess my question -- more to Alan than to you -- is if their intent is not to
have a fence for the sake of security for their property, would dense landscape along the
pathway be sufficient, instead of a fence? I feel like with the explanation of where the
fence is going to be located in relationship to the pathway, it detracts from the pathway
and it -- it essentially dilutes what is -- is there and has a -- an unintended consequence
of improving, but also detracting from what is installed. I think -- I mean the screening
around the dust collector, I think that's great. I think you could probably find a way to
make it look attractive, even with whatever, you know, final design you put on it. I think
that you can get creative and make it visually -- maybe not appealing, but at least not an
eyesore for anyone, not only who lives there, but anyone using that pathway system. You
know, you know what you are doing. You know that you are going to be a part of the
community and you want people to look at it nicely. So, I'm not worried about that. I --
I'm just concerned with the fence and if they are not going to do a full fence, can we work
with them to do different I guess.
Tiefenbach: Alan Tiefenbach. Staff was somewhat meek on this condition, because the
condition was being imposed because we approved something that we shouldn't have.
Hersel: Yeah.
Tiefenbach: I was trying to not make a condition that was going to be too cumbersome
on the applicant and -- and fencing is expensive. Ideally I think that evergreen screening
and landscaping there would be probably better. I was trying to give the applicant some
options to be convenient for the applicant.
Hersel: Knowing the owner of it, they would probably go for the landscaping side of it,
just -- but I can't -- again can't speak for the ownership group of it. I know Sam Johnson
is on that's part of the ownership group. If he wants to talk during public testimony he
can, but that's kind of the best route I could go on that one.
Grace: Mr. Chairman, just a follow up.
Grove: Commissioner Grace.
Grace: Is that pathway exclusive to the apartment complex or is that part of a larger --
Tiefenbach: No, sir. That is a regional pathway for the city.
Grace: All right. Well, I will save my comment to when we maybe discuss it.
Lorcher: I have one more question, Mr. Vice-Chair. Who is responsible for the
maintenance of the green space from the apartment to the curb? Are -- is your tenant?
Is your building ownership responsible up to the pathway?
Hersel: I would have to --
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 21,2022
Page 30 of 35
Lorcher: And, then, the apartments on the other side?
Hersel: I would have to look at exactly where our property line is. I think it's -- I don't
know if you remember, Alan, if --
Tiefenbach: I can't remember if there -- if it's an easement or a property line. I'm sorry.
In general if there is an easement in a pathway is in the applicant's property, then, they
are responsible for the pathway within the easement. If the pathway is off of the property
lines somewhere else, then, unless there is an actual -- some kind of development
agreement generally the city is going to maintain the pathway. But it's sort of like
sidewalks in front of your house --
Lorcher: Right.
Tiefenbach: -- you have to sweep your own sidewalks.
Lorcher: And didn't you say there was a utility easement in -- in this greenway -- green
space?
Hersel: There is -- there is a drainage canal that goes down and, then, there is part of an
ACHD drainage, too, that goes in. They have been maintaining everything that we have
planted to date, so --
Lorcher: So, with that stuff that's underneath are -- are you allowed to plant more trees?
Hersel: There is a certain amount of stuff you can plant and as you can see there is
actually light poles and they are pretty close. They are right off the edge of it. The
pathway is almost right down that easement. I wish I had a better site plan that I could
show you. Sorry. But this applicant will maintain anything that's on their property and
they already -- doing it -- you know. And so -- and it's all irrigated, everything else. So,
drip lines. Like I said, if Sam is still on and wants to talk during public testimony as the
applicant he can, too.
Lorcher: Thank you.
Grove: Mr. Clerk, we do have a hand raised from Sam Johnson online.
Johnson: Mr. Vice-Chair, are you taking public testimony now?
Grove: We will go ahead and jump to public testimony. Yes. Sorry.
Johnson: Mr. Johnson, you can unmute.
S.Johnson: All right. Can you hear me okay?
Grove: Yes. If you could just give your name and address for the record, please.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 21,2022
Page 31 of 35
S.Johnson: Yes. Sam Johnson at 2701 East Pine Avenue in Meridian, Idaho. 83642.
I'm representing the owner --
Grove: Just a little bit -- you are a little quiet.
S.Johnson: Okay. How -- is that any better?
Grove: It's a little.
S.Johnson: Oh. My laptop. Somebody in my IT department needs to help me with that.
I will speak up here. Hopefully -- hopefully you can hear me. I'm representing the Hot 2,
LLC, who owns the property. So, yes, I guess they are -- this property was four -- it was
-- is -- is four lots that we combined into one to build the --the warehouse. It's been zoned
light industrial for decades, even before we bought it 12 years ago. There is a separate
lot that this pathway runs on top of now, but before the pathway was there and before we
developed it there was a drainage swale for ACHD that contained -- that took the water
and runoff from State Avenue and -- and that's how they dealt with some drainage issues
there. There is also some irrigation pipes that run north -- north-south and about halfway
through our property they -- they dump into a drainage ditch that's open in the apartment
property and that-- that ditch runs west. So, we -- we with ACHD's blessing and a license
agreement, they allowed us to pipe that and -- and put that drainage swale in an
underground drainage facility. So, yes, there are some restrictions on what can and can't
be put on top of that. I have to look at exactly where it is placed. That ten foot wide
pathway was a requirement for this --from the city. Part of the regional pathway plan and
it is completely on -- on our property and I believe it's -- I believe the west boundary -- or
the west side of that asphalt pathway is fairly close to the property line, between us and
the apartments. One -- one question that I have never -- never really asked and we
probably don't have an answer tonight is -- not quite sure why the apartment complex was
not required to put up a fence along that property line, but we are completely willing to
put up a fence, because we have had -- we have seen increased traffic of people using
that loading dock area and that space behind the warehouse to walk --whatever it is. So,
we are completely willing to -- to fence that entire -- our western boundary, but we would
jog it around -- around the pathway, so it -- the path -- we would prefer to have the fence
on the east side of that pathway right along where those light poles are shown. Again,
we are also willing to add some additional landscaping, but -- so, we are -- we are willing
to work and we appreciate Alan's willingness to give us some flexibility to figure this out,
but we don't have specifics as of today.
Grove: So, Mr. Johnson, question I guess would we -- is the intent -- or would your
preference be to have a -- essentially a security fence that surrounded the entire property
or to do minimal fencing or no fencing I guess would be the third option there.
S.Johnson: We would prefer to have some fencing, whether -- but I'm not necessarily
worried about a solid fence. It's more of a security issue and -- and it would just be that
western side of the property, not the entire property.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 21,2022
Page 32 of 35
Grove: Okay. Thank you. All right. Is there any further public comments? I don't see
anyone else online and I don't see anyone else in the room, so I guess we are able to
have you come back up and close out before we close the -- the hearing.
Hersel: Commissioners, Vice-Chair, thank you for looking at this. Alan, thank you for all
your support and helping us work through this. I don't think we have any other comments
from what Sam just said. We are willing to work with the city and planning staff to make
sure that it's right and everybody is happy and appease our neighbors. So, thank you.
Grove: Thank you. All right. At this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing
for file number H-2022-0040 for Hickory Warehouse?
Lorcher: So moved.
Grace: Second.
Grove: It's been moved and seconded to closed the public hearing. All those in favor
say aye. All those opposed say nay. All right. The public hearing is closed.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSTAIN. TWO ABSENT.
Grove: Anybody have comments that they would like to share?
Grace: Mr. Chairman, I -- it -- it seems like -- I -- I thought you made a really good
comment and -- about the potential for a natural growth hedge or something like that. If
we are at this point just trying to salvage the integrity of the path that would make some
sense, but I was also concerned about the potential for security. It is a multi-use or multi-
family apartment. Children. I think that there is a potential for security there. Probably a
fence provides more security than hedges would, but not -- not entirely and so to some
degree we are where we are and I think the Commission has to acknowledge that or
recognize that, but I do like salvaging the integrity of the pathway with more of a natural
growth type barrier, so long as it doesn't affect the security.
Lorcher: Mr. Vice-Chair?
Grove: Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead.
Lorcher: So, when the applicant got their permission to build the building the plot -- the
-- the parcel to -- I don't know which direction we are looking in, but next to it where the
apartments was C-G and they followed the rules and I appreciate that. Alan is, you know,
working with them to fix things, but it feels a little like a bait and switch where it's all of a
sudden everything is fine and now we have to add all this investment to kind of fix
something that may or may not be broken. Nobody is complaining yet. The pathway to
add either -- I mean I -- I would support more landscaping than a fence. I think a fence,
especially a chain link fence with black stuff in it, is just as bad, if not worse than vinyl. It
would kind of inhibit the whole openness of the whole point of having the pathway in the
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 21,2022
Page 33 of 35
first place by encumbering some like a tunnel and, then, there is -- it becomes a collector
of possible dog excrement and garbage and who is going to take care of that and -- and
the way it looks right now and having it open and having it once the trees get mature to
be able to enjoy this pathway, even though there is a warehouse to the side, it's not your
visual point, it's the pathway. So, I understand that the city is following the codes and the
applicant--thank you for, you know, working with them. I would not support a --a physical
fence, but more of a landscape fence to be able to blend in to the openness of the project
that is there right now.
Grove: So, I think what I would recommend is allowing this to continue forward, but
allowing the applicant and staff to find the -- the desired outcome, because, essentially, if
it's going to come down to what the applicant wants to do with the fence and how they
install that, Alan's comment -- sorry, I have turned into -- didn't see you there.
Tiefenbach: Sorry.
Grove: Go ahead.
Tiefenbach: Just to clarify, when you say moving forward, you are the decision maker on
this. It's a conditional use.
