Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

We'll call this meeting to order.

Right.

Here.

Gerber. McCauley.

Here.

Smith.

Smith. Oland. Here. A quorum is present.

Thank you. Item number three is our consent agenda. All consent agenda items are considered action items. Consent agenda items are considered to be routine and acted on with one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless the chairman, commissioner, or member of city staff Request an item to be removed from the consent agenda for discussion. Items removed from the consent agenda were placed on the regular agenda in a sequence determined by the rules of order. Any item on the consent agenda that contains written recommendations from EGLE, from the City of EGLE, shall be adopted as part of the Planning and Zoning Commission's consent agenda approval motion unless specifically stated otherwise.

Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Orland.

I move that we approve the consent agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Gerber. Commissioners, we do have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda as provided. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye. And the chairman was not here last meeting, so I will abstain from that vote.

Okay, moving on with our agenda. Item number four is unfinished business. We have none. Item five, public hearings. All public hearing items are considered action items. Our first item up for discussion this evening is 5A, CUP-2026-17, conditional use permit to allow a daycare center in the RE, residential estates zone, New Horizon Academy. Is the applicant here and ready to present? Excellent.

Good evening. My name's Angie Sagan with CASCA. We're the architect engineer for New Horizon Academy.

Angie, would you pull that microphone either towards you? All right. That's okay.

Let me start over. This is Angie Sagan with CASCA. We're the architect engineer for New Horizon Academy. We're presenting the proposal for a CEP for daycare use on 1400 North Park Lane. have a couple slides to go through this is an existing building it's already a 2.174 acre site it's zoned re it was previously a montessori academy that is now vacant it is a one-story 14 000 square foot building with an existing fence playground all utilities are stubbed to the building There are already two existing driveways. One is a shared access drive from the Ascend Church to the south. There is a shared parking agreement for that shared driveway. The other driveway is within the lot of the existing Montessori Academy. We're proposing 33 parking spaces, which we're adding to the additional 19. We do need 13 spaces for the 11 classrooms in the building. We're keeping the existing dumpster enclosure. We're keeping the existing playground area intact with the fence. We're making a few improvements to the playground, but most of it is staying as is. Keeping all of the existing approved landscaping. The only exception to the landscaping that's installed will be adjusting it for the new parking spaces. So for the new parking spaces we're adding, there is a pretty large drive aisle at the front of the building and a really large sidewalk, so we're just taking use of that area. The only new impervious cover will be the six spaces to the north, and we'll be detaining any new stormwater flows within the site. This is a shot of what the existing building looks like. We're basically proposing to keep all exterior finishes the same. We'll be replacing the rooftop units like for like, so that we'll all have the same look and new sign, of course, on the building. This is just kind of our proposed elevations, which is the existing elevation as is. There's a few cornices at the top of the doors that have so we're basically gonna be modifying those so it looks more cohesive with the rest of the building. Otherwise, it's just an interior remodel at this point. So I think that's really all I have. I think so. Any questions for me?

Wow, thank you. Brevity is always appreciated. Commissioners, any questions for the applicant on item 5A? Thank you so much. Sure.

Good evening, commissioners. Caitlin Davison, planning and zoning staff for the record. I'm presenting the staff report for this item for the conditional use permit to allow the daycare use in the RE zone for New Horizon. Again, I'll be brief. The site is located where the former Montessori Academy was located at this corner of Floating Feather and Park Lane. Like I mentioned, a daycare center is a conditionally permitted use in the RE zone, so the request is to permit this use for the daycare center. As the applicant mentioned, they're proposing some minor modifications to the site to allow add the required amount of parking for a daycare facility as they're proposing 11 classrooms and they need to add some additional parking to meet that requirement so they're proposing these modifications this is addressed in site specific condition number five which would require a design review application to be reviewed and approved for those proposed modifications to the parking and landscaping on the property So the conditions of approval are provided on page three and page eight of the staff report and are presented this evening for the commission's recommendation. Happy to stand for any questions.

Thank you, Ms. Davison. Out of curiosity, did the Montessori relocate or?

Chairman, I'm not sure. I think they relocated, but I am not positive. I want to say they're at a different location in the city.

Excellent. Okay. Thank you. Excellent presentation. Commissioners, any questions for staff at this time? No, I don't see any. Thank you so much. Anybody? Ms. Seguin, you have an opportunity to add any additional comments, but seeing no negative opposition in any way, I'm happy to close the public hearing or offer it back to you, your choice. Okay, thank you. Okay, then at this point we will close the public hearing on item 5A and go into discussion and or motion is in order, commissioners.

I'll make a motion.

Commissioner McCauley.

I'd like to make a motion that we recommend for approval, CUP 2026-17, conditional use permit to allow a daycare center in the RE residential estate zone, New Horizon Academy, subject to the site-specific conditions of approval on page 3, and the standard conditions approval on page eight of the staff report.

Thank you, Commissioner. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Oland. Commissioners, you've heard the motion and the second. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. And the chairman votes aye as well. The motion passes. Thank you. Continuing on with our agenda for this evening, item 5B is CUP-2026-03, conditional use permit for an auto model... Same time earlier. Automotive body shop with automotive storage classic crew cabs. Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. I am stepping in here just to kind of. Are you going to open an auto body shop?