Grove: Sorry. I did not phrase that correctly. But, yes, approve it and have the final
details in terms of what -- how much fencing goes in or not go and -- because we are -- I
mean that's how it's already worded is they get to make that decision, so I think just having
that communication continue --
Tiefenbach: Purposely flexible like that. You could one -- depending on which way you
argue it. It's purposely flexible. So, I think our intent here has been relayed to staff and
the applicant and so I can't make a motion, but that's kind of where I'm hearing, you know,
where we are at.
Grace: I don't, but I was going to take a stab at it, unless you feel like you got one.
Lorcher: Sorry. I -- I have -- I have one if you --
Grace: Okay. Yeah.
Grove: Sorry. We have a comment over here.
Starman: Mr. Vice-Chair and Commissioners, before we do that I just wanted to --actually
something that our planner just mentioned a moment ago. The alternatives you had
before you, I just noticed a few minutes ago includes language about recommendations
to the City Council. That's not accurate. This is a decision for the Commission. So, when
you do make your motion, whether it's to approve or not, it's not a recommendation to the
Council, it's an action to approve or deny. That's your-- your propagative tonight. Thank
you.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 21,2022
Page 34 of 35
Lorcher: Okay. Can I try this?
Grove: Yes, Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead.
Lorcher: After considering all staff and applicant testimony, I move to recommend
approval to the city -- well, it's not to the City Council. Approval of the conditional use
permit of file number H-2022 -- am I on the right one? 004?
Grove: Zero.
Lorcher: Zero. As presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 21st, 2022,
with the following modifications: Working with the City of Meridian and the applicant for
the best landscaping buffer for both parties. Yes? No?
Grove: Do we have a second?
Grace: Mr. Chairman, I second.
Grove: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. All right. All
those opposed say nay. And Commissioner Seal is abstaining from this and so that
motion has passed.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSTAIN, TWO ABSENT.
Grove: And we are almost ready to close out, but before we do I just wanted -- since --
still have the -- the chair for a second here before I pass it back over. Just to let all of you
know I will most likely be -- this will be my last night for the Commission, but I will be on
call until my replacement is in place. I was recently promoted and will have a lot of time
constraints moving forward, so I would just like to say thank you for having me on the
Commission. I will still be around and possibly be around in the next few meetings, but
would hopefully not be in attendance and unless we -- we are not able to hit quorum. So,
with that I will hand it back over to Chairman Seal.
Seal: Yeah. Thank you very much. The --the first comment I will make is to Mr. Johnson,
who is hopefully still on the phone, that the audio problems were on our side, because I
know you have a very Cracker Jack IT team working for you, which is kind of funny,
because I am on the IT team, so -- which is why I had to recuse myself, so -- and as
Commissioner Grove said, we will -- we will be looking for a new vice-chair, so that will
be probably part of the next Commission meeting as we discuss that. So, we will let those
that are absent know that as well and at this time I'm looking for one more motion.
Grace: Mr. Chairman, I would move to adjourn.
Grove: Second.
Lorcher: Second.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 21,2022
Page 35 of 35
Seal: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
Meeting is adjourned. Thank you all.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:35 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
ANDREW SEAL - CHAIRMAN 8-4-2022
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK
E IDIAN
'aAHO
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes from the June 30, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
February 7,2019
Page 2 of 2
2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Lot 8 Retail Building (H-2022-
0034) by Larson Architects, Located at 3333 W. Chinden Blvd.
3. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Slim Chickens (H-2022-0028)
by Larson Architects, Located at 3369 Chinden Blvd.
Grove: All right. And the only thing we have on the agenda today that was just approved
is the Consent Agenda and we have three items on the Consent Agenda. We have the
approval of minutes of June 16th, 2022, for the Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting. And the facts -- Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Lot 8 Retail Building
for H -- or Building for H-2022-0034. And Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Slim
Chickens. And those are the three items on our Consent Agenda. Can I get a motion to
accept the Consent Agenda as presented?
Wheeler: So moved.
Yearsley: Second.
Grove: It has been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in
favor. Opposed? All right. Consent Agenda is good.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
Grove: And since we have nothing else we will take the last motion.
Wheeler: I move that we adjourn.
Grace: Second.
Yearsley: Second.
Grove: Moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor? All right. And all opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
Grove: All right. Thank you all for jumping on for the 30 seconds. We will see you all
soon.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:14 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
NICK GROVE - VICE-CHAIRMAN
ATTEST: Date Approved 7-21-2022
Chris Johnson, City Clerk
E K IDIAN:---
iuAn
Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline
Planning and Zoning Commission July 21, 2022Meeting
Item #4: Meridian Academy Rezone FLUMZONING MAP
Item #4: Meridian Academy Rezone
Item #5: Hickory Warehouse CUP AERIALZONING MAP
Item #6: Ten Mile Public Storage AERIALFLUM
Changes to Agenda:
th
Item #2 Lavender Place Sub. is requesting continuance to August 4 due to scheduling conflict by the Applicant; Item #3
th
Slatestone Sub. is requesting continuance to August 18 to work with PW on initial sewer comments.
Item #4: Meridian Academy Playfield (H-2022-0031)
Application(s):
Rezoning
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 13.8 acres, zoned I-L, and located north of E. Franklin Rd.
between N. Locust Grove Rd. and N. Eagle Rd.
History: In 1992, a conditional use permit was approved to allow an educational facility. An alternative high school with playfield and
district maintenance facility have been subsequently constructed on the property. Directly adjacent and northwest of the property is a
4.58-acre lot, also owned by the District (not part of this application), which contains an additional maintenance facility on I-L zoned
property.
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: The FLUM recommends the property for Civic Uses.
Summary of Request:
This is a proposal to rezone 6.18 acres of 13.8 acres from I-L to C-G to allow expansion (construction of a playfield) of an existing
educational facility.
The applicant wants to construct a new playfield on the southern side of the property. Since the time of the original annexation and
conditional use permit, the I-L zoning district has been changed to no longer allow educational institutions. Staff notes that because the
school was already approved through a conditional use permit, an expansion to the conditional use to allow the new sports field would
be allowed. However, the applicant has requested to move forward with rezoning a portion of the property to C-G instead. This is
because a district maintenance facility is also on the property which is not solely ancillary to the Meridian Academy. The applicant has
stated school district-related light industrial uses such as equipment repair, fabrication and manufacturing may occur in this facility.
Accordingly, the applicant chooses to keep this portion of the site retained as I-L.
Access to the existing site occurs from E. Lanark St., an industrial collector. The Master Street Map (MSM) depicts E. Lanark St
extending across the property east to west eventually out to Eagle Road. Additionally, a future collector is also shown on the MSM
extending along the eastern property line north to south. ACHD has responded that the north-south collector is no longer required, but
the applicant should dedicate 54 ft. of right-of-way for E. Lanark St. (the east-west collector) and to construct (extend) E. Lanark St as a
40-ft. wide collector street template with curb, gutter and sidewalk.
As this rezoning is to allow relocation of a sports field with no structures or new vehicle trips proposed at this point, no road
improvements would be required for this proposal. However, staff recommends a requirement be added to the development agreement
that prior to any future building permit, the District dedicate 54 ft of right of way for E. Lanark St. and construct it to an industrial
collector template as required by ACHD.
Also, due to the proximity to residential, that the property is proposed for rezoning to C-G and the FLUM designation for civic uses, staff
also recommends provisions that restricts outside sports activities and lighting associated with sports field events to between 7AM and
10PM and that the only use allowed to develop on the property is an education institution and would require a development agreement
modification if any non-educational related uses are proposed in the future.
The applicant has stated they are amenable to these conditions.
Written Testimony: None
Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H-
2022-0031, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 21, 2022, with the following modifications: (Add any
proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2022-
0031, as presented during the hearing on July 21, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2022-0031 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following
reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
Item #5: Hickory Warehouse (H-2022-0040)
Application(s):
Conditional Use Permit
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 10.3 acres of land, zoned I-L, and is located at 1135 N. Hickory
Ave at the northwest corner of E. State St. and N. Hickory Ave.
History: There has been a boundary adjustment to combine four lots into one, which included an easement vacation to remove
easements along lot lines. There was a CZC to allow a 207,000 sq. ft. multi-tenant, light industrial building. Also, a conditional use
permit was approved in 2021 to allow an indoor recreation facility (K-1 Speed, H-2021-0077) in 50,000 sq. ft. of the building.
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Use Non-Residential (MU-NR)
Summary of Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow mechanical equipment emissions; shipping and/or delivery or other outdoor
activity areas within 300 feet from an abutting residential district in the I-L zoning district.
In 2022, the applicant requested final inspections on the completed development. During the inspections, staff discovered the building
architecture differed from the approved CZC elevations. Staff also noticed a large mechanical dust collector on the western side of the
building that was not reflected on the CZC site plan or landscape plan (although it was indicated on the building permit mechanical
plans for the cabinet shop tenant improvement).
While discussing the discrepancies between the approved CZC and the as-built conditions, it was also discovered staff errored in
approving the CZC with loading bays that were oriented toward and approximately 170 feet from a multifamily development. Per UDC
11-4-3-25, all mechanical equipment emissions; shipping and/or delivery; or other outdoor activity areas shall be located a minimum of
three hundred (300) feet from any abutting residential districts, or the use is subject to a conditional use permit.
With this application, the applicant submitted a narrative which indicates a noise study was initiated with the mechanical equipment
(cabinet shop dust collector) operating at full capacity. The study results reflect a noise level of 62 decibels as measured at the property
line. This is the same decibel level allowed for amplified devices in City of Meridian Parks and corresponds to the sound level of a
normal conversation (60 dB). The applicant is proposing to install 8 ft. high steel columns and metal acoustic decking around the
cabinet shop dust collector to reduce noise and screen equipment. The applicant notes business hours would be between 7:00 AM to
5:00 PM Monday through Sunday.
Staff does support installation of the proposed mechanical enclosure and hours of operation as proposed by the applicant. However,
although the screening, landscaping and pathway do reduce the “hard transition” between the industrial building and the residences,
staff believes more could be done to soften and screen the transition between the differing uses.
As a condition of approval, staff recommends a combination of 8 ft. high opaque fencing and additional evergreen landscaping
including trees or shrubs. This shall be installed in the vicinity of the pathway along the western building elevation and northwest
property corner sufficient to provide visual screening of the equipment and loading bays as viewed from the pathway and adjacent
residential. Fencing and landscaping may have breaks and be clustered and grouped to maximize screening efficiency and produce a
more natural appearance.
Written Testimony: None
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval with conditions.
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H-
2022-0040, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 21, 2022, with the following modifications: (Add any
proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2022-
0040, as presented during the hearing on July 21, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2022-0040 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following
reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
Item #6: Ten Mile Public Storage (H-2022-0016)
Application(s):
Annexation and zoning to I-L
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 5.8 acres of land, zoned RUT in the County, located at 4065 N.
Ten Mile (between W., Ustick Rd and W. McMillian Rd .
History: None, but there is an existing self-storage to the south. This is proposed to be an expansion of that existing self-storage.
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Use Non-Residential (MU-NR)
Summary of Request: This is a proposal to annex 5.8 acres of land with the I-L zone district to allow expansion of existing self-storage
facility for two additional two self-storage buildings.
The subject property is an elongated parcel presently containing a rural single-family residence. It is north of an existing self-storage
facility zoned I-L which is already in the City (Citadel 4 Storage Ten Mile). Between the existing self-storage facility and the subject
property is a narrow strip of land which is a portion of a 41-acre parcel (a “flag lot”) owned by the City of Meridian. This “flagpole”
serves as an access from N. Ten Mile Rd to the rest of the City parcel, the City wastewater treatment plant (on a separate property)
and a privately-owned property at 4018 W. Ustick Rd.
In September of 2021, the applicant requested a pre-application meeting with the City to discuss expanding the existing self-storage
facility into the subject property to construct two additional buildings (both properties are under the same ownership). However, as
already mentioned, the access portion of a city-owned flag parcel is located between these two properties. After a series of meetings,
the City and the applicant decided the best solution was to reconfigure this access through a property boundary adjustment as a
condition of approval. This would reconfigure the properties to shift the “flagpole” portion of the City’s property from the southern
property line to the northern property line (flipping the flagpole lot vertically). This would confine all the development on the same
properties, still provide access for the City the west, and provide future connectivity if the properties to the north redevelop.
Both the subject property and the adjacent City owned property are presently in unincorporated Ada County. Although the 5.8-acre
subject property proposes to annex, the 41-acre City-owned property is not planned for annexation at this time. A property boundary
adjustment cannot adjust property lines between one property in the City and one property in the County. Therefore, as a condition of
approval, staff is recommending that prior to recordation of the annexation ordinance, the applicant complete the property boundary
adjustment, including providing all of the surveying, legal descriptions and records of survey necessary to complete the property
boundary adjustment for both properties. This all needs to be completed within 6 months of Council approval.
In addition, staff does have concerns with impacts of the proposed buildings on the existing and future properties to the north, as well
as how they are viewed from the east. Staff has included conditions of approval regarding a reduced landscape buffer on the north as
well as architectural requirements (generally following the Architectural Standards Manual). Public Works has also added conditions
regarding how the new northern access road should be constructed.
Written Testimony: None
Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H-
2022-0016, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 21, 2022, with the following modifications: (Add any
proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2022-
0016, as presented during the hearing on July 21, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2022-0016 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following
reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
v IDIAN�
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Meridian Academy Play Field (H-2022-0031) by The Land
Group, Inc., Located at 2311 E. Lanark St.
Link to Project Folder:https://bit.ly/H=2022-0031
A. Request: Rezone of 13.8 acres of land from the I-L to the C-G zoning district to allow a
sports field expansion.
i
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
DATE: July 21, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 4
PROJECT NAME: Meridian Academy Play Field (H-2022-0031)
Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify
(Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes)
if yes, please
provide HOA name
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
STAFF REPORT C:�*%-
W IDIAN --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING 7/21/2022 legend
DATE: ff
I&raject Lacoian F
TO: Planning&Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner
208-884-5533
SUBJECT: H-2022-0031 -
Meridian Academy Rezone
� , 1
LOCATION: 2311 E. Lanark St.
FFFTFM
FM x
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This is a request to rezone 6.18 acres of land from I-L to C-G to allow a sports field
expansion.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage 13.8(6.18 being rezoned)
Future Land Use Designation Civic
Existing Land Use(s) School and School District Maintenance Facility
Proposed Land Use(s) School and sports field expansion
Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 1 lot
Phasing Plan(#of phases) NA
Physical Features(waterways, No unique physical features
hazards,flood plain,hillside)
Neighborhood meeting date;#of April 21,2022,no attendees
attendees:
History(previous approvals) Joint School District No.2 CUP 1992
B. Community Metrics
Description Details Page
Ada County Highway District No traffic impact study required
• Staff report(yes/no) No
• Requires ACHD Commission No
Action es/no
Page 1
Description Details Page
Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Access occurs from E.Lanark St. a collector street that
Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) ends on this property
Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross The right-of-way for E.Lanark St.is stubbed to the subject
Access property
Existing Road Network E.Lanark St
Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ 7 ft wide sidewalk exists along E.Franklin Rd and south
Buffers side of E.Lanark St.No existing landscape buffering exists
along E.Franklin Rd property frontage.
Proposed Road Improvements No road improvements required.E.Lanark St will
eventually be extended through the site,construction date
unknown. See Access analysis below.
Fire Service No comments
Police Service No comments
Wastewater
• Comments • No changes to public sewer infrastructure shown in
records.Any changes need to be approved by public
works.
Water
Distance to Water Services • No changes to public water infrastructure shown in
records.Any changes need to be approved by public
works.
C. Project Area Maps
Future Land Use Map Aerial Map
Legend R off ce Legend
� Pra}ect Laca�ian � Pe ?e� Lacaiian .
w. u
Resi�l�ential �
iu n ih+r
nw.N �.
' a
Page 2
Zoning Map Planned Development Map
(fLegend 0 (fLegend �I'—'1� 0
0Projeci Lccairan . let ProjectLccmSar
City Lim
L•O
— Pkarred Parce-s
L-
t
i Ufi 1�A1 - - ti
RUT
- :S `y`R1y L=O
"`"`"`"``RRRR7777����
Ill
. .
k
R_ RUT L-O f
III. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant:
Macy Lui,The Land Group—462 E Shore Dr. Ste 100, Eagle, ID 83616
B. Owner:
West Ada School District- 1303 E. Central Dr.,Meridian,ID, 83642
IV. NOTICING
Planning& Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Newspaper Notification 7/5/2022
Radius notification mailed to
properties within 300 feet 6/30/2022
Sign Posting 7/7/2022
Nextdoor posting 7/5/2022
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
This is a proposal to rezone from I-L to C-G to allow expansion(construction of a playfield)of an
existing educational facility.
The subject property is 13.8 acres in area and was annexed with the I-L zoning district in 1988 (Ord
#497). In 1992, a conditional use permit was approved to allow an educational facility. An alternative
high school(Meridian Academy)with playfield and district maintenance facility have been
subsequently constructed on the property. Directly adjacent and northwest of the property is a 4.58-
acre lot, also owned by the District(not part of this application),which contains an additional
maintenance facility on I-L zoned property.
Page 3
Since the time of the original annexation and conditional use permit,the I-L zoning district has been
changed to no longer allow educational institutions. Staff notes that because the school was already
approved through a conditional use permit, an expansion to the conditional use to allow the new
sports field would be allowed per UDC 11-1B-2. However,the applicant has requested to move
forward with rezoning a portion of the property to C-G instead. This is because a district maintenance
facility is also on the property which is not solely ancillary to the Meridian Academy. The applicant
has stated school district-related light industrial uses such as equipment repair, fabrication and
manufacturing may occur in this facility. Accordingly,the applicant chooses to keep this portion of
the site retained as I-L.
A. Rezoning
The applicant proposes to rezone 6.18 acres of the 13.80-acre property from I-L to C-G to allow
the addition of a sports field to an existing educational facility. The sports field would be located
at the southern portion of the site(along the E. Franklin Rd frontage). The applicant intends to
retain the I-L zoning on the remaining 7.62 acres.
This rezoning will result in a property which is split-zoned. Staff does not prefer split-zoning and
will usually recommend a subdivision or parcel boundary adjustment as a condition of approval.
However,the Master Street Map reflects E. Lanark St(a collector)to eventually extend across the
property at a slight angle west to east. At this point,the exact alignment or construction timeline
is unknown. Also, as already mentioned,the applicant needed to adjust the zoning line to contain
the existing district maintenance facility directly west of the existing school within the I-L zoning
district. This is because occasional light industrial activities occur in this facility which are not an
allowed use in the C-G zoning district.
B. Future Land Use Map Designation(https://www.meridiancity.or /g compplan)
The FLUM recommends the property for Civic Uses. The purpose of this designation is to
preserve and protect existing and planned municipal, state, and federal lands for area residents
and visitors. This category includes public lands, law enforcement facilities,post offices, fire
stations, cemeteries,public utility sites,public parks,public schools, and other government
owned sites within the Area of City Impact.