No, I would love to not. Although he does some pretty cool stuff down there. If you've driven down there and seen the collection of old cars down there, a lot of cool things down there, but it's not part of this thing here. I'm just here to state that it was just late last week that it was noted by staff that This application was improperly noticed. The mailers that went out to the residents within the required noticing radius were incorrect. Thus, the application that was noticed for tonight is improperly noticed. It cannot be heard. So we've been working with the applicant on re-noticing this application in the future. And it will come back before the commission when they're ready. I believe they have to go back through their neighborhood meeting and do a few things in the process. I would expect it to come through maybe November. But at this point, it's just not determined yet.

OK.

no actions needed from the commission. It's just a heads up. I just wanted to keep it on the agenda so that anybody who may have been here would be aware of that, that it wasn't just erased from everybody's memory. Um, cause they did receive letters. There was signs, stuff like that.

Yeah. Mr. Miller, I see a gentleman in the audience has a, it looks like a question or concern. Okay. No, I just did. If you have something that maybe you could speak offline with Mr. Miller if it's okay. Commissioners, since item 5B was improperly noticed, a formal motion is not in order because we don't have anything to go on as far as a date certain, so we will just move on with our agenda at this point. The next item up for business is item 5C, CUP-2000-20-MOD1, Conditional Use Permit Modification for an Enclosed Storage Building and Waivers of Eagle city code title eight for public storage P S mountain west LLC.

Good evening. I'm Kelly Spath one one zero zero West Idaho street suite to 10. Good evening commissioners. I'm here to talk tonight to talk about the public storage Eagle storage building expansion project located at eight seven eight five a horseshoe bend road. Like I mentioned, my name is Kelly Spath. I am with Kimley Horn in handling the entitlements and planning portions of this project. Also here tonight from Kimley Horn, we have Brandon McDougald, who is the project's engineer. We have Maeve Kinsey on the phone with Galloway and Company, who is the project's architect, as well as Christopher Golder as a representative of public storage, who will tell us a little bit about public storage as a company and their existing operations here in Eagle.

Thank you, Kelly. Hi, Commissioners. My name is Christopher Golder. I'm the Vice President of Development for Public Storage. I just wanted to give a quick kind of recap about Public Storage before I go into the project details. Public Storage was founded in 1972 and has been in business for over 54 years. We have a corporate presence in Southern California where I'm based, and we're one of the largest owners and operators of self-storage facilities in the nation with 4,600 locations across the country. We have 23 locations in Boise, and we're a long-term owner and operator. We rarely sell our projects. We own them in perpetuity and operate them. We are focusing on development in new markets and investment in key markets, including the city of Eagle. To give you a little overview of the existing site, the site and property is located at 8785 Horseshoe Bend Road in Eagle. The site is located along Horseshoe Bend Road just north of the signalized intersection of State Street connecting Eagle to downtown Boise. The site is directly behind the Eagle Promenade, a commercial shopping center and anchored by Winco Foods, a Home Depot, and a Petco. And directly north of the site is the Eagle Storage Condos, which are privately commercially built storage condos for classic car collectors, boats, and RV storage. the existing conditions on the site. The subject site is approximately 19 acres as depicted on the aerial image. Um, the existing and leasing management office and caretaker unit is primarily accessed off of horseshoe bin into the site and the site features currently right now, 316 existing RV surface parking and covered parking RV stalls and large drive up storage units consisting of approximately 225,000 square feet. The office and primary entrance driveway will remain from Horseshoe Bend Road. Beyond the office and access gate, there are wide existing drive aisles in excellent circulation throughout the site. Our proposed expansion, which Kelly will speak to here in a minute, is developing only a portion of the outdoor surface RV parking and one covered RV parking building, therefore minimizing impacts to our existing operations, demolition and site work, and maintaining the existing drive up storage units. There's a secondary fire emergency access gate that's located along State Highway 55 that will remain. There's also an existing cell tower within the interior of the site that has an existing underground 12 foot wide Verizon telecommunication and Idaho power easement running directly south of the tower and south of the proposed building along an existing circulation driveway. Our conceptual site plan, which Kelly will show here shortly, takes that into consideration and we assume we do not need to relocate any of the utilities. These photos provide some context of the existing facility conditions. As mentioned in the office and primary entrance, this driveway is off of Horseshoe Bend Road. The frontage along Horseshoe Bend Road features mature landscaping and setback and an existing project identity pole sign and fencing. Public Storage recently acquired the facility and is in the process of rebranding to Public Storage Identity with new signage and exterior enhancements. The original first phase of the project of the facility was probably constructed in the mid to late 1990s, and a second phase was added in the early 2000s. Beyond the office and access gate are existing drive aisles, drive up storage buildings, site circulation, and existing site lighting is provided by building mounted light fixtures. This is another view from Horseshoe Bend Road and some of the mature landscaping that's along Horseshoe. Stormwater retention is either surface concrete gutters and ground drainage and light catch basins. There's also an existing stormwater detention basin on the south portion of the property between the property and the shopping center. These photos are from a view to from highway 55. And again, there's a mature landscaping along highway 55 with an existing fence perimeter fence along the frontage. Now I'll turn it back over to Kelly to go through our CUP application and site plan. Thank you.