The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with a rezoning pursuant to
Idaho Code section 67-6511A. This property is already within the City,the infrastructure
surrounding the property has already been installed,and the portion of the property proposed for
rezoning to C-G is adjacent to C-G zoning at the east and west. However,although the present
proposal is to develop this as an educational institution,the C-G zoning would allow a range of
uses not supported by the FLUM for this property. Staff recommends a development
agreement that allows only an educational institution and related uses and would require a
development agreement modification if any non-educational related uses are proposed in
the future.
C. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancity.or /g compplan):
• Support construction of multi-use facilities that can be used by both schools and the community.
(2.03.01B)
This rezoning proposal is to allow construction of a new sports field at the south of an existing
school. This is a multi-use facility that can be used by both schools and the community.
• Ensure the location and design of schools are compatible with existing and planned
neighborhoods and land uses. (4.01.0113)
Page 4
There is already an existing school and district maintenance facility on the property and this
rezoning is to allow the construction of a new sports field on the south side of the property. The
applicant states the sports field would only be used for activities associated with the school
during daytime hours; it is not intended to be used for after-hours activities.As the majority of
the use is existing and the sports field would be directly adjacent to a commercial arterial, staff
believes that generally this would be compatible with the existing residential neighborhood
across E. Franklin Rd to the south. However, to ensure compatibility,staff recommend a DA
requirement that restricts outside sports activities and lighting associated with these events to
between 7AM and IOPM.
• Identify desired sports facilities or complexes and establish partnerships that foster their
development. (2.03.01D)
This rezoning is to allow the development of a sports facility. However, the field will likely only
be used by the school, not others in partnership.
D. Existing Structures/Site Improvements:
The property contains an existing school and district maintenance facility.
E. Proposed Use Analysis:
The applicant proposes to rezone from I-L to C-G to allow construction of a new sports field
which would be associated with an existing educational institution. This is an ancillary use that
would be permitted with a principally-permitted use in the proposed C-G zoning district subject
to the specific use standards in UDC 11-4-3-14.
F. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3):
There are specific use standards that apply to an educational institution. This includes the types
of uses commonly associated with a facility. There is an allowance for educational institutions to
be within the center of neighborhoods, and at least(30)percent of the perimeter of school site
should be open to streets or open space areas. Middle and high schools may take access off a
designated arterial or collector street. A conditional use is required when the institution is greater
than 250,000 square feet within a residential district,when there are estimated to be more than
one thousand five hundred(1,500)vehicular trips per day, or the institution includes lighted fields
adjoining or within a residential district.
This rezoning is to allow a sports field associated with a school,the institution is not in the center
of a neighborhood,a collector street currently serves the property(E. Lanark St),the new sports
field would result in at least 30%of the perimeter being open to E. Franklin Rd,the school
building is not greater than 250,000 sq. ft. and the institution is within a commercial district,
across an arterial road from a residential neighborhood.
G. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2):
There are no dimensional standards associated with a sports field. Any future development will
be reviewed through the Certificate of Zoning Compliance.
H. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4):
Access to the existing site occurs from E. Lanark St., an industrial collector.As already
mentioned,the Master Street Map(MSM) depicts E. Lanark St extending across the property east
to west eventually out to Eagle Road. Additionally,a future collector is also shown on the MSM
extending along the eastern property line north to south. ACHD has responded that the north-
south collector is no longer required,but the applicant should dedicate 54 ft.of right-of-way
Page 5
for E.Lanark St. (the east-west collector) and to construct(extend)E.Lanark St as a 40-ft.
wide collector street template with curb, gutter and sidewalk.
As this rezoning is to allow relocation of a sports field with no structures or new vehicle
trips proposed at this point,no road improvements would be required for this proposal.
However,staff recommends a requirement be added to the development agreement that
prior to any future building permit,the District dedicate 54 ft of right of way for E.Lanark
St. and construct it to an industrial collector template as required by ACHD. The applicant
has stated they are amenable to this condition.
I. Parking(UDC 11-3C):
UDC 11-4-3-1 requires one(1)parking space for every four hundred(400) square feet of gross
floor area. A certificate of zoning compliance will be required prior to construction of the sports
field. During time of CZC, staff will request the applicant submit the total square footage of the
existing school and number of parking spaces to make sure all parking requirements are satisfied.
J. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17):
There is presently 6 ft.wide sidewalk along E. Franklin Rd. It is unknown at this time if and
when E. Lanark St will be extended across the subject property.
K. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B):
At time of certificate of zoning compliance for the sports field,the applicant will be required to
install a 25 ft. wide arterial buffer along E. Franklin Rd.
L. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6):
The Planning Map indicates the Gruber Lateral parallels the northern property line. The applicant
has noted this lateral has already been piped.
M. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21):
Public services are available to accommodate the proposed development.
N. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual):
No conceptual building elevations have been included as the impetus for this rezoning is to
construct a new sports field on the southern portion of the property.
VI. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning from I-L to C-G with the DA conditions
noted in Section VIII of this report.
Page 6
VII. EXHIBITS
A. Rezoning Legal Description and Exhibit
MERIDIAN ACADEMY
C-G REZONE DESCRIPTION
A parcel of land located in the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 8,Township 3
North,Range 1 East, Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,being more particularly
described as follows:
Commencing at the South One Quarter Corner of Section 8 of said Township 3 North, Range 1 East,
(from which point the Center One Quarter corner of said Section 8 bears North 00*31'09"East,a
distance of 2649.29 feet distant),said South One Quarter Corner being the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence North 00'31'09" East,a distance of 375.99 feet on the north-south mid-section line of
said Section 8;
Thence South 89'28'S1" East,a distance of 34.88 feet;
Thence North 84*09'12" East,a distance of 170.93 feet;
Thence North 00*30'19"West,a distance of 336.14 feet,-
Thence South 89'54'25" East,a distance of 299.36 feet;
Thence South 00'31'09"West,a distance of 497.57 feet;
Thence North 89'54'21"West,a distance of 105.00 feet;
Thence South 00'31'09"West,a distance of 231.98 feet to a point on the south line of said
Section 8;
Thence North 89'54'32"West,a distance of 393.11 feet on said south line of Section 8 to the
POINT OF BEGINNING.
The above described contains 6.18 acres more or less.
PREPARED BY: Sb
The Land Group, Inc. d� ST
a. 7880 wo
6-6-2022
.rr o
� qTE of
James R.Washburn d"�-�
R.WA
Page 7
UNION,PACIFIC RAILROAD
7860
S88929'13"E 498.17' 0 6 66-2fl22
o I-LZONE
588'29411"E 498A T
I I-L ZONE F,I
AREA:-7.63 AC
v
REZONE Line Table
m AREA:.t13.81 AG
R
S89'54'25"E LINE BEARING LENGTH
E LANARK s 1I 299.36' Li 509°29511E 34-W
1 Z
L2 N44'0912'E 174.93'
L3 N09°54'21'W 105A0'
rn 4
L4 300'31n9w 231.98'
cli
m W W M1 Q!
c POB I-L
ZONE a
CKLl
I�
C-G ZONE
L2 AREA: 6.18 AC
qj
L3 r SE CORNER
I� SECTION 8
CPF#2020-052068
POB C-G ZONE J �
LN&9'54'32"W
ENTERLINE
l 393.11' 2177,95'
S 114 CORNER N89°54'32"W 2571M'
SECTION 8 E FRANKLIN RD S.17 S.16
CPF#104161904
Page 8
B. Concept Plan(date: 5/2/2022)
R1
Not R Parl
' Exisling School Buildings
Meridian Academy
Proposed Zone:C-G
No Ghange
*`r Fu[ure Play Field F
a V iL
Future Lanark Fxtensions- r No Change
t ByOlhers Existing r
Maintenance
Oflice
- future Landscape Buller — - C2
25'Minimum MA Pat1
I-L
�i'.•Not R Part Not A Part Not A Part 46
Ilk
Mr
e - _
s •� r
Meridian Academy
Conceptual Site Plan
Went Ada School District
Page 9
VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
A.PLANNING
Staff Comments:
1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of rezoning of this property. Prior to
approval of the rezoning ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the
property owner(s)at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer.
2. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to
commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the
Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA
shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions:
a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual site plan
submitted with the rezoning application contained herein.
b. Outside sports activities and lighting associated with these events is limited to between 7AM
and IOPM.
C. Prior to any future building permit issuance,there shall be a dedication of 54 ft of right of
way for E. Lanark St. and construction of the road to an industrial collector template as
required by ACHD.
3. Applicant shall comply with any ACHD conditions of approval.
4. The only use allowed to develop on the property is an education institution and would require a
development agreement modification if any non-educational related uses are proposed in the
future.
5. Educational institutions shall comply with the specific use standards in UDC 11-4-3-14.
6. The applicant shall comply with the ordinances in effect at the time of application submittal.
B. ACHD
https:llweblink.meridianciU.orelWebLinkIDocView.aWx?id=266245&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
i &cr=I
IX. FINDINGS
A. Rezoning
Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full
investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an
annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings:
1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive
plan;
Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment to rezone the property from the I-L zoning
district to the C-G zoning district is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if all provisions
of the DA are met.
2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts,
specifically the purpose statement;
Staff f nds the proposed zoning map amendment complies with the regulations outlined in the
Page 10
requested civic designation.
3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety,
and welfare;
If staffs conditions are followed, staff would find the proposed zoning map amendment
should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare.
4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services
by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not
limited to, school districts; and
Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the
delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City.
5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city.
Subject site is already annexed so staff finds this finding nonapplicable.