As you can see up on the screen, this is our proposed site plan. We are replacing 145 covered and uncovered RV parking stalls with a new climate-controlled storage building in the southwest portion of the site. It is 61,864 square feet and one story in height. Along with the building, we are providing 34 parallel parking stalls along the northern and southern portions of the building and are doing minor updates to the drive aisles surrounding the building. THE LOADING VESTIBULES WILL BE THE PRIMARY ACCESS FOR CUSTOMERS INTO THE BUILDING AND THOSE ARE LOCATED ON THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE BUILDING. YOU CAN SEE THOSE DICTATED WITH THE YELLOW SQUARES THERE IN THAT IMAGE. THE BUILDING AS A WHOLE WILL BE ACCESSED VIA THE MAIN PAVED DRIVE AISLE SHOWN DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THE SITE. So to make this all happen, we are requesting a conditional use permit. Enclosed storage building is a conditional use in the BP zone, which this site is zoned. The conditional use of permit will also allow us to ask for some minor waivers to city code, which I'll go through in future slides. In the future, this project will also go before the designer view board for further compliance with the city's architectural standards. And we've already started that process with the city and held a pre-op meeting with them, with the city staff, earlier this September. I mentioned some waiver requests. They are summarized here. They permit a modified parking count to allow an enclosed storage building to be visually compatible with the existing buildings on the property as well as utilizing some elements of craftsman style architecture. as defined in the EGLE Architecture and Site Design book. And the third waiver will be to permit existing non-conforming site items to remain as is. And I'll go into more detail on each of those in these next slides. The first is to permit a modified parking count. So there are currently five existing parking stalls on the site that is comprised of four standard stalls and one accessible stall. And in a 2001 CUP for the property, there was a variance issued that allowed that many stalls on the site. So with the storage building expansion, code requires 62 standard stalls and two accessible stalls. However, we are proposing 38 standard stalls and one accessible stall. This was determined based on a parking study that was completed by a traffic engineer. The results of that parking study determined that at a maximum, about 20 stalls were needed to run an efficient business for a property like this. And so, in summary, the code required and number of stalls is more than what is needed to efficiently operate the site, which is why we're asking for a waiver for that requirement. The second waiver we'd like to discuss is based on the architectural style. Our request is that the enclosed storage building be visually compatible with the existing buildings on the property, utilizing some elements of craftsman style architecture as defined in the Eagle Architecture and Site Design book. So the alternative to this would be strict compliance with one of the nine styles in that EASD book. We are proposing some elements of craftsman-style architecture, which include a horizontal single-story profile, a low-pitched gabled roof, and incised porches. However, since the building will be located interior to an existing site and fully screened from public view, we request that the requirement be modified to allow for some leniency within that design, which will better allow the new building to tie into the existing buildings on the site and the overall look and feel of the area. Like I mentioned, this project will also go through the design review for more specific review of those architectural standards. The last waiver items we'd like to discuss with you are existing non-conforming site items. And these are existing items on the site that were either code compliant at the time of initial development or approved under previous CUPs. And we request that these items be able to stay on the site as is. They are comprised of the chain link fence, which is located at the project, along all the project property boundary lines. As you can see in the images above, we have chain link fence located along the Highway 55 and Horseshoe Bend frontage, and those are screened by existing mature landscaping. We would also request to allow the gravel parking and drive aisles be remaining as they are now. Code would prefer that those be paved with asphalt or concrete. Um, we also want to point out the existing pole sign at the site entrance. Um, we are including this as a item on this slide. However, because it is noncompliant currently, however, there's a separate, application being brought to the city to have that switched to a monument sign, which would be a compliance sign type. Staff has reported that in their conditions of approval regarding the timing and how that gets switched out. So we technically, I don't think, need a waiver for that pole sign, but wanted to bring it up with you guys anyways. The overall intention of this project is to keep the scope limited to the area in the immediate vicinity of the new storage building. All these items are either interior to the property or screened fully from view by mature landscaping. And this site is an existing, well-operating business in good standing with the city, and we'd like to continue to do that. Through the review process, we've had a chance to get some feedback from some of our other project stakeholders. The first was from ACHD, and they just noted that a traffic impact study was not required for this development. We didn't have any attendance at our neighborhood meeting, so we have not received any negative feedback from the public or received any advanced public testimony to my knowledge. We have also worked with city planning staff and had a chance to review the staff report. We are in agreement with all the conditions of approval, but would just like to request approval of those waivers that I just went through. With that, we request recommendation of approval for our conditional use permit when I stand for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Bath. Appreciate your presentation. Commissioners questions for the applicant. No questions. Okay. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Good evening again, commissioners. Caitlin Davison, planning and zoning staff, for the record. I'm presenting the staff report for this conditional use permit modification. I'll just go over some of these discussion items that the applicant also touched on. Again, when the storage facility was originally approved, chain link fencing was permitted within the city, and at this time, chain link fencing is no longer a permitted fencing type. So they're requesting that the chain link fencing that is currently existing be permitted to remain. They're not proposing any modifications to the fencing with this application. The fencing is addressed by site-specific condition number two. There's kind of a couple different options where if the requested waiver is approved, the fencing would be permitted to remain as is. And if not, the fencing would be required to be and compliant with Eagle City code with a permitted fencing type. Like the applicant touched on, the existing gravel drive aisles interior to the site were previously permitted when the facility was constructed. But Eagle City Code requires that all driveways and circulation areas be improved with asphalt or concrete. With the proposed modifications to the site, the applicant is proposing to pave the surrounding parking spaces and drive aisles, but they are requesting that those existing gravel drive aisles towards kind of the rear of the site be permitted to remain constructed with gravel. And again, that's addressed with site-specific condition number three, which would require all the drive aisles to be paved, or if their waiver is approved, those existing gravel drive aisles would be permitted to remain, but the applicant would be, of course, required to pave the areas that they are proposing to construct. The applicant, again, is requesting a reduction in the required parking for an enclosed storage facility. Eagle City code would require one parking space per 1,000 square feet of enclosed storage space, which would result in 62 required parking spaces. As I mentioned in the presentation, they've conducted a parking study for the site and the traffic during peak hours of operation and are requesting to construct 34 parking spaces would result in a total of 39 parking spaces on the site considering the five that are currently in place at the facility and this is addressed in site specific condition number four another item of discussion the the design of the building isn't particularly in conformance with one of the nine architectural styles defined within the EASD book. However, as the applicant noted, they're utilizing elements of the craftsman style architecture. So they are proposing to construct the building to be visually compatible with the buildings currently on the facility while still integrating elements of that craftsman style architecture to be in compliance with some of the city's design requirements. and then that is addressed by site-specific condition number five. And then one final discussion point. There is an existing pole sign on the property that again was an approved sign type at the time the facility was approved. However, now it is a prohibited sign type, so it would be considered a non-conforming sign. But the applicant is now in the process of submitting a designer view application for a new monument sign to replace non-conforming sign so site-specific condition number six has been added to require that monument sign application to be reviewed and approved by the city prior to receiving a building permit for the new building on the facility so those site-specific conditions of approval on page three standard conditions of approval on page 11 of the staff report and then Some action will be required on site-specific conditions two through four, depending on the commission's recommendation on those waiver requests. And with that, I will stand for any questions.

Thank you, Ms. Davison. One question for me on the parking. How is the 68, right? 64, I believe. Or 62. Did we come up with that number based on just this new facility, or is it a number based on the larger parking storage needs for the entire property?

Chairman Wright, this was contemplated based on the additional storage building. Code requires one parking space per 1,000 square feet for the enclosed storage facility. They were previously... in the original approvals through the conditional use permit that was approved, I believe in 2000, they were permitted a reduction in parking to permit five parking spaces, but since they're proposing a modification and requesting the enclosed storage used to be permitted, this parking calculation is just considering the enclosed storage facility.

And just to kind of extend on this, I'm trying to picture, I mean, everyone's been to a parking or a storage facility place before. You usually just drive up to your locker or your place, but since this is more enclosed, are you thinking, trying to imagine this, someone's gonna drive up and then go in through some stairs and go to a different floor and enter things, and that's why the city requires more parking for a use like this?

Chairman Wright, I don't know if I can speak to the city's intent for the parking requirements for this specific use. I may defer to the applicant in rebuttal to see if they can provide some clarification on the parking that they typically see on the site.

I mean, I don't mean to put you, I'll let you off the hook here. It sounds like just basically math to the city rather than any sort of intent and then we can go from there. Is that accurate?

Chairman Wright, yeah. I would believe that's correct, yeah.

Okay. One question for me on the chain link fence. Given, I mean, I've driven up and down that road. I know exactly where this place is. Chairman Smith always likes to talk about how he's familiar with the high school and all the traffic and everything. Anyways. It seems fairly normal to see chain link fence in this portion of Eagle, but I'm wondering if you can give me, are there, is this an outlier as far as non-conforming fence compared to other properties in the city's area?

In this part of town. Yes, we typically only see chain link fencing, at least code only requires, permits chain link fencing in, I think, school facility sites. It was previously a permitted use, so there may be some outlier locations throughout the city where before code change, chain link fencing was a permitted fencing type. So yes, there may be some other facilities in the city that are still utilizing chain link fencing, but at this point, it is no longer a permitted use or a permitted fencing type.

Okay, thank you, Ms. Davidson. Commissioners, any questions for staff? Commissioner McCullen?

This may be a hard one to answer, but it's along the same lines. I find it surprising that the code would call for 68 and just the practicality in the real-life study has it at quite a bit less than half of that. How is the code that far off of just best practices in real life?

Chairman Wright, Commissioner McCauley, again, it's difficult to speak to the city's intent for those parking requirements, but I'm happy to bring that item up with other planning and zoning staff to make sure we're aware of the maybe discrepancy in what the city requires versus what is feasible for a facility like this.