Page 11
E IDIAN;---
Applicant Presentation
Meridian Academy July 21, 2022 Planning & Zoning Hearing Rezone-
Purpose of Rezone
Future Project Character
STAFF REPORT CONDITIONS:Thank you Rezone Application to CouncilRecommendation for approval of •REQUEST:permit application.will be condition of any future building dedication and Roadway
Construction WASD understands that ROW •proposed Development AgreementNo Objection to Conditions and •
Comprehensive foster their developmentcomplexes and establish partnerships that Identify desired sports facilities or •neighborhoods and land usesare compatible with existing and planned
Ensure the location and design of schools •communitythat can be used by both schools and the use facilities -Support construction of multi•Plan Alignment
V IDIAN�
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Hickory Warehouse (H-2022-0040) by Cushing Terrell,
Located at 1135 N Hickory Ave.
Link to Project Folder:https://bit.ly/H-2022-0040
A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow mechanical equipment emissions, shipping
and/or delivery or other outdoor activity areas within 300 feet from an abutting residential
district in the I-L zoning district..
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
DATE: July 21, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 5
PROJECT NAME: Hickory Warehouse (H-2022-0040)
Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify
(Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes)
If yes, please
provide HOA name
{
1
2
i
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY
N --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING 7/21/2022 Legend
DATE: lei AF
TO: Planning&Zoning Commission
III
FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner OF
SUBJECT: H-2022-0040 LN f
Hickory Warehouse -CUP
LOCATION: 1135 N. Hickory Ave
m
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Conditional Use Permit to allow mechanical equipment emissions; shipping and/or delivery or other
outdoor activity areas within 300 feet from an abutting residential district in the I-L zoning district
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage 10.3 acres
Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use Non-Residential(MU-NR)
Existing Land Use(s) Industrial
Proposed Land Use(s) Industrial
Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 1
Phasing Plan(#of phases) 1
Physical Features(waterways, None
hazards,flood plain,hillside)
Neighborhood meeting date;#of May 3,2022
attendees:
History(previous approvals) Gemtone Center No 3,Gemtone Center No. 3 Vacation H-
2020-0094,PBA A-2020-0155,CZC A-2020-0165 ,CUP
H-2021-0077
Pagel
B. Community Metrics
Description Details Page
Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Access occurs from N.Hickory Ave(collector)and E.
Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) State St(local)
Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ 5' ft.wide detached sidewalk exists along both N.Hickory
Buffers Ave and E. State St.A 20 ft.wide buffer has been installed
along N.Hickory Ave and a 10 ft.wide buffer has been
installed along E. State St,are required per UDC 11-2C-3.
Proposed Road Improvements I All road improvement have been completed.
Fire Service No comments
Police Service No comments
C. Project Area Maps
Future Land Use Map Aerial Map
Legend Legend
Pro}eci Lccc ton Prc"e c- LOCO-o r
LR
REEM -
LN
� � -� �RE E+•+. �
�- AAU-C r
E STAT E w, ce E STAT E
I - '-
AAU NR
%h
E-RI N E AVVE E-P'I N E 1 E
r:
9
tl I
OhVhiERCL L p. E R<IAAp EC atr-r
r r' E
' Yl �
Page 2
Zoning Map Planned Development Map
Legend � Legend
leisr Prffject Lucaiiar f Project LaaafK:�r
CII}r Limit
.L4e" ,
wrHL — Planned Paroe�
fe
e I EEAi J J
LN C LH C
� I I
l STATE..,t
N=E=A1-E- E= =1'N=E=111-E=
L-O M
m IM
TTI
—I=1 F C "-ERC14A L 9F
III. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant/Representative:
Josh Shiverick,Cushing Terrell—800 W Main St., Boise,ID 83702
B. Owner:
HOT2 LLLP-2701 East Pine Avenue,Meridian,ID 83642
IV. NOTICING
Planning& Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Notification published in
newspaper
6/24/2022
Notification mailed to property
owners within 500' 6/24/2022
Applicant posted public hearing
notice sign on site 7/5/2022
Nextdoor posting 6/30/2022
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
This is a request for a conditional use permit to allow mechanical equipment emissions; shipping
and/or delivery or other outdoor activity areas within 300 feet from an abutting residential district in
the I-L zoning district.
The subject property is 10.3 acres in size and is located at the northwest corner of E. State St. and N.
Hickory Ave. The property was originally comprised of four lots(Lots 1-4,Block 4 of the Gemtone
Center No. 3). In 2022,the City Council approved the vacation of drainage,utility and irrigation
Page 3
easements established along the interior lot lines of these lots(H-2020-0094)to allow all four lots to
be merged together through a property boundary adjustment(PBA A-2020-0155). In 2020, staff
issued a Certificate of Zoning Compliance(A-2020-0165)to allow the construction of a 207,000 sq.
ft. multi-tenant, light industrial building on the property and the building permit was issued in 2021.
A conditional use permit was approved in 2021 to allow an indoor recreation facility(K-1 Speed,H-
2021-0077)in 50,000 sq. ft. of the building.
In 2022,the applicant requested final inspections on the completed development. During the
inspections, staff discovered the building architecture differed from the approved CZC elevations.
Staff also noticed a large mechanical dust collector on the western side of the building that was not
reflected on the CZC site plan or landscape plan(although it was indicated on the building permit
mechanical plans for the cabinet shop tenant improvement).
While discussing the discrepancies between the approved CZC and the as-built conditions, it was also
discovered staff errored in approving the CZC with loading bays that were oriented toward and
approximately 170 feet from a multifamily development. Per UDC 11-4-3-25, all mechanical
equipment emissions; shipping and/or delivery; or other outdoor activity areas shall be located a
minimum of three hundred(300)feet from any abutting residential districts,or the use is subject to a
conditional use permit.
A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https:llwww.meridiancitE.or /g compplan
This property is designated Mixed Use—Non-Residential(MU-NR) on the Future Land Use Map
(FLUM). The purpose of the MU-NR designation is to designate areas where new residential
dwellings will not be permitted, as residential uses are not compatible with the planned and/or
existing uses in these areas.
The property is zoned I-L. The existing light industrial building was constructed as a principally-
permitted use in this zoning district. There is a church,offices, flex space, and other warehousing
uses to the east, south and north. Directly to the west of the subject warehouse is an area of
Mixed-Use Community and multi-family housing in the R-40 zoning district(Pine 43). Although
a light industrial warehouse is an appropriate use in the I-L district, outdoor mechanical
equipment and shipping and/or delivery and other outdoor activity areas within 300 feet of the
abutting residential requires a conditional use permit.
B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan):
• No new residential uses will be permitted(existing residential may remain).
No residential uses are proposed, but there is existing multifamily approximately 170 ft. to
the west of the newly constructed building.
• All developments should have a mix of at least two types of land uses.
The existing building so far contains a cabinet shop and an indoor recreational use (K-1
Speed). The overall MU-NR designated area does have a mix of uses; offices,flex space,
and a church exist within the greater MU-NR area.
• A transitional use is encouraged on the perimeter of the MU-NR areas between any
existing or planned residential development.
A light industrial building is a principally permitted use in the I-L zoning district, which is
directly adjacent to the multifamily development. It should be noted the subject property
was zoned for light industrial uses in the early 1990's-long before the property to the
west was rezoned for multifamily uses. However, the outdoor mechanical equipment and
loading area requires the need to review the impacts of the uses through a conditional use
permit.
Page 4
• Plan for industrial areas with convenient access to state highways or the rail corridor,
where appropriate
The existing development is located near S. Eagle Rd. a state highway, and a rail corridor
is approximately 1,800ft. to the south.
• Proactively address potential conflicts between incompatible uses.
The subject property contains a 207,000 sq.ft. light industrial building located
approximately 170 feet from the nearest multifamily building. There is a pathway and
landscape buffer located between the industrial building and the adjacent residential.
The applicant submitted a narrative which indicates a noise study was initiated with the
mechanical equipment(cabinet shop dust collector) operating at full capacity. The study
results reflect a noise level of 62 decibels as measured at the property line. This is the
same decibel level allowed for amplified devices in City of Meridian Parks and
corresponds to the sound level of a normal conversation (60 dB). The applicant is
proposing to install 8 ft. high steel columns and metal acoustic decking around the cabinet
shop dust collector to reduce noise and screen equipment(see attached exhibit). The
applicant notes business hours would be between 7:00 AM to S:00 PM Monday through
Sunday.
Staff does support installation of the proposed mechanical enclosure and hours of
operation as proposed by the applicant. However, although the screening, landscaping
and pathway do reduce the "hard transition"between the industrial building and the
residences, staff believes more could be done to soften and screen the transition between
the differing uses.
As a condition of approval, staff recommends a combination of 8 ft. high opaque fencing
and additional evergreen landscaping including trees or shrubs. This shall be installed in
the vicinity of the pathway along the western building elevation and northwest property
corner sufficient to provide visual screening of the equipment and loading bays as viewed
from the pathway and adjacent residential. Fencing and landscaping may have breaks and
be clustered and grouped to maximize screening efficiency and produce a more natural
appearance.
C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements:
There is an existing 207,000 sq. ft. light industrial building on the property. This is a principally-
permitted use in the I-L zoning district, subject to the specific use standards set forth in UDC 1I-
4-3-25.
D. Proposed Use Analysis:
The property is zoned I-L. Light industrial buildings are a permitted use in this zoning district
subject to specific use standards.
E. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3):
Light industrial buildings are allowed in the I-L zoning district subject to additional requirements.
These include all mechanical equipment emissions; shipping and/or delivery; or other outdoor
activity areas being located a minimum of three hundred(300)feet from any abutting residential
districts, or the use is subject to a conditional use permit.
F. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2):
There is a 35 ft. street setback required in the I-L zoning district. A 20 ft. wide landscape buffer is
required along collector streets and a 10 ft. wide buffer is required along local streets. There is a
Page 5
25 ft.wide buffer required adjacent to residential uses.Maximum building height is limited to 50
ft.