Seems like that would be a good idea. I don't know that we need to solve the code issue tonight, but if If it's really that far off, it'd be nice to clean that up and just make it so it's not such a glaring exception when a reputable firm has done a study and said it doesn't need to be close to that. So it seems to me to be an opportunity to improve our code and it just becomes a non-issue if it's really way out of bounds. And if it's not out of bounds and the request is out of bounds, I'd be happy to hear that.

i may uh daniel miller zoning administrator uh our code does speak to a one parking stall for 1 000 square feet of storage areas about 10 10 by 10 you know storage rooms if you will so about 100 square feet per unit so it's not i believe overly excessive in terms of what it's seeking one parking stall for 10 units potentially but city staff will definitely look into that possibly do some comparables in terms of what other jurisdictions are looking for, for public storage facilities, things of that nature. We are working towards a ZOA to kind of pick up a few potential changes to code. And if that does warrant a change, we'll be happy to bring it back to commission and you'll see that coming forward and we'll see where it goes from there. But just some input there.

Thank you. Did you have another question to follow up with? Just a practical question. If we do decide to move forward with the requests, how do we delineate that in the recommendation? Do we just say we're recommending the second paragraph and strike the first paragraph of two, three, and four? Or do we just leave it as is because it could be either or and they just choose the one they want?

Chairman Wright, Commissioner McCauley, I'd recommend in your motion if you approve the waivers just to note that the requested waivers are approved. The conditions were written in a way where the... they're stated that if the requested waiver is approved, then this will be required, so I think in the motion, if you could just say whether or not the requested waivers are approved, that would be sufficient.

Okay, thank you.

Other questions?

Commissioner Gerber?

Have you seen anything, any designs or anything like that that show what's on the inside of this building? I suspect it's not a 61,000 square foot open space or something like that.

Chairman Wright, Commissioner Gerber, as the applicant noted, they did have a pre-application meeting for the design review for their building, and they had some preliminary examples of what the interior of the building might look like. Just from memory, there's some... aisles where people visiting their storage facility can walk through and visit. I believe they mentioned a number of storage spaces. It's not coming to the top of my head right now. They may be able to provide some clarification on that, but it is a walk-through storage, enclosed storage building.

Is it possible that the parking issue, the number of 64, is based on a building of this size that might be utilized for other uses besides what this is going to be used for? In other words, commercial development of some kind or the interior would require much more traffic than what this is likely to generate.

Chairman Wright, Commissioner Gerber, that's very possible. It could be there may be a wide range of types of enclosed storage buildings that the city sees, and the parking calculation that is provided in code may be intended to capture all of those different storage uses. I'm not entirely sure, but it's very likely that it's intended to speak to a variety of storage uses.

yeah besides with the location of this besides somebody doing freight work on the back of a home depot can anybody outside from the outside see this facilities being proposed chairman right commissioner gerber to my knowledge no i don't believe so it's not easily accessible or open to the public eye there is a pretty large

landscaper, and again, it abuts the rear end of that Home Depot WinCo facility, so I don't believe it is visible from the public, from a public viewpoint.

Mr. Hall, do you have any questions? Thank you. Just in the staff packet, in the applicant's presentation, I didn't really see a justification, like why are they asking for the waivers for the gravel and the chain link? I can guess, but were there explanations attached to those requests?

Chairman Wright, Commissioner Olin, in conversations with the applicant, I believe that they're not intending to modify those elements of the facility at this time. The focus is on the proposed enclosed storage building and the surrounding parking improvements. I don't believe the intent with this application was to include any other improvements to the site at this time.

Maybe this is a better question for the applicant, but she did mention in her presentation the intent for some upcoming, a little bit of a facelift on it. Maybe I should just ask her what that might entail.

Chairman Wright, Commissioner Ollin, they are required to go through the design review process, which would probably probably include some of those facelift elements. Again, the applicant may be able to provide some additional details on what those enhancements include, but yet they would be required to go through the design review process. Thank you. Any follow-up, any further questions, commissioners?

I do have one.

Commissioner McCauley.

Just to clarify number six. So the existing sign, am I reading that correctly, that to get the full building permit, they would have to turn in this application for the monument sign? They can't just leave the sign as is?

Chairman Wright, Commissioner McCauley, that's correct. And the public storage team is already in the process of submitting that application and getting through the design review process to replace that non-conforming sign with the monument sign. But yes, the timeline would require the signage application to be reviewed and approved prior to submitting a building permit for the enclosed storage building.

Was there a specific reason that they were allowed to kind of stick with the old approvals as far as the chain link fence and the gravel, but were required to update the sign?

Commissioner McCauley, the applicant was originally proposing to maintain the pole sign as an element of this conditional use permit, but in between the application being submitted and this time, the public storage team submitted a monument sign application to the city. So it was originally going to be requested to remain as is I don't know if I can speak to the reasoning behind submitting the monument sign application, but the public storage team determined that they would want to see that non-conforming sign replaced.

Any other questions?

Mr. Owen. Yeah, so follow up on that actually. So the way that reads is they need that sign application reviewed and approved, but they'd never have to build it. Is that right?

Commissioner Rowland, yes, the detail of installing the sign is not included in that condition. Language could be included to require that the sign be constructed in a particular timeline if the commission would like to include that in their motion.

Okay, thank you. Do you have a follow-up, Commissioner? No, sir. Commissioner Gerber, here we go. Yeah, here we go. Isn't city code in regard to signs set up so that if a business changes hands, that the new business has to come into compliance with what the city code calls for, which is basically not the overhead sign, but the proposed sign for To replace the original, it seems to me like that's pretty much required by city code. It wasn't something that was pulled out of the air.

Commissioner Gerber, that is correct. City code would require that the sign be up to code when a new tenant moves in or if any modifications to the sign is proposed.

Do you have a follow-up? okay any other questions okay thank you so much thank you all right well we've already heard from mr deacon right I don't have anybody who's wished to sign in on the public testimony sheet. Uh, sir, you came in late. Are you here to speak to the public storage? Love the answer. All right. So now since we don't have anybody else here, the rebuttal, if there is any, uh, is back to you.

Hi, Chris Golder again with public storage. I'm happy to clarify some of the questions that the commissioners asked during, um, to, to staff here if you'd like. In regards to the operations of the existing facility and parking, we've seen this a lot in different jurisdictions where they have different parking requirements based on their code for self storage facilities. And some don't even have parking requirements. They have requirements for like warehouse and logistic facilities, which operate very differently than a self storage facility. Sometimes for self storage facilities, the parking requirements are based on a square footage equivalency factor or the number of storage units. In this specific facility, the existing storage units are all drive up units and the drive aisles are fairly wide and generous. So people typically pull up directly in front of their storage unit. They roll up their storage unit door to access their unit. They're parked directly in front of it to unload and load their storage items with the new building. The way it works, it's a, it's a single story building. There's four what we call customer loading vestibules that are on the north face of the building facing the internal drive aisle. People can pull up to designated loading areas or those parallel parking spots. They can park in those areas, unload their vehicle, their possessions. We typically have rolling carts like you would see at a Home Depot, those flat carts you can roll around that they can load their materials on, and then they can roll the cart inside the building. Inside the building, I think one of the questions was, what does it look like? well there's lighted corridors basically within the building that people can walk down to their actual storage unit. And then they roll the door up to their individual unit within the building to access and, um, store their items. So it's all climate controlled. It's all interior access with interior lighting. So, um, and generally we, what we do is we do a trip generation analysis and a parking study. And Kelly can speak a little bit more to the parking study methodology. but typically based on the IT manual for trip generation and parking data, self storage facilities, you're not having customers all there at the same time. They're coming and going at different hours of the day during operating hours. So it's very rarely that everybody's parking there and using the facility at the same time. So that's why typically the trip generation and the parking requirements are very low for self storage. In regards to some of the questions about the existing site conditions and the requested waivers, As part of this application, we're just requesting the specific conditions with the new building footprint and some of the improvements around the building. The site in general is very well maintained. The existing improvements are very well maintained. There was no significant deferred maintenance when public storage acquired this facility about a year ago. So our intent is to maintain those existing conditions, the fencing, the landscaping, is part of some of the cosmetic improvements. It's a lot of most of the rebranding to public storage, like the new signage, some new exterior colors that are in with the public storage identity, the orange. Some of the roll-up doors have been painted orange that face the exterior elevations, so that's it. I'm happy to answer any other questions you may have.

I have another one. The existing units have a lot of visibility and things like that. from the standpoint of safety, what goes on inside this building? Are you monitoring with cameras, or are you just kind of saying, go ahead and we'll see what happens?

No, so the existing building is within the perimeter of the site, and the only way to access the site is through the front security gate off of Horseshoe Bend Road. So that is access controlled. So a customer either has to have a code or access on their phone via access control app to enter the site. And then there are existing security cameras throughout the site and there will be existing or new cameras within the interior of the building as far as surveillance monitoring.

So you follow the questioner? No, that's good. Are there other questions? Okay.

And then we'll hear from commissioners if I may just quickly on the parking study. I wanted to go through the methodology of how we kind of get to those numbers quickly. So there's two different methods that was used in the parking study. The first is from real-world data obtained from public storage's other projects. So they come up with a number in that methodology that requires about 0.09 stalls per thousand square feet of storage building. The second methodology is ITD, ITE provided parking numbers, and that's the same methodology that's used in traffic impact studies and is based on land use types and averages of anticipated traffic to sites based on that. So the numbers that we get based on that methodology range from 0.09 to 0.32 stalls per thousand square feet. So if you're asking me why, if I'm speculating why the code says one stall per 1000 square feet, I would assume it's rounding up to the next whole number because our numbers that we're getting based on our traffic or excuse me, parking study are so much lower than that. That is all. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioners. Any final questions for the applicants?

Commissioner Owen. Hi. So during your presentation, you did mention some face lifting along the horseshoe bend. Um, can you, can you explain any of that?