There is already an existing 207,000 sq. ft. light industrial building constructed on the property
which was approved through CZC in 2020 and meets the above dimensional requirements. As
mentioned above,the building was erroneously approved with loading bays facing adjacent
multifamily, and outdoor mechanical equipment was constructed that was not indicated on the
site plan,landscape plan or building elevations. Thus,the need for the subject CUP.
G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4):
Four(4)driveway accesses have been approved on the overall site plan—two(2) accesses via E.
State Avenue (local street)to the south and two(2)accesses via N. Hickory Avenue(industrial
collector)to the east.ACHD has approved the location of all access driveways with the
Certificate of Zoning Compliance(A-2020-0165). Truck loading access occurs on the west side
of the building.
H. Parking(UDC 11-3C):
UDC 11-3C requires 1 parking space per 2,000 sq. ft. for industrial uses. With a building size of
207,000 sq. ft., 104 parking spaces were required. 235 parking spaces were approved with the
certificate of zoning compliance.
UDC 11-3A-19 requires no more than 50%of total off-street parking to be between the building
facades and the street.During the time of CZC A-2020-0165,the Director granted Alternative
Compliance from this requirement. This was due to the length of the building making walking
from the rear to the front impractical, and the necessity to separate passenger access from truck
access. As it is not desirable to configure the site with truck traffic and loading facing the street,
the west side of the building was the best option for truck access. However,this resulted in the
loading bays being within 300 feet of the adjacent multifamily.
I. Pathways ( UDC 11-3A-8):
There is a 10 ft. wide multi-use pathway on the property within an easement along the western
boundary. As the western side of the building containing the loading bays and mechanical
equipment is highly visible from the pathway as well as the existing multifamily, staff does
believe additional visual mitigation could be appropriate.As mentioned above, staff recommends
an addit
J. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17):
All pedestrian improvements are existing. There are existing 5-foot wide attached sidewalks
along E. State Avenue and N. Hickory Avenue that meet UDC standards.
K. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B):
A 10-foot wide street buffer was been provided along E. State Avenue, a local street,and a 20-
foot wide street buffer is required along N. Hickory Avenue, a collector street, landscaped per the
standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Parking lot landscaping was required per the standards listed
in UDC 11-3B-8C.A 25-foot landscape buffer to the existing multi-family residential to the east
was also installed. As mentioned above, staff is recommending a combination of additional
fencing and denser landscaping to screen the mechanical equipment and loading bays from the
adjacent pathway and multifamily residential.
Page 6
L. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7):
There is presently no perimeter fencing along the subject property. The applicant is proposing to
install 8 ft.high steel columns and metal acoustic decking around the cabinet shop dust collector
to reduce noise and screen equipment(see attached exhibit).
M. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21):
All utilities are existing.
N. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual):
Building elevations were approved with the certificate of zoning compliance.
As already mentioned,there are discrepancies between the elevations that were approved with the
CZC and what was actually constructed. Staff is presently working with the applicant to address
this through a modification to the CZC.
VI. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions in Section
X per the Findings in Section XI.
Page 7
EXHIBITS
A. Site Plan from Approved CZC (date: 9/25/2020)
GENE
pine 43 Mulfifamily
I
4 I
I
ut oor Loading Area
I
- I
_ I
r'- I
i
I
rl �' IIII I
PreciouslyA approved space for Remaining 157,DDD square
- Ki Speed.F+2021-DUTT feel will be nouunal uses.
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
=1
I
III � I
e- ❑
�. I. . . . . . .r .
b _
� i 4
-- am.,----�. - - --- --- ---- - -- -...._.....y ....,��.. ---- - - --------------- _ -
3Rp i4oI 3IH FI
Page 8
B. Landscape Plan(date: 9/25/2020)
i i r
I �
I
�
q —
�'W �J ti i.:—� IBIYWM�
IaIC�
LJ
w�w
'—
f-W
Page 9
C. Rear elevation and equipment screening.
1——
rg re
Mechanical enclosure proposed in this area
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- — , � — �
I I
I
Q ■®
Page 10
D. As built photograph indicating equipment and loading bays.
7
i
y
Y
v � r
Y
4 .—--" .... -
-
_ ti
tl
a�
4J'
eYyTry y
Page 11
VII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
A. Planning
1. The applicant shall comply with the site plan, landscape plan, and building elevations approved
with A-2020-0165 with the revisions as indicated below.
2. The applicant shall install a combination of 8 ft. high opaque fencing and additional evergreen
landscaping including trees or shrubs in the vicinity of the pathway along the western building
elevation and northwest property corner. Such screening shall be sufficient to provide visual
screening of the equipment and loading bays as viewed from the pathway and adjacent
residential. Fencing and landscaping may have breaks and be clustered and grouped to maximize
screening efficiency and produce a more natural appearance.
3. The Applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-25—Industry,
light and heavy.
4. Hours of operation for industrial uses shall be limited to 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM.Hours of operation
for the indoor recreation facility shall be limited to 12:OOpm— 10:00pm Monday-Thursday,
10:00am— 10:00pm on Sundays, and 10:00am— 11:OOpm Fridays and Saturdays.
5. The conditional use approval shall become null and void unless otherwise approved by the City if
the applicant fails to 1)commence the use, satisfy the requirements, acquire building permits and
commence construction within two years as set forth in UDC I I-5B-6F.1; or 2)obtain approval
of a time extension as set forth in UDC I I-5B-6F.4.
B. Land Development
C. Ada County Highway District(ACHD)
https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=264290&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCity
VIII. FINDINGS
1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and
development regulations in the district in which the use is located.
The site meets all the dimensional and development regulations of the I-L zoning district for the
proposed use and a certificate of zoning compliance was already issued. Staff finds the site is
large enough to accommodate the proposed use.
2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord
with the requirements of this title.
As this is a light industrial building in a light industrial zone, this was a principally permitted
use. Because there is outdoor mechanical equipment and outdoor loading bays less than 300 feet
from existing multifamily, a conditional use permit is required. Ifstaffs conditions regarding
additional landscaping and/or fencing are accepted, staff believes the proposed use will be
harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan.
3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in
the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and
that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area.
If the acoustic screening is installed around the dust collector system as shown in the elevations,
and staffs recommendations are followed in regard to screening, staff would find the design,
Page 12
construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed use with the conditions imposed,
should be compatible with other uses in the general vicinity and should not adversely change the
character of the area.
4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not
adversely affect other property in the vicinity.
If the proposed use complies with the conditions of approval in Section X as required, Staff finds
the proposed use should not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity.
5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as
highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures,refuse disposal,
water, and sewer.
Staff ,finds the proposed use will be serviced adequately by all of the essential public facilities and
services listed.
6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services
and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
Staff ,finds the proposed use should not create any additional costs for public facilities and
services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by
reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.
As mentioned, if the acoustic enclosure is installed around the dust collector and staff's
recommendation regarding screening is followed, staff would find this criteria would be met.
8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or
historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005)
The proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic
feature considered to be of major importance.
Page 13
v IDIAN�
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Ten Mile Public Storage (H-2022-0016) by Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc., Located at at 4065 N. Ten Mile Rd.
Link to Project Folder: https://bit.ly/H-2022-0016
A. Request: Annexation of 5.797 acres of land with the I-L zone district, and request for
elimination of required 25 ft. residential landscape buffer, to allow two self-storage buildings, by
Kimley-Horn.
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
a
DATE: July 21, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 6
PROJECT NAME: Ten Mile Public Storage (H-2022-0016)
Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify
(Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes)
if yes, please
I
provide HOA name
1 (L- �0 �5 �( l � � TKO �k(Le
j
2 )(63 w lo( osk Sao
z K6
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY
N --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING 7/21/2022 legend --
DATE:
Project Lflca Tian
TO: Planning&Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner -------- - ----- -----------
208-884-5533
SUBJECT: AZ H-2022-0016 .
Ten Mile Public Storage
LOCATION: 4065 N. Ten Mile Rd -
E
5 � '
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Annexation of 5.797 acres of land with the I-L zone district to allow expansion of existing self-storage
facility for an additional two self-storage buildings. Submittal and approval of a Property Boundary
Adjustment to reconfigure the subject parcel with an adjacent City-owned access lot is a condition of
approval of this application.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage 5.797 acres
Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use Non-Residential(MU-NR)
Existing Land Use(s) Rural Single Family
Proposed Land Use(s) Light Industrial(self-storage)
Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 1 parcel,2 buildings
Phasing Plan(#of phases) One phase
Physical Features(waterways, There is an existing irrigation ditch along the southern
hazards,flood plain,hillside) property line. This will be piped.
Neighborhood meeting date;#of February 16,2022,3 attendees
attendees:
History(previous approvals) None,however,H-2016-0114,A-2017-0185 (Annexation
and CZC for existing self-storage to the south,of which the
present proposal will be a part).
Page 1
B. Community Metrics
Description Details Page
Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Existing driveway to N. Ten Mile Rd(arterial);proposed
Hwy/Loca1)(Existing and Proposed) to use existing driveway to the south after parcel
reconfiguration
Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross This proposal includes reconfiguration of a City driveway
Access from the south to the north to provide connectivity to
western and northern properties.
Existing Road Network N.Ten Mile Road
Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ There is an existing sidewalk in front of the subject parcel.
Buffers There is a landscape buffer and detached 5 ft.wide
sidewalk along the frontage of the existing self-storage at
3959 N.Ten Mile Rd to the south.This buffer will be
continued along the frontage of the subject property.
Proposed Road Improvements None.There will be a new 20 ft.wide gravel road access
on the northern portion of the current parcel that will be
deeded to the City if the application is approved.
Fire Service
No Issues
Police Service
No Issues
Wastewater
•Max distance between manholes is 400'.