Really? It's just the rebranding to public storage. The facility used to be branded, I think Idaho self storage connection, which was a local operator. And so now it's being rebranded to public storage. So, It's the signage. I think temporarily right now they replaced the copies of the sign face and the pole sign to public storage. And then we are submitting a new application for a monument sign. And then some of the doors that are on the existing drive-up buildings facing Horseshoe Bend Road have been painted orange for the public storage identity colors. When do you plan to build the signage? the, as soon as we would get the application approved, then we would submit for the actual permit drawings of it and proceed from there. So imminently upon being approved. So concurrently with the building you're building probably before. Okay. So if, if, if we needed to clarify that language and the condition, that's totally acceptable.

Okay.

Commissioner Gerber.

Yeah. It looks to me like, uh, there are substantial number of like RV, parking or something like that in the location where this building's gonna be. I assume that those of us with an RV that's parked there, I don't have one. But we'll have to look for another location, is that right?

You're correct. Right now there's about, I think 317 surface and covered RV parking stalls. The, I think with the new building footprint, we're proposing to remove about 143 or 144. Those tenants will be provided advanced notice before we commence construction. Usually they're given 30 to 60 days to vacate. We do operate other existing self storage facilities, including two on Joplin. and those do have existing RV parking stalls available. So often we'll offer to relocate tenants to our other facilities if there's availability.

Okay. Okay. Any final questions, commissioners? Okay. Thank you both so much. Excellent job. All right. I will close the public hearing on item five C commissioners. Uh, I think just a little bit of discussion is warranted and then emotion. Anybody cared to get us started?

Mr. Roland be happy to start us off. just kind of running through the things that we've talked about. The parking, public storage has extensive experience in a lot of facilities. I'm confident they're not going to build something that's going to damage their operations or their customer experience, so the parking doesn't concern me at all for that waiver. I understand we're not being asked to approve a waiver for the architecture, which is which is good. I know storage isn't known for its architecture anyway, but it's to commissioner Gerber's point. It's only visible from the home Depot loading zone. Um, the waiver for the gravel, I don't mind. It's in the back. All that dust is going to get shaken off before it gets out onto the public right away. And as soon as you start paving gravel, you start impacting drainage and things like that too. Um, I would not be in favor of the chain link waiver request. We just saw the storage get built to the north. They have a nice simple wrought iron along the front. I think we should continue an aesthetic upgrade, which is what code really pushes for anyway. And in the grand scheme of things, changing out your fences is not a huge deal. And then as far as the signage goes, I think the applicant just basically said that they were planning on building it probably before the building, so I would just propose that we modify the sixth condition to say that it'll be done before the CFO is issued for the building. It sounded like they were okay with that. Thank you, Commissioner Olin. Anybody else?

Thank you. Commissioner McCauley. Are you proposing then to recommend that they change the fencing around all four edges or just along Horseshoe Bend Road? Just along Horseshoe. I guess I'll share my thoughts on that as long as I've got the floor here. I would lean more probably in the applicant's camp of not requiring that myself. I think we're holding them hostage to a degree, and I guess that's our prerogative, but they wanna upgrade. It's been there for a long time, and it's been fine. They want to basically use footage that they have within their building that's to a higher and better use, and just building the new sign, and that is, I probably wouldn't even have required that if it was up to me, but it sounds like that's already happening. But it seems like an opportunity to kind of force them to make the upgrade that I think would look nicer. But I personally, just as long as we're kind of sharing our feelings, would be fine with the existing fence there just to not make that additional expense, especially along all four sides, which if at all, if if my arm had to be twisted to force that, it would just be along just the Horseshoe Bend Road that's a little bit more visible. But again, I would be prepared to grant all three, all of the waivers, and since it's a non-issue, add the verbiage to number six to say that the sign has to be built, but it sounds like that's just kind of a semantical thing. So I think I'd be a little less, pushy or whatever the word is, requiring or whatever it is to that, in my opinion.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Gerber, any thoughts?

Yeah, I'm not a fan of chain link fences, but in this particular case, it seems like replacing this particular fence that's been there for a long time is basically an aesthetic thing rather than anything it has to do with access or anything like that. And running a I don't know what the fence looks like that's north of that, but my guess is you're gonna be able to look right through it the same way you do with this chain link fence, so putting a different kind of a fence up there just seems like an expense that, I mean, I don't know, maybe it's a deal breaker and they can't afford to do that. I suspect probably that in my mind there's not a need to be able to replace that fence in front. It's been there for a long time and probably nobody even pays attention to it, particularly if we've got landscaping in front of it.

What's your thoughts? You're sticking to it?

Yep, I am.

That's fair. I don't think anybody is in disagreement on the parking. Anybody's in disagreement with the building standards, the signage, or the gravel? I think I'm more of the opinion with Commissioner Oland. I wish I would have heard from the applicant a sincere reason why the need to remain. Again, we probably know the reason why, right? Dollars and cents. Dollars and cents. but that's no fault to the applicant that they didn't provide that I just wish I would have heard that so I think I'm I'm very supportive of whatever motion goes forward I don't think at this point I would I would support what Commissioner Ohland has suggested with the one side being in the more modern style and more leniency on the others but those are my those are my thoughts commissioners Call for the question, the motion's in order.

Question to the group. If we know that's gonna end up in a 2-2, but we're in agreement with everything else, Is there a way to go around that?

I'll answer. I'll follow up with that. I don't think it's going to result in a 2-2. I feel, and I'm the last person to use my I feel statements, that in absence of a real reason why a waiver needs to be granted, we stick to the code. And we weren't given a reason why the chain link is something that can't come down to further the aesthetics in EGLE. I don't believe it's going to end in a 2-2. That's not going to happen.

Do you want a rock, paper, scissors for the motion?

It sounds like whoever does the motion will probably win it. My view would just be the exact opposite, that if there's a way that we can save the applicant money, it's not going to be a detriment to the public, and particularly if there's a 25, 30 year precedent there and no one's complaining about it. I think if we gave them an opportunity to say why they didn't mention it, it would be because of cost and there's just no way that it is not part of it. So I'm prepared to make a motion. Can I make one comment first?

Sure. The code requires incremental upgrades to be made for aesthetic reasons, right? And if we do that year in and year out, then the, uh, the rising tide will lift all boats. Right. So, so why is that in the code? And if we don't stick to it now, then there is a precedent. Well, you know, next guy comes in, he's got some chain link that's maybe not quite as screened and it's maybe a little more ratty and like, well, You approved his, why don't you approve mine? It just seems like if we stick to the code, we can have a slow burn here on aesthetic upgrades throughout the city as properties get upgraded.

Commissioners, I'm still with Commissioner Oland on this one. I think that we've done a lot here to, and again, a motion hasn't been made yet, but going from 64 to potentially 34 parking spots, there's no small chunk of change that's being saved, interior building design standards, gravel parking. I just don't think, let's change from feel to think, that a small request to stick with the application on the fence in the front to swap out the chain link to something else is a big task.

Is it appropriate to, given the conversation, to open it back up to give the applicant a chance to say something, or is that forever closed now that we've closed the... We've closed it, and yeah, you can open it back up, but then we're going to come right back to here.

Yeah, Mr. Chair, as I said earlier, I'm not a chain link fence fan, and my preference... would be not to have chain link, so maybe that explains where I'll come down on this.

I'll make a motion if you like, Mr. Chair.

A motion is in order.

I move to recommend approval of CUP 2000-20-MOD1, Conditional Use Permit Modification for an Enclosed Storage Building and Waivers of Eagle City Code Title 8 for Public Storage. Mountain West LLC subject to standard and site-specific conditions with the following adjustments. The waiver described in site-specific condition number two regarding chain link would not be approved and modify site-specific condition number six regarding the sign. just to indicate that the sign will be complete before the certificate of occupancy is issued for the proposed building and approve all the other waivers.

Second. Thank you, Commissioners. We do have a motion and a second before us on item 5C. Is there further discussion on the motion? Ms. Davison.

Chairman Wright, Commissioner Olin, could you clarify in your motion if chain link fencing would be required along the entire perimeter or just along Horseshoe Bend?

I'm sorry, yes. Good clarification. I'm just talking about Horseshoe Bend.

Thank you. Yeah.

Commissioner Greenberg, is your second? I agree. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Davidson. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Okay. Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. And the chairman votes aye as well. The motion passes. Thank you, commissioners. Okay. Rounding out our agenda in one hour and five minutes, we've got new business. None before us. Item seven, reports. Reports from the commission. Reports from our city attorney. Floor is yours.

Chairman Wright, in respect to tonight's timing here, I'll be succinct, but I just want to remind you all that just due to the scheduling conflicts of the holidays this month of September, last meeting got moved to tonight, which then puts our next meeting next Monday already at the 21st. I can't guarantee that we're going to have the findings from tonight prepared for that meeting. If we can't, they'll be on the following meeting in October. But currently, as of this time, there is one item noticed for that meeting as a... conditional use permit for some, uh, uh, setbacks for an existing home. It's a nonconforming use within the city that they want to rectify. Um, with that, I would assume that if not hasn't happened already, that the administrative staff will reach out and see who's planning on being in attendance next week. And then we'll go from there. So, um, and then just the last few things I had just three summaries on recent items that came through the commission that went to city council to provide, um, Updates on one was the conditional use permit for the gunsmithing up there in the Dunion area. He was doing that cerakoting. That one was approved through city council as was recommended by the commission. There was the Hartley Cove subdivision up off Hartley Road and Beacon Light. I think it was five large lots up there. That one was approved. Same as the commission recommended as well. And then the Habit Burger development agreement modification down here off of Eagle Road in Chinden. was approved through City Council, but they modified the extent of the rezone to not do the entirety of that property, but only the area that would be impacted by the Habit Burger, thus leaving all of the prior entitlements, all the C1 zoning designations to be consistent with what they were before. So with that, there's a handful of other things that have come through the commission recently that have either been Continued or remanded or things like that that I won't touch on tonight, but we'll be happy to in the future It's with that staffs happy to stand for any questions.

Thank you. Mr. Miller questions commissioners. Thank you Yeah, thank you. Thank you everybody. Okay. Okay item eight adjournment. I would entertain a motion to adjourn so move Thank You Commissioner Gerber