•Sewer must be run at minimum slope of 0.4%
•Flow is committed
Water
•Provide two valves at connection to existing water main in Ten Mile.
•Provide 20'easement up to hydrant and extend 10'beyond hydrant.
•Blow-off Valve to the north should be standard drawing W13.
•Call out removal of blow-off valve at connection to the south.
Page 2
C. Project Area
" 1
Future Land Use Map Aerial Map
Legend Legend
■
idential
1
AA I
Zoning Map Planned
■1■IN -z
;.� .
� 1
UST FC H■ _ -- - ViI'; x.
Development
Legend Legend
RUT 0
* .
RU
RUT—
■■■■■� �
1■I■N 1■I■N
1 1
H�HM
1. rrrr ■� r ■■ ■ Illrie� ■ irar :� rr=Ig
��N�I� 1 ■ ■■r■ .■ * N ■■■ �■ r ■ ��N I�NI ■ ■■r■ .■ ■ N ■■■ ■■
Page 3
III. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant(s):
Nicolette Womack,Kinley-Horn—950 W. Bannock St,Boise,ID 83702
City of Meridian—33 E. Broadway Ave,Meridian,ID 83642
B. Representative
Nicolette Womack,Kimley-Horn—950 W.Bannock St,Boise,ID 83702
C. Owners
PS Mountain West LLC—PO Box 25025, Glendale, CA 91221
City of Meridian—33 E. Broadway Ave,Meridian,ID 83642
IV. NOTICING
Planning&Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Notification published in
newspaper
6/28/2022
Notification mailed to property
owners within 500' 6/30/2022
Applicant posted public hearing
notice sign on site 7/7/2022
Nextdoor posting 6/30/2022
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
This is a proposal to annex 5.797 acres of land with the I-L zone district to allow expansion of
existing self-storage facility for two additional two self-storage buildings.
The subject property is an elongated parcel presently containing a rural single-family residence. It is
north of an existing self-storage facility zoned I-L which is already in the City(Citadel 4 Storage Ten
Mile,H-2016-0114, CZC A-2016-0129). Between the existing self-storage facility and the subject
property is a narrow strip of land which is a portion of a 41-acre parcel(a"flag lot")owned by the
City of Meridian. This"flagpole" serves as an access from N. Ten Mile Rd to the rest of the City
parcel,the City wastewater treatment plant(on a separate property)and a privately-owned property at
4018 W.Ustick Rd. The applicant is proposing to reconfigure the parcel lines so the City's flagpole
portion of the parcel is not between the storage complex,but instead is on the north.
In September of 2021,the applicant requested a pre-application meeting with the City to discuss
expanding the existing self-storage facility into the subject property to construct two additional
buildings (both properties are under the same ownership). However, as already mentioned,the access
portion of a city-owned flag parcel is located between these two properties (see Access
Reconfiguration Exhibit).After a series of meetings,the City and the applicant decided the best
solution was to reconfigure this access through a property boundary adjustment as a condition of
approval. This would reconfigure the properties to shift the"flagpole"portion of the City's property
from the southern property line to the northern property line(flipping the flagpole lot vertically). This
is described in detail in the access section.
Page 4
A. Annexation and Zoning
The applicant proposes to annex a 5.79-acre property with the I-L zoning district in order to
expand an existing self-storage facility.As discussed below,this use is consistent with the MU-
NR designation indicated in the Future Land Use Map.
The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation and
rezone pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. In order to ensure the site develops as proposed
with this application, Staff recommends a new DA that encompasses the land proposed to be
annexed and zoned with the provisions included in Section VIII.A1. The DA is required to be
signed by the property owner(s)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the
Council granting the rezone and annexation approval.
B. Future Land Use Map Designation(https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan)
The Future Land Use Map designates this property for Mixed Use Non-Residential(MU-NR).
The purpose of this designation is to designate areas where new residential dwellings will not be
permitted, as residential uses are not compatible with the planned and/or existing uses in these
areas. For example,MU-NR areas are used near the City's Wastewater Resource Recovery
Facility and where there are heavy industrial or other hazardous operations that need to be
buffered from residential.Uses appropriate in MU-NR areas would include employment centers,
professional offices, flex buildings,warehousing, industry, storage facilities and retail, and other
appropriate non-residential uses. Specific items to be considered in MU-NR include no new
residential uses,at least two different types of land uses and preference for transitional uses on
the perimeter between MU-NR areas and planned residential development.
The subject property is within a much larger area designated for MU-NR. The present proposal is
for a small expansion to an existing self-storage facility. As listed above, storage facilities are
indicated as one of the appropriate uses within the MU-NR designation. Although storage is the
only existing and proposed use within this MU-NR area at the present, one of the reasons staff
and the applicant worked together on a land reconfiguration to shift access was to set up
connectivity for future annexation and redevelopment of the unincorporated properties to the
north in the future. Also,this relocated access will provide a transition to the residences to the
north. Self-storage between a wastewater treatment facility and existing residential is an
appropriate use in this area.
C. Comprehensive Plan Policies(ht(ps://www.meridiancity.or /g compplan):
The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics.
• Encourage infill development. (3.03.01E)
The development would allow expansion of an existing self-storage facility to the south,
although this is not technically "infill."
• Evaluate the feasibility of annexing existing county enclaves and discourage the creation of
additional enclaves. (3.03.03I)
The subject property is within a larger enclave area. The proposal would be consistent with
this policy.
• Plan for connectivity between annexed parcels and county enclaves that may develop at a
higher intensity. (3.03.04A)
Page 5
Part of this annexation proposal will include a property boundary adjustment to shift a City-
owned access portion of a 40-acre flag portion from between two lots owned by the applicant
to the north side of the subject lot, adjacent to unincorporated enclave properties. This access
may provide additional connectivity to parcels in this area when they annex and develop in
the future.
• Plan for and allow land uses surrounding the Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility that
reduce human exposure to odors. (4.10.01A)
This project would allow the expansion of an existing self-storage facility which is directly
adjacent to the wastewater resource recovery facility. There is existing single family
residential within a County enclave adjacent and to the north of the subject property. The
proposed self-storage expansion would be an appropriate transitional use between the
treatment facility and the existing residential or if these remaining properties build out as
MU-NR development in the future.
Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
D. Existing Structures/Site Improvements:
There is presently a rural residence on the subject site.Any and all structures and debris are
proposed to be removed upon development of this project.
E. Proposed Use Analysis:
The proposed use is self-storage adjacent to existing self-storage with a zoning to I-L. This use is
a permitted use in the requested I-L zoning district per UDC Table I I-2C-2.
F. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2):
Per the dimensional standards of the I-L zoning district,the 35 ft. building street setback would
be met,a 25 ft. arterial buffer is shown,and the buildings are well within the 50 ft height limit.
An earlier site configuration placed the proposed storage buildings directly adjacent to a
residential property. With the revised property configuration putting the 25 ft wide City owned
flag/access to the north,this development would no longer be directly adjacent to residential.
Therefore,the 25 ft. wide landscape buffer would not be required. However,as will be mentioned
in the landscaping section below, due to the proximity to the existing residential and potential
visibility of this development at present and in the future, staff is recommending a reduced
landscape buffer that meets the parking lot perimeter buffer standards.
G. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3):
Specific use standards for self-service storage facilities include a minimum of 25 ft.between
structures,the facility being completely fenced,walled or screened,and the facility having a
secondary means of access for emergency purposes.
The concept plan reflects the two buildings are more than 25 ft apart, it is shown to be completely
walled, and the development is an expansion to an existing self-storage which already has two
points of access.
Page 6
H. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual):
The applicant submitted proposed elevations of the two new buildings. The elevations reflect
featureless buildings comprised of CMU and metal paneling. This is consistent with the
architectural style of the existing facility to the south.However, staff does have concerns with the
visibility of the north and east elevations and how they will set a design standard if the properties
to the north were to annex and develop. As a condition of approval,staff recommends the
northern and eastern elevations incorporate at least one material change or color variation
every 50-horizontal feet of building fagade; a minimum of two field materials, at least one
accent material or color,and at intervals of no less than 50 feet either horizontal modulation
of at least 6 inches in depth and 8 inches in height,OR at least one-foot change in variation
in roof plane(or a combination of both).As mentioned in the landscape section, staff is also
recommending a reduced landscape buffer along the northern elevation.
I. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4):
The subject lot contains an existing single-family residence which takes access from N. Ten Mile
Rd. via a private driveway. This access would be closed as a condition of approval, and site
access would be reconfigured to share the access drive for the existing self-storage to the south.
As already mentioned,there is a 25 ft. wide strip of land between the existing self-storage
development and the subject property which is part of a larger property owned by the City. The
applicant and the City have coordinated and propose reconfiguring the properties in a property
boundary adjustment which would result in the access portion of the City's parcel being shifted
from the subject property's southern to northern property line(please refer to the access
reconfiguration exhibit). This would allow merging the subject property with the existing self-
storage in a cohesive development,would preserve access for the City's properties to the west,
and would provide access to the properties still in unincorporated Ada County to the north if and
when they develop and annex into the City.
Both the subject property and the adjacent City owned property are presently in unincorporated
Ada County. Although the 5.97-acre subject property proposes to annex,the 41-acre City-owned
property is not planned for annexation at this time. A property boundary adjustment cannot adjust
property lines between one property in the City and one property in the County. Therefore,as a
condition of approval, staff is recommending that prior to recordation of the annexation
ordinance,the applicant complete the property boundary adjustment,including providing
all of the surveying,legal descriptions and records of survey necessary to complete the
property boundary adjustment for both properties.This all needs to be completed within 6
months of Council approval.
J. Parking(UDC 11-3C):
UDC 11-3C-6 requires one(1)parking space for every five hundred(500) square feet of gross
floor area,except for self-service storage facilities which shall only require parking based on the
gross floor area of any office space.
The office for this facility is already located at the existing self-storage to the south so additional
parking is not required for the two new buildings. However,the concept plan reflects 34
additional parking spaces in and around the proposed expansion. Staff will confirm compliance
with these standards at the time of certificate of zoning compliance.
Page 7
K. Sidewalks/Parkways(UDC 11-3A-17):
A 5-foot wide sidewalk and landscape buffer is already installed along the frontage of the existing
facility to the south. The submitted concept plan shows these frontage improvements continued
along the subject property.A landscape plan will be required as part of the CZC and will be
reviewed against the requirements of UDC 11-3A-3 and UDC 11-313.
L. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B):
The applicant has not submitted a landscape plan with this annexation request, although the
concept plan does reflect the required 25 ft.wide landscape buffer along N. Ten Mile Rd. A 25 ft.
wide residential buffer is typically required when a self-storage facility abuts a residential use.As
this project contemplates a property boundary adjustment with the City of Meridian to shift a 25
ft.wide strip of land used for access from the south to the north of the project site,the self-storage
would abut the City-owned property,not residential, and therefore the project would be exempt
from this requirement. However,the northern elevation will be very visible to properties at the
north, and staff does anticipate future annexation and development in this area(which is one of
the reasons staff suggested moving the access road to this side). Staff recommends the
development incorporate a 5 ft.wide landscape buffer along the northern elevation which
meets the parking lot perimeter landscaping requirements of 11-3B-8. Staff is also
recommending a minimum in the quality of architecture as well in this area,as was discussed
above. These two changes together,landscaping and building fagade modifications, assist with
both the aesthetic and functional impacts to nearby properties.
M. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7):
The concept plan indicates a combination of buildings and fencing to enclose the proposed
expansion.All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7.
N. Legal Description
The submitted legal description includes property that is currently owned by the City as well as
lands that will be acquired by the City. Prior to the annexation ordinance approval, a revised
legal description shall be submitted that only includes lands that will be privately held; the
City's parcel,including the new"flagpole" access to the north should not be a part.
VI. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and zoning with the requirement of a
Development Agreement and the provisions noted in Section VII.A per the findings in Section IX
of this staff report.
Page 8
VII. EXHIBITS
A. Access Configuration Exhibit(date: 7/7/2022)
Tne%nlermenon shown on This mop h compile_ -
Legend WLESINA DR �ZLSINA DR R-8 nesona issubjearlocomtontreAsion.TheC
W LESINA 5molces no worm my or guoronme osmine co�-a-- _-.._.
Pme�ess,or completeness of ony of ine data p-:.--
®Project Location I a.ume:no gal responsibir y w.ihe-rd—c•c---------
Parcels-Ada County
RAPIDS DR
R2 w
�'. A
city owned Y
Flagpole Parcel RAT lit
-. PBA would reconfigure lot
lines to move access portion z
LU
of"flagpole"from south to
x
north _
r
I
a _ ,
0 Subject Parcel
R-A
�. Access portion of
roe 11
City Treatment Plant City"flagpole" Existing Storage
parcel _
�E IDIAMy -
Print Dale:7/712022 I D A H o
User:ofiefenbach Location of new access reconfigu€atian
B. Proposed Concept Plan(date: 6/24/2022)
h
--- ---- ------ \ New Access Road
--- on•wned by City
y
�• Existing Access Road •-
�.'.�I� `" Btfil=llt) �E >.= converted to internal
drive aisle within - —— — —— — —— --
storage fadfity � � rs p
IF
i
Building A
Page 9
C. Legal Exhibit and Description(date: 6/24/2022)—Prior to annexation ordinance approval,the
legal description and exhibit will need to be revised to reflect property boundary
adjustment.
As wnirs 2 26
R®AR a D
W—CP&T] N.Ri 11
1
IX ARTER O
SECTCN 3+
T4W RIWBr
URA
2M7—CAP 01]-03421
a'1'319.15"
°1A'1'E 75' erq.i.e.�.e �❑
Z S
Y1� 9 jW
SCS 01
�O
LL
F
OVERALL PARCEL =�
252.542 SO. FT, "r syszsv
5.797 ACRES. I4&�
'�25.97' r E
C 1/1B 34 35
(,%3-�" v asps aA a 257.�is�lu[An,"E:
EBAR AND
RP—LPdf H BB°18'49"4Y' 323.'. En ❑UAN
M3753D} v.r or eExrHru CORNER OF
T..R, 1'
FouN 1 AB
CAP—CPS
11203]532;
DIAMOND LAND SURVEYING
OVERALL BOUDNARY DESCRIPTION
A parcel of land situated in a portion of the Northeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 4 North,
Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County Idaho, more particularly described as:
COMMENCING at the East Quarter Corner of said Section 34, marked by an aluminum cap
monument; said point being the POINT OF BEGINNING;
thence North 89°16'49"West 1323.76 feet along the quarter section line of said Section 34 to
the Center 11161h corner of Section 34 marked by a 5/8" rebar and cap;
thence North 0°48'05" East 237.59 feet along said section line to a rebar and cap marked
"Briggs Engineering"-
thence South 89°10'51" East 561.75 feet to a feet to a rebar and cap marked "Briggs
Engineering";
thence South 58'37'30" East 174.28 feet to a '/2' iron pin-,
thence South 89'18'22" East 612.16 feet to the Section line;
thence South 00052'50" West 148.02 feet along said Section line to the point of beginning.
Parcel contains 252,542 sq. ft. 5.797 acres.
Page 10
D. Building Elevations(date: 3/2/2022)
&IE Itl IgRIH ELEVATION
3 ILD.NGA-WEST ELEVAPgi 2 MIDI ,EAST ELEVATION
� �E➢ING A-SWIH ELEY0.TCN
Page 11
VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
A. PLANNING
1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to
approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian and
the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer.
Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to
commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the
Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall,
at minimum, incorporate the following provisions:
a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual development
plan and elevations included in Section VII,Unified Development Code standards, design
standards in the Architectural Standards Manual and the provisions contained herein.
b. Prior to recordation of the annexation ordinance,the applicant shall complete a property
boundary adjustment between the subject property and the city-owned parcel S0434131201
reconfiguring access as reflected on the attached concept plan, including providing all of the
surveying, legal descriptions and records of survey necessary for both properties. These
documents shall be provided within 6 months of Council approval of the annexation.
c. Development shall incorporate a minimum 5 ft. wide landscape buffer along the northern
property line.
d. The northern and eastern building elevations shall incorporate at least one material change or
color variation every 50-horizontal feet of building fagade; a minimum of two field materials, at
least one accent material or color, and at intervals of no less than 50 feet either horizontal
modulation of at least 6 inches in depth and 8 inches in height, OR at least one-foot change in
variation in roof plane(or a combination of both).
e. The existing driveway access from 4065.N. Ten Mile shall be closed.
f. The existing single-family home and associated outbuildings shall be removed prior to CZC
submittal.
g. Applicant shall construct a new 20-foot-wide access road from N. Ten Mile Rd. across the land
the City is acquiring from the applicant(north side of the proposed buildings).
h. The new access road shall be constructed of a minimum of 10 inches of 3/4 minus compacted
gravel or 8"of compacted pit run gravel covered by 4"inches of 3/4 minus compacted gravel for
approximately 1,350 feet.
i. The existing City parcel access road shall remain accessible and usable until the new road is
complete and ready for use.
j. The north and south sides of the new access road shall be fenced and a 16-foot powder coated
steel farm gate must be installed near the entrance to Ten Mile Road. Offset the gate 50 feet
from the Ten Mile Road right-of-way. Applicant shall comply with ACHD's requirements for
this new access.
2. The applicant shall construct all proposed fencing and/or any fencing required by the UDC,
consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7 and 11-3A-6B, as applicable.
3. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of 11-3A-3 with regard to access to streets.
Page 12
4. The development shall comply with standards and installation for landscaping as set forth in UDC
11-3B-5 and maintenance thereof as set forth in UDC 11-3B-13.
5. The Applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-33—Self-Service
Storage Facility.
6. Outdoor lighting shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11. Lighting details shall be
submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC)application that demonstrate
compliance with these standards.
7. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) application is required to be submitted to the Planning
Division and approved prior to submittal of a building permit application.
8. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions of ACHD.
B. PUBLIC WORKS
1. Max distance between sanitary sewer manholes is 400'.
2. Sewer must be run at minimum slope of 0.4%
3. Flow is committed
4. Provide two valves at connection to existing water main in Ten Mile.
5. Provide 20'easement up to hydrant and extend 10'beyond hydrant.
6. Blow-off Valve to the north should be standard drawing W 13.
7. Call out removal of blow-off valve at connection to the south.
8. Streetlights are existing for this project.
C. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=265047&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit
X
D. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=261235&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit
X
E. NMID
https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=263374&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit
X
IX. FINDINGS
A. ANNEXATION AND ZONING(UDC 11-5B-3E)
Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full
investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation
and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings:
1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan;
The rezoning of the subject site with an I-L zoning designation is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan MU-NR FL UM designation for this property, if the Applicant complies with the provisions in
Section VIL
Page 13
2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically
the purpose statement;
The proposed land use and concept plan for self-storage is consistent with the regulations as all
setbacks, landscaping and use limitations are met.
3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare;
The proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare. The Commission and Council should consider any oral or written testimony that may be
provided when determining this finding.
4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any
political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school
districts; and
The proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services
by any political subdivision providing services to this site.
5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city
As the FLUM designates this area for Mixed Use Non-Residential, which lists storage as a sample
use, the proposed zoning amendment is in the best interest of the City if the property is developed in
accord with the provisions in Section VII.
Page 